Global Research

The US has eagerly taken credit for the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani amid a series of military strikes carried out by US forces across Syria and Iraq. The assassination was shortly followed by Iranian missile strikes aimed at US bases in Iraq.

The BBC in its article, “Qasem Soleimani: Strike was to ‘stop war’, says Trump,” would claim:

President Donald Trump said the US killed Iran’s top military commander Qasem Soleimani “to stop a war, not to start one”. He said Soleimani’s “reign of terror is over” following the strike at Iraq’s Baghdad airport on Friday.

The strikes also targeted infrastructure supporting a network of Iranian-backed militias known as Popular Mobilization Units or PMUs.

The US claiming these strikes were meant to end “terror” are particularly surreal.

The PMUs along with General Soleimani and his special operations Quds Forces have played a key role in fighting and defeating US and Saudi-sponsored terrorism across the Middle East. This includes fighting terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, its many affiliates, and the so-called “Islamic State in Iraq and Syris” (ISIS) – all of which have been extensively exposed as recipients of US cash, weapons, and other forms of material and political support.

The War of Terror Continues 

Even the clumsy and often-manipulated Wikipedia lists Iran’s Quds Forces as opposed against Al Qaeda, its affiliates, and ISIS alongside nations like the US and its allies. While Wikipedia doesn’t overtly connect these terrorist organizations with their Western sponsors it is clear to even the casual observer that both appearing on the Quds Forces’ opponents list carries with it many implications.

Beyond mere implications  – however –  it was the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) itself in a 2012 leaked memo that admitted, “the West, Gulf monarchies, and Turkey” were behind the rise of a what at the time was being called a “Salafist principality.”

The leaked 2012 report (.pdf) states (emphasis added):

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

To clarify precisely who these “supporting powers” were that sought the creation of a “Salafist” (Islamic) principality” (State), the DIA report explains:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

In other words, the US, its European allies, and its closest allies in the Middle East, sought the rise of a “Salafist” (Islamic) “principality” (State) in eastern Syria, precisely where ISIS eventually manifested itself.

Boris Johnson’s facetious, point-scoring reply to the formal request from the Scottish government for agreement to a second Independence referendum is an act of extreme arrogance. An off-the-cuff campaign remark from a single politician has no weight in weighing the will of a nation, and I presume Johnson is not arguing that every political statement Nicola Sturgeon or Alex Salmond has ever made has the force of law.

The “once in a generation” remark has no more force than “die in a ditch”. It is not contained in any official document, and appears in neither the Edinburgh Agreement nor the Smith Commission report. For Johnson to base his refusal of a vital democratic step on such a flimsy pretext is extremely arrogant. It is born of colossal self-confidence. He is perfectly confident the highly centralised Westminster system will allow him simply to ride roughshod over Scotland.

Johnson is of course right. You may be surprised to hear that I agree with the analysis of McHarg and McCorkindale published today that a legal challenge arguing the Scottish Government’s right to hold a referendum is a waste of time, not least because if such legal challenge looked like succeeding the Tories would simply pass Westminster legislation outlawing the referendum explicitly. There is no doubt whatsoever that such legislation would be upheld by the UK Supreme Court under the doctrine of the Sovereignty of (Westminster) Parliament.

I also have no doubt that a futile and time-wasting court action is going to be a key part of the Scottish Government’s approach in response to Johnson, of pretending to do something about Independence a few more years.

McHarg and McCorkindale are quite right on UK Constitutional Law, which is where their expertise lies. They know very little about public international law and still less about international politics.

The truth is that UK Constitutional Law is as irrelevant to Scottish Independence as Soviet Constitutional Law was to the question of Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian Independence. The UK is disintegrating and not the smirk of Johnson, the frippery of the UK Supreme Court nor the witterings of lawyers can hold it together.

Independence is not a matter of domestic law. It is a matter of international law alone. Independence is the existence of a state in relation to other states. It is gained not by any internal process- internal process is utterly irrelevant, and in 95% of cases does not involve a referendum – but by recognition of other states, formalised through the General Assembly of the United Nations.

I touched on these points in my brief statement at the AUOB press conference after the march on Saturday.

In its judgement on Kosovo, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) specifically confirmed that the agreement of the state being seceded from was not necessary for Independence. That is the position in law, whatever any UK court may say. Indeed it was the UK government itself that put this argument most clearly to the ICJ in the Kosovo case.

5.5 Consistent with this general approach, international law has not treated the legality of
the act of secession under the internal law of the predecessor State as determining the effect
of that act on the international plane. In most cases of secession, of course, the predecessor
State’s law will not have been complied with: that is true almost as a matter of definition.

5.6 Nor is compliance with the law of the predecessor State a condition for the declaration
of independence to be recognised by third States, if other conditions for recognition are
fulfilled. The conditions do not include compliance with the internal legal requirements of
the predecessor State. Otherwise the international legality of a secession would be
predetermined by the very system of internal law called in question by the circumstances in
which the secession is occurring.

5.7 For the same reason, the constitutional authority of the seceding entity to proclaim
independence within the predecessor State is not determinative as a matter of international
law. In most if not all cases, provincial or regional authorities will lack the constitutional
authority to secede. The act of secession is not thereby excluded. Moreover, representative
institutions may legitimately act, and seek to reflect the views of their constituents, beyond
the scope of already conferred power.

That is a commendably concise and accurate description of the legal position. It is the legal opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom, as submitted to the International Court of Justice in the Kosovo case. The International Court of Justice endorsed this view, so it is both established law and the opinion of the British Government that a state has the right to declare Independence without the agreement or permission of the original state and its political or legal authorities.

I have continually explained on this site that the legality of a Declaration of Independence is in no sense determined by the law of the metropolitan state, but is purely a matter of recognition by other countries and thus acceptance into the United Nations. The UK Government set this out plainly in response to a question from a judge in the Kosovo case:

2. As the United Kingdom stated in oral argument, international law contains no
prohibition against declarations of independence as such. Whether a declaration of
independence leads to the creation of a new State by separation or secession depends
not on the fact of the declaration but on subsequent developments, notably recognition
by other States. As a general matter, an act not prohibited by international law needs
no authorization. This position holds with respect to States. It holds also with respect
to acts of individuals or groups, for international law prohibits conduct of non-State
entities only exceptionally and where expressly indicated.

So the key question is, could Scotland get recognition from other states for a Declaration of Independence? The attitude of the EU will be crucial and here Catalonia is obviously a key precedent. But it is one that has been totally misunderstood.

The vast majority of the politicians and functionaries of the EU institutions viewed the actions of the Francoist government of Spain in assaulting the people of Catalonia who were trying to vote, with extreme distaste. But they held their noses and supported Spain. Because over 20 years experience as a diplomat taught me that the EU functions as a club of member states, who will support each other in almost any circumstance. So Spain was supported.

But the UK is shortly going to stop being a member. It is Scotland, as a potential member with a long history of valued membership and a firm intention to join, which will have the natural support of the EU, the more so as there will be a strong desire to get Scotland’s fishing, energy and mineral resources back within the bloc. The disintegration of the UK will also be encouraged as a salutary lesson to any other states that consider leaving the EU. The political forces within the EU are very, very strongly behind recognition of Scottish Independence.

Once the EU decides to recognise Scotland (and crucially it is not a decision that needs unanimity in the EU vote, an extremely important and overlooked fact) the rest will be easy. The UK is detested in much of the developing world for its continued refusal to decolonise Diego Garcia, for the Iraq War, and for the whole history of colonialism.

So how should Scotland proceed? My advice would be to declare Independence at the earliest possible opportunity. We should recall all Scottish MPs from Westminster immediately. We should assemble all of Scotland’s MEP’s, MP’s and MSP’s in a National Assembly and declare Independence on the 700th Anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath, thus emphasising the historical continuity of the Scottish state. The views and laws of London now being irrelevant, we should organise, as an Independent state, our referendum to confirm Independence, to be held in September 2020.

The key criterion which governments have traditionally used to recognise another state is control of the state’s internal territory. (They do not have to use that criterion, each state can recognise on whatever basis it wishes, but that is the usual one cited). This is where the Catalonian Declaration of Independence failed, the Catalan Government never managed to enforce it on its own ground.

There is going to be no process of Independence agreed with the British government. We have to take Independence, not beg for it. At some stage, there is always the danger that the British government may try to react by sending in the British Army to enforce Westminster’s will. If we believe we are an independent nation, we have to be prepared to defend ourselves as an independent state should the worst happen. Calling a confirmatory referendum as the first act of the Independent state would make it difficult for Johnson to justify sending in the British Army to try to prevent it, but we cannot rule it out. Hopefully that will not involve anyone getting killed, but we must be plain that Westminster will never voluntarily allow us to leave and may physically attack us if we try.

I appreciate this may all sound very unpleasant and confrontational.

We have two alternatives now – we stand up for ourselves and our inalienable right of self-determination in international law as defined in the UN Charter, or we grovel before Johnson’s smirk and try various “legal” and “constitutional” avenues in terms of the UK’s utterly irrelevant domestic legislation. Which will get us nowhere, slowly.

The time has come for Scottish Independence. With a referendum denied by no fault of ours, we must seize the moment and take the Independence for which they will not let us vote.

*

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.

Nine years after the military intervention, led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to overthrow Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, Libya remains trapped in a spiral of violence involving armed groups, sectarian, ethnic groups and external interference that have led the country into absolute chaos.

On Oct. 20, 2011, amid protests supported by the governments of the United States and the European Union, an armed uprising that plunged the country into a civil war, the Libyan leader was captured and brutally murdered by the rebels.

Being one of the most prosperous countries in the African continent, thanks to its vast oil fields, after the fall of Gaddafi, the North African country was divided between rival governments in the east and west, and among multiple armed groups competing for quotas of power, control of the country and its wealth.

Gaddafi ruled for 42 years, leading Libya to a significant advance in social, political and economic matters that were recognized and admired by many African and Arab nations at the time. Despite his controversial government, Gaddafi came to represent an important figure for anti-imperialist struggles for his position mainly against the U.S. and the policies carried out from Washington on the Middle East.

It is for this reason, his life and death became pivotal events in Libya and key to understand the current situation.

Libya Before Gaddafi

After World War II, Libya was ceded to France and the United Kingdom, and both countries linked it administratively to their colonies in Algeria and Tunisia.

However, the U.K. favored the emergence of a monarchy controlled by Saudi Arabia and endorsed by the U.N., the Senussi dynasty, which ruled the country since its “independence” in 1951 under the monarchy of King Idris I, who kept Libya in total obscurantism while promoting British economic and military interests.

When oil reserves were discovered in 1959, the exploitation of wealth did not translate into benefits for the people. According to political analyst Thierry Meyssan, during the monarchy, the nation was mired in backwardness in education, health, housing, social security, among others.

The low literacy rates were shocking, according to Meyssan, only 250,000 inhabitants of the four million could read and write.

But it was in 1969 that the Senussi dynasty was overthrown by a group of officers led by Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi who proclaimed true independence and removed the dominant foreign forces from the country.

One of Gaddafi’s immediate policies was to share the benefits and wealth to all Libyans.

Libya With Gaddafi

Since Gaddafi took power, oil has been the main resource in the hands of the leader of the newly proclaimed Libyan Arab Republic. The triumph of the 1969 revolution marked a paradigm shift, moving the new government to use its oil income to boost redistributive measures among the population, generating a new model of economic and social development for the country.

According to analysts, among the measures of “economic sovereignty” which drove Gaddafi’s policies were the nationalization of various Western oil companies such as British Petroleum (BP) and the creation of the National Oil Corporation (NOC), which characterized the configuration of a more socialist model.

Throughout Gaddafi’s tenure, ambitious social programs were launched in the areas of education, health, housing, public works and subsidies for electricity and basic foodstuffs. These policies led to a substantial improvement in the living conditions of Libyans, from being one of the poorest countries in Africa in 1969 to being the continent’s leader in its Human Development Index in 2011.

In fact, the United Nations Development Programme (2010) considered Libya a high-development country in the Middle East and North Africa. This translated status meant a literacy rate of 88.4 percent, a life expectancy of 74.5 years, gender equality, among several other positive indicators.

At the national level, Gaddafi was able to deal with two central dilemmas characteristic of Libyan society, on the one hand, the difficulty of exercising control over the tribes, and, on the other, the fragmentation of society into diverse and sometimes opposite tribal and regional groups.

Gaddafi had the ability to hold together these territories with little connection to each other. It is estimated that there are about 140 tribes in the Libyan territory, each with different traditions and origins.

At the international level, Pan-Arabism should be highlighted with the confrontation opened to the United States due to the opposition that Gaddafi exerted on the influence of this country, reaching closer ties with other Arab countries to carry out common policies of rejection of Washington’s policies on the Middle East and Africa.

The Libyan leader worked to strengthen ties with neighboring countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Chad, among others, as well as maintaining close relations with countries like France and Russia. Gaddafi also connected with Latin American countries such as Venezuela and Cuba, which led him to cultivate an extensive network of contacts and uncomfortable influence for Europe and the U.S.

By the time of his killing, Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the continent. Fewer people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.

The Fall of Gadaffi

The citizen protests that began in Tunisia in December 2010 (Arab Spring) arrived a month later in neighboring Libya, although in a different way, as the mass and popular demonstrations that characterized Tunisia and Egypt were not replicated. In contrast, in Benghazi, where the anti-Gaddafi movement focused, Islamists groups predominated.

Some political analysts agree that in Libya there was never a mass movement on a national scale like the other countries, nor was there popular support to overthrow Gaddafi’s government.

However, the uprisings in Benghazi were enough for the U.N. Security Council and NATO to intervene on behalf of the Responsibility to Protect (Resolution 1973) and launched a bombing campaign between March and October 2011 that had a decisive impact on the assassination of Gaddafi.

According to Meyssan, NATO’s interference in the internal affairs of Libya and the overthrow of Gaddafi were not the result of a conflict between Libyans but to a long-term regional destabilization strategy for the whole group the Middle East.

Nine years after his death, residents in the chaos-wracked country’s capital have grown to miss the longtime leader as the frustrations of daily life mount.

“I hate to say it but our life was better under the previous regime,” Fayza al-Naas, a 42-year-old pharmacist told AFP in 2015, referring to Gaddafi’s rule. A sentiment shared by many Libyans, including those who opposed him at some point.

The economically and socially stable Libya under the Gaddafi versus a fragmented country, without a government, devastated by attacks, bombings, and continuous clashes, is the result of the NATO invasion in 2011. A conclusion that many regret supporting almost a decade later.

*

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 environmental campaigner and journalist George Monbiot has created a huge controversy by predicting that farmers and farming as we know them will soon be made redundant by the massive expansion of lab-grown food. This, he argues, is largely a good thing (though he adds that it is not without its own dangers), because agriculture is the key driver of the major environmental catastrophes that we face: climate breakdown, maxed-out water use, agrochemical pollution, soil erosion, and Insectageddon (the mass die-off of insects).

Monbiot set out his case in an article that he wrote for The Guardian, Lab-grown food will soon destroy farming – and save the planet and a documentary for Channel 4 TV in the UK, called Apocalypse Cow: How Meat Killed the Planet.

We at GMWatch hugely respect and admire George Monbiot for his tireless and courageous work over many years highlighting environmental issues and exposing corruption in power structures, including the corruption of science. We have also been proud to cooperate with him on a series of major investigative pieces that he has written drawing on our research, where we have seen the care he takes over getting things right. But sadly, we believe he is seriously mistaken in his latest intellectual venture, for reasons we explain below.

Monbiot’s arguments

Monbiot’s key message is summed up by this excerpt from his article in The Guardian:

“We are on the cusp of the biggest economic transformation, of any kind, for 200 years. While arguments rage about plant- versus meat-based diets, new technologies will soon make them irrelevant. Before long, most of our food will come neither from animals nor plants, but from unicellular life. After 12,000 years of feeding humankind, all farming except fruit and veg production is likely to be replaced by ferming: brewing microbes through precision fermentation. This means multiplying particular micro-organisms, to produce particular products, in factories. I know some people will be horrified by this prospect. I can see some drawbacks. But I believe it comes in the nick of time.”

Much of the food revolution that Monbiot anticipates will require the use of genetically modified bacteria that will “create the specific proteins needed for lab-grown meat, milk and eggs”. Monbiot believes that while fruit and veg will continue to be grown on farms-as-we-know-them, we will rely on bioreactors to manufacture meat, dairy, palm oil, and long-chain omega-3 fatty acids.

In his documentary, Monbiot visited a Finnish factory in which a company called Solar Foods is using a bioreactor to manufacture a flour-like substance that is intended as a protein-rich food-like substance. The bioreactor uses hydrogen extracted from water as its energy source. Monbiot gets them to make him a pancake from the flour. He eats it and states his verdict that it tasted “just like a pancake”. Solar Foods’ venture has given rise to a BBC News headline claiming that Food ‘made from air’ could compete with soya.

Comparing this process with growing food plants in fields, Monbiot says,

“The hydrogen pathway used by Solar Foods is about 10 times as efficient as photosynthesis. But because only part of a plant can be eaten, while the bacterial flour is mangetout, you can multiply that efficiency several times. And because it will be brewed in giant vats the land efficiency, the company estimates, is roughly 20,000 times greater. Everyone on Earth could be handsomely fed, and using a tiny fraction of its surface. If, as the company intends, the water used in the process (which is much less than required by farming) is electrolysed with solar power, the best places to build these plants will be deserts.”

Monbiot concludes,

“Farmfree food will allow us to hand back vast areas of land and sea to nature, permitting rewilding and carbon drawdown on a massive scale… Farmfree food offers hope where hope was missing. We will soon be able to feed the world without devouring it.”

Counter-arguments

Monbiot’s ideas have come in for heavy criticism from a variety of sources. We’ll give just a taster of these below, but anyone who is interested in these issues should read the articles we cite in full, as they are wide-ranging and make a multitude of points.

Oxford Real Farming Conference

Monbiot reiterated his argument for doing away with farming at the Oxford Real Farming Conference in early January. The gist of the debate has been summarised by Food Navigator.

Monbiot was booed by some in the audience, which included a large number of farmers who aim to manage their land and livestock sustainably. He was also strongly challenged by the other panel members – who, however, voiced their deep respect for him as a person and an environmental campaigner. These included Patrick Holden and Richard Young from the Sustainable Food Trust, who believe that locally sourced meat from grass-fed animals makes up an essential part of a sustainable food system, and Joanna Blythman, the food writer and broadcaster.

Young called lab-grown meat a “fools’ gold”, adding that “the very last thing we need is more processed food”. He also took issue with Monbiot’s data, showing several slides in which he cited figures that are at odds with Monbiot’s statements.

Citing the examples of imported jackfruit and banana blossom as “unconvincing” plant-based substitutes for meat, Joanna Blythman said, “I really feel that we’ve lost the plot when arcane imports and genetically modified fake meat burgers dreamed up by venture capitalists in Silicon Valley are portrayed as more acceptable than a lamb chop from a British hillside.”

The new technologies promoted by Monbiot, she said, have “huge problems”: “The doctrine of high-tech inevitability is propaganda. We should see it for what it is: those who claim to know the future are trying to own the future.”

Techno-optimism run amok?

An anonymously authored article on the Regenetarianism blog, called Techno-optimism run amok… George Monbiot’s latest delusion, draws attention to the ‘elephant’ in this vision of our food future – the fact that bioreactors are extremely resource- and energy-hungry. The article opens:

“In George Monbiot’s techno-optimistic scenario…. proteins and carbs are created via precision fermentation in brewing tanks requiring infrastructure, blue water [water taken from surface or groundwater resources] and energy. These proteins and carbs (plus some additional minerals, antibiotics and growth factor) will be used in place of amino acids and carbs from industrial crops (soy, corn, etc) to feed growing stem cells in bioreactors that also require a lot of blue water, non-intermittent energy, and infrastructure. The fermentation tanks and bioreactors will also need to be contained in sterile conditioned spaces requiring infrastructure (made of CO2 emitting concrete and steel) and energy. All this energy infrastructure will also need a lot of raw materials and energy to build.

“So first, it certainly would be interesting to see a life cycle analysis [LCA] of this above techno-fix at scale for both energy and blue water use. And then compared that LCA to a LCA of AMP managed [AMP is a global renewable energy infrastructure manager and owner] solar power head of cattle turning non-edible to human grasses watered by green water into beef, leather and a number of other by-products. Does George have such a LCA for his fermented/cell Ag solution to compare to this recent LCA done of White Oak Pastures beef cattle that was carbon negative? Doing any sort of techno-fix at scale is a lot different than doing a small batch ‘proof of concept’ in a petri dish.”

Vast amounts of energy, vaster amounts of nutrients needed

The Regenetarianism article is aggressive in tone, which we do not condone. However, we cannot fault the facts presented in the article, including the apparent absence of life cycle analysis for lab-grown food and the difficulties of scaling up the technology to the extent needed.

These views are very much in tune with comments offered to GMWatch by the London-based molecular geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou. Dr Antoniou is familiar with smaller-scale bioreactor technology from his work in medical research, which has included the manufacture of therapeutic proteins in these giant fermentation vats.

Dr Antoniou says that bioreactors of the scale that would be required – 20,000 litres or more – require large amounts of materials and energy to run them (as for the ‘food out of thin air’ notion of Solar Foods, the process of splitting hydrogen from water (electrolysis) is extremely energy-hungry).

He explains that large-scale bioreactors would require vast amounts of nutrients and other inputs that make up the culture medium for the bacteria or yeast that produce the desired proteins. The culture of animal muscle cells in particular to produce synthetic meat requires a huge quantity of nutrient and other inputs. There are dozens of ingredients, including minerals, vitamins, amino acids, glucose and growth factors – as listed in a report by the Good Food Institute, a nonprofit group promoting cell-based meat.[1] Many of these ingredients, especially the growth factors, in turn need to be manufactured from genetically engineered bacteria or mammalian cells – in other bioreactors. Infrastructure will be needed to create the supply chain that will enable one bioreactor to be ‘fed’ by others, as well as to transport raw materials to the bioreactors and dispose of the waste.

While some of the components of culture medium are cheap to buy or manufacture, others are extremely expensive – such as the growth factors that are required to make the animal cells multiply. For example, to supply the growth factors insulin and transferrin has been estimated by the Good Food Institute to cost $131,920 and $85,600 respectively, for a single production batch in a 20,000 litre bioreactor.[1] The costs for the growth factors FGF-2 and TGF-β are far higher: an eye-watering $4 million and $3.2 million. And remember, that’s only for one batch: each successive culture will require fresh culture medium.

Bioreactors are complex structures with miles of pipework. The materials to make the thousands of bioreactors needed to ‘feed the world’ will have to be mined, adding to the damage that extractive mining already does to the planet.

When the bioreactors are up and running, they will need maintenance, including a constant supply of energy. There is also the problem of the waste culture medium once a batch has been harvested: it will require treatment with toxic disinfectants before disposal. Also, between production runs, the whole system will need to be disinfected and the resulting waste will need to be disposed of somehow. Thus the potential for environmental pollution is high. Bioreactor systems are also not immune from contamination. Although relatively rare, contamination would shut down a facility for months.

Need for immortalised cell lines

Dr Antoniou adds that the proponents of synthetic meat production through the culture of muscle cells also face yet another major biological limitation. Muscle cells isolated from, say, a cow or bull have a limited growth capability in culture: that is, the muscle cells grow well for a while, but then senesce (age) and die, just as they would in the body of the animal from which they were derived. This makes it very unlikely that normal muscle cells isolated from an animal will have the growth capacity to fill a 20,000 litre bioreactor, unless vast numbers of cells were initially isolated from a large number of animals, which is impractical.

Thus the claim by Maastricht University in the Netherlands that cells from a single cow can produce 175 million quarter-pound beefburgers, while you would need 440,000 cows from traditional farming, is disingenuous.

To try to overcome this limitation, proponents of lab grown meat are being forced to consider using genetically engineered “immortalised” animal muscle cell lines, which are akin to cancer cells and have a much greater lifespan in culture than normal muscle cells isolated directly from an animal. The potential safety problem with immortalised muscle cell lines is that they have been generated by the introduction of growth regulator genes, which can be carcinogenic. This raises major concerns, as eating synthetic meat containing large quantities of cancer-causing oncogenes is an obvious safety risk. It will be interesting to see how regulatory agencies respond to requests from industry to approve the use of immortalised muscle cells in food production. If normal safety rules are applied, such requests should be rejected.

Bioreactors also need a large number of highly trained staff to run them.

As for ‘sparing’ land with this system of food production, the large number of bioreactors needed will take up large tracts of land.

And if by some miracle in this dystopian world, some land is spared, then who decides what will happen to it? Will it be rewilded, as per Monbiot’s wish? If so, who will compensate the landowners for the lost income they otherwise would receive by allowing it to be farmed? Or will the landowners retain some say over what happens to their land? In which case they will doubtless prefer to sell it for housing or other development, which would make them far greater profits.

Real costs not assessed

The Good Food Institute report concludes optimistically that “it is likely that cell-based meat is capable of ultimately being cost-competitive with conventional meat production at scale”. But tellingly, the report states that it excludes from its estimates the costs of labour, energy, and the expenditures necessary to build the facility. In other words, the real costs of this industry have not been realistically assessed and would likely prove prohibitive at the large scale needed.

Corporate consolidation

Permaculture expert and critic of capitalism Rebecca Ellis also believes that Monbiot is on the wrong track – from the point of view of corporate control of the food supply. She writes,

“The type of high-tech, venture capitalist-backed lab foods advocated by Monbiot represents an intensification of the industrial capitalist food system and a move towards further consolidation of power in the hands of a few corporations. Monbiot realizes this is a risk and advocates for a decentralization of this new system of lab foods. However, in the actually-existing world, this is not what is happening or will happen. This is because lab-based foods will require a huge amount of capital investment. Food will essentially be created in lab-factory hybrids which, to build at a scale to feed 7 to 9 billion people, will be incredibly resource intensive.

“Already, this emerging industry is being supported by venture capitalists, and other tech optimists, who believe firmly that high-tech capitalism will save humanity and the Earth. Of course those of us with a critique of capitalism know that the system is about wealth accumulation and private profit, not about feeding people or regenerating the Earth. In fact, we currently grow more than enough food for the world’s population. People starve to death and face chronic malnutrition not due to lack of food but due to the cruelty of the capitalist system (for an incisive critique of the industrial-capitalist food system, please see the work of Dr. Tony Weis).”

The ecomodernist delusion

A witty takedown of Monbiot’s position is offered by Chris Smaje, a social scientist and small-scale farmer.

Smaje writes, “First, historically, getting people out of farming has rarely ended well for the ex-farmers, and there are more farmers in the world than any other single job. And second, making people mere spectators of the natural world is unlikely to do either people or the natural world a long-term favour. George’s plan for sparing nature is self-defeating.”

The main point of Smaje’s article is to explore “why George has ended up where he has”. With that aim in mind, he offers a “nature spotters’ guide to the ecomodernists”, a group of technophiles that Monbiot appears to have joined in his latest venture into farm-free food. Smaje diagnoses Monbiot as a “Last-Chancer”, a type of ecomodernist who has “looked long and hard at the future to which we’re hurtling and got very, very scared. They’ve spent a lot of time trying to warn us about this wolf at our door, only to find that not only do we treat their prophecies with indifference but we’ve actually welcomed the wolf in and installed him in the White House and No. 10. Understandably, they’ve now given up on prophecies and politics and are desperately clutching at whatever darned thing they think might just conceivably save us in the last chance saloon we now inhabit – nuclear power, lab-grown eco-gloop or whatever.”

Smaje doesn’t think the Last-Chancer vision will work because after the moment of “ecomodernist salvation”, there is never any plan in place detailing how to institute a resilient ecological economy. In contrast, Smaje believes that the only things that will save us are “two of the oldest human trades: farming and politics”.

Reconnecting with nature by disconnecting from nature?

GMWatch largely shares the views of the critics cited above and we’d like to add a postscript of our own.

Chris Smaje captures something that we all need to be aware of. As the climate and ecological crises worsen and governments continue to fail to take robust action, the allure of simplistic techno-fixes is going to grow ever greater amidst the resulting sense of desperation and despair. And you can be sure that there will be plenty of corporations, venture capitalists and entrepreneurial scientists more than ready to exploit the situation.

But techno-fixes are based on what Monbiot himself has characterised as a “wildly romantic” view of technology as somehow magically able to solve the complex and difficult problems we face. And worse still, they serve as a distraction from the hard work that needs to be done to heal our relationship with the planet we live on.

That relationship has become largely characterised by abuse and violence (we say “largely” because clearly there are pockets of sustainability). And the only way to heal that damaged relationship is by facing up to what we have collectively done and retracing our steps back to a simpler, more honest, and more accountable stance upon the Earth. But that process is much less likely to happen as long as we settle for distracting ourselves with supposedly magical techno-fixes.

The notion of saving the Earth through farm-free food is no better than the notion (proposed by various experts, including Stephen Hawking) of colonising other planets to save us from the destruction we are wreaking upon our home planet.

Removing ourselves from the mess we have made of the Earth to refocus our attention on a brave new world of bioreactors will only lead us to recreate the same old problems in our new food-producing environment: the resource-guzzling materials and processes, the pollution, the corporate consolidation and corruption in the search for ever-greater profits.

And there will be another serious problem. Due to our new diet of super-processed food-like substances, the vast majority of the bioreactor-fed population may grow increasingly sick in body and mind. The precise reasons for that sickness will take decades to unravel scientifically. But they may make it well-nigh impossible for us to pull ourselves out of the dystopian construction we have built for ourselves.

We all know what’s needed to start to mend the damage we’ve caused – and it cannot entail turning our backs on the land that feeds us. We have to look our ‘victim’ in the eye, stop doing the things that damage and destroy, and start doing the things that regenerate. It’s quite simple, even if right now it’s further away than it’s ever been.

*

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.

Note

1. Liz Specht, “An analysis of culture medium costs and production volumes for cell-based meat”. The Good Food Institute, February 13, 2019. Table 1. https://www.gfi.org/files/sci-tech/clean-meat-production-volume-and-medium-cost.pdf

Featured image is from GMWatch

Impeachment of Trump by House Dems has nothing to do with removing him from office — everything to do with weakening him ahead of November presidential and congressional elections.

Dems’ aim is all about hoping their scheme will put one of their own in the White House, regain Senate control, and retain control of the House.

That’s what impeaching Trump is all about. Based on polling data, it’s not working as planned.

According to Real Clear Politics, Trump’s average approval rating from multiple polls in January is 44.6%, 52.4% disapproving of his performance as president.

These numbers are similar where he’s stood in the eyes of the public since taking office, notably since spring 2018.

A new FiveThirtyEight poll released Wednesday has his approval at 42.2%, disapproval at 53%, slightly different from the above average.

Speaker Pelosi announced seven Dem impeachment managers, headed by House Intelligence Committee chairman/former federal prosecutor Adam Schiff.

Militantly hostile to Trump, GOP spokeswoman Elizabeth Harrington earlier called him a “(d)isgraced liar,” his anti-Trump campaign a “total con job.”

Other Dem managers include House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, Hakeem Jeffries, Val Demings, Jason Crow, and Sylvia Garcia — Pelosi saying they were chosen because of their backgrounds as “litigators.”

Voting almost exclusively along party lines, House members impeached Trump on December 18 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

The former charge claimed Trump sought foreign interference from Ukraine in the US 2020 presidential election.

Ukrainian President Zelensky debunked the accusation, publicly saying there was no Trump blackmail threat, no quid pro quo, no conspiracy, nothing discussed about withholding US aid for political reasons.

The second article of impeachment claimed Trump “directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its sole Power of Impeachment,” adding:

“(W)ithout lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas.”

“President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House…”

Trump’s unwillingness to participate in the sham process did not rise to the level of obstructing Congress.

Nor did urging current and former regime members not to cooperate with Dems because proceedings lacked legitimacy.

Pelosi withheld the articles of impeachment from the Senate for nearly a month. Pressuring Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to accept her terms for trial failed.

Beginning next Tuesday, exoneration is virtually certain along party lines in the GOP-controlled upper house when trial proceedings conclude.

A two-thirds super-majority is needed to convict and remove Trump from office.

Law Professor Jonathan Turley said Pelosi “destroyed (the House) case for impeachment.”

Calling her handling of proceedings a “blunder of the first order,” Turley said her delaying strategy “jeopardize(d) not just (Trump’s) trial but the rules governing impeachment.”

Withholding articles for nearly a month made no sense. McConnell prevailed on Senate trial proceedings. Pelosi lost.

Delay benefitted Trump by downplaying the Dems’ urgency of trial for resolving the matter.

Turley: “Pelosi played into the hands of McConnell by first rushing this impeachment forward with an incomplete record and now giving him the excuse to summarily change the rules, or even to dismiss the articles.”

“The House wasted four months…without issuing a subpoena to” potentially key witnesses.

Senate trial proceedings may last two or three weeks. It’s unclear who’ll appear as witnesses for the defense and prosecution, if any.

According to the Washington Post, “White House lawyers are trying to engineer the fastest impeachment trial in American history, aiming to have President Trump acquitted by the Senate without witnesses and after just a few days of proceedings,” citing unnamed senior regime officials,” adding:

“The White House, which previously supported a more expansive trial in the GOP-led Senate, has now accepted the idea that senators should make quick work of acquitting Trump.”

Pelosi tried resurrecting the failed Russiagate hoax, saying “voters in America should decide who our president is, not Putin and Russia (sic).”

Whatever unfolds between next Tuesday and completion of Senate trial proceedings, its result is already known.

Dubious charges against Trump don’t rise to the level of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Under the Constitution’s Article II, Section 4, impeachment, conviction, and removal from office requires proving these charges.

No legitimacy exists to impeach Trump on dubious charges brought against him by Dems.

Clear just cause exists to impeach, convict, and remove him from office for crimes of war, against humanity, and betraying the public trust by serving monied interests exclusively at the expense of ordinary people he greatly harmed at home and abroad.

Of course, that’s impossible because the vast majority of Republicans and Dems share guilt.

Washington’s criminal class is bipartisan.

The Capitol Hill Blue website states: “Nobody’s life, liberty or property is safe while Congress is in session or the White House is occupied.”

The corrupted US system is too debauched to fix — a one-party state with two right wings, a plutocracy, not a democracy.

Elections when held are farcical. If anything changed positively, they’d be banned.

Politicians and bureaucrats come and go in Washington. Dirty business as usual never changes.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from FAIR

The first CIA agent killed in action was the 37-year-old Douglas S. Mackiernan, a former code-breaker for the United States Army Air Forces, who during World War II was promoted to Major, serving as an Air Force meteorologist in the city of Nanjing, eastern China. Mackiernan lost his life during late April 1950 on the Tibetan frontier, within the internationally recognised boundaries of China, when he was mistakenly shot dead by border guards from Tibet. 

Mackiernan’s death was a forerunner to the difficulties that Washington and the CIA would experience against their Chinese adversary over the elapsing 70 years, following Beijing’s 1949 communist revolution – with China’s “loss” comprising the most severe blow to strike US power in the post-1945 age.

News of Mackiernan’s killing took about a month to reach the American authorities present in the capital of India, New Delhi, which had been his ultimate destination (1). It was an unfortunate end for Mackiernan who, over the preceding seven months, had traversed over some of the most challenging, remote and idyllic landscapes on earth; so as to shake off Beijing’s closely pursuing forces.

From September 1949, Mackiernan had turned southwards – from where he was based in Xinjiang, north-western China – towards the nearby and little known Taklamakan Desert, a picturesque but inhospitable terrain almost the size of Germany, which is ringed by rugged mountains to the south and west, while the Gobi Desert stretches out in vast expanses to the east.

The name “Taklamakan” translates roughly in English to, “Once you get in, you’ll never get out”. Local Uyghur people with a knowledge of the Taklamakan Desert are loathed to cross it, such is its forbidding reputation. Temperatures there can range from boiling hot to freezing cold in minutes, while it contains almost no water.

Mackiernan nonetheless forged ahead, and on his trek he had for company another American, Frank Bessac, a 27-year-old CIA contractor who, in later life, can be seen in photographs with the Dalai Lama in New York. Bessac, also an anthropologist, had just fled westwards from northern China to elude communist forces, and he was formerly an agent for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the CIA’s predecessor organisation.

Mackiernan and Bessac were further assisted in their journey by three anti-communist White Russians. The group set out to conquer the Taklamakan by horseback, and thereafter with the aid of that famous desert specialist, the camel.

Image on the left (below) from intotibet.info

Mao Zedong’s government was aware of Mackiernan’s activities in north-western China, and by January 1950 he was publicly classified by the Chinese media as an American spy.

Staying in touch with his paymasters in Washington, Mackiernan recorded the group’s progress in this desert region, along with the location of notable landmarks, radioing his findings to the American capital. Right up to today, the US Department of State and CIA have refused to release the radio transcripts of Mackiernan’s observations.

After weeks of hardship, and with winter closing in, on 18 November 1949 Mackiernan’s group had finally crossed 1,000 miles of terrain, much of it including the Taklamakan. They were now facing into the foothills of the Kunlun Mountains, one of the longest chain of peaks in Asia, and which forms the northern edge of the Tibetan Plateau.

The Kunlun Mountains, whose highest peak Kongur Tagh is over 7,500 metres tall, are located about 500 miles northwards of the Himalayas. Following an 18-day trek in steady ascent of the Kunlun Mountains – in which Mackiernan’s party travelled another almost 300 miles – they were forced to abandon their ambitions to cross these peaks by 1949, and instead were compelled to settle down for the winter on the north-eastern fringe of the Tibetan Plateau, in Timurlik, Qinghai.

It was here that Mackiernan’s group made the acquaintance of nomadic Kazakhs, including their chief Hussein Taiji, who provided adequate accommodation for them (2). Mackiernan et al recommenced their journey southwards in late March 1950, again choosing a route in which it is likely that no Westerner had ever taken before.

They successfully crossed the Kunlun Mountains, before reaching the Changtang area of the Tibetan Plateau – a stretch of land located in northern and western Tibet with a minimum altitude of 4,300 metres above sea level, but rising as high as 5,800 metres up. The Changtang is impossible to cross in winter, but just about manageable in more favourable seasons.

MacKiernan’s party reached their first Tibetan outpost on 29 April 1950. It was here that disaster struck the group as Mackiernan and two White Russian companions were shot dead by Tibetan border guards, who mistook them for bandits or raiding communists.

The Dalai Lama, whose links to the CIA were first forged around this time, had issued a safe conduct for Mackiernan and company; but this was delayed by the Harry Truman administration, and the Tibetan border police were therefore unaware of the Americans’ arrival.

Bessac was unharmed, as minutes before he had been sent by Mackiernan to talk to Tibetans camped close by. With no choice before them, Bessac and one remaining White Russian, Vasili Zvansov, continued their mammoth journey before finally reaching the Tibetan capital Lhasa, in the early summer of 1950, a fortnight before the start of the Korean War in June of that year.

Meanwhile, Mackiernan’s name quickly entered obscurity, and his position as an American spy was not recognised by the CIA until 56 years after his death, in 2006 (3). Yet the New York Times had reported on 29 July 1950 that a US State Department “vice consul” named Douglas Mackiernan was recently killed “on his way out of Communist China” (4).

The New York Times, as is their habit, omitted the vital details by failing to either discover or mention that Mackiernan’s supposed role, as a State Department official, was a ruse designed to obscure his employment as a CIA operative – through which he was based in Urumqi, northern Xinjiang. Mackiernan’s true assignment was that of being America’s “first atomic spy”, a reality not disclosed to the public until over half a century later, in 2002.

The CIA themselves did not acknowledge, until autumn 2008, Mackiernan’s mission in tracking Soviet atomic activity, when CIA director Michael Hayden admitted as such in a speech during a visit to Los Angeles, California (5).

Mackiernan had been dispatched to north-western China in order to detect the USSR’s first atomic bomb test, which was formulated in response to the American A-bomb attacks on Japan four years previously, perhaps the defining moment in human history.

Xinjiang, the province where Mackiernan was headquartered, shares a direct border with Kazakhstan to the west. The Soviets erected their atomic testing site in Semipalatinsk, north-eastern Kazakhstan, about 600 miles from where Mackiernan was situated in Urumqi, Xinjiang’s capital.

On 29 August 1949, Mackiernan gathered unmistakable evidence of the Russians’ successful atomic bomb blast. Due to intelligence amassed in his covert missions, Mackiernan was actually anticipating Stalin’s development of atomic weapons for some time. The Kremlin was entirely unaware that their nuclear program was being tracked by an American secret agent.

There is a distinct possibility that the Truman administration was informed by Mackiernan of the likelihood of Soviet nuclear testing months prior to August 1949 (6). Indeed, it seems somewhat unlikely that the US government was taken by complete surprise with Russian acquisition of atomic bombs at this time, and the White House might well have been briefed of the probability in the earlier part of 1949.

Certainly by August of this year, Mackiernan contacted Washington and informed them that he was monitoring Moscow’s atomic project (7). He consisted of the only foreign agent to have operated in unearthing Soviet nuclear activities. Well into this century, almost all of Mackiernan’s messages to the US Department of State have remained classified or disappeared altogether.

It may not be surprising that Mackiernan’s operations have been so closely guarded by Washington, such was the high importance and covert nature of it. One CIA employee said earlier this century that there are still “considerable national security interests” attached to Mackiernan’s discoveries.

From 1945 to 1949 the Americans developed sophisticated, state-of-the-art equipment, in which the sole purpose was to gauge the status of Stalin’s atomic project. It was this technology which enabled Mackiernan to conclusively detect the Kremlin’s nuclear explosion near the city of Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan.

For Mackiernan, his discovery of the Soviet atomic test – also confirmed over ensuing days by America’s Air Force – could not come quickly enough. By the following month, September 1949, most of Xinjiang was under communist control and he made haste in his departure.

Mackiernan’s presence as a foreign agent in Xinjiang was a flagrant violation of Chinese sovereignty, and an early example of the interference of US special services within China.

The activities of American spies on Chinese soil can be traced to as early as the latter half of 1942, when the CIA’s precursor – the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) – sent two of its agents to Tibet. The OSS operatives’ names were Brooke Dolan and Ilya Tolstoy, aged 34 and 39 respectively, and as they arrived into the Tibetan capital Lhasa, they were treated as honoured guests accompanied by the performance of a brass band in the streets.

Ilya Tolstoy, both a US Army colonel and an American spy, was the grandson of Russian writer Leo Tolstoy, considered one of the greatest novelists of all time. Tolstoy, who emigrated to America from Russia in 1924, was known as president Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “envoy in Tibet”.

On the morning of 20 December 1942, Tolstoy and Dolan were invited to meet the current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, who was then seven years old (he is today 84). It was the Dalal Lama’s first encounter with American agents, and nor was it to be his last.

There were also CIA agents undertaking secret missions in other Chinese provinces, such as Inner Mongolia, a large region of northern China. The above-mentioned Frank Bessac, by 1947 a CIA operative, was from the years 1948 to 1949 working under the auspices of another CIA officer, Raymond Meitz, both of whom were active in Inner Mongolia.

By the summer of 1949, Meitz had already taught radio communication to seven young Mongols, who effectively became CIA-trained agents operating within official Chinese territory. Following China’s revolution a few weeks later, these Mongol agents were ear-marked to conduct radio contact with the Americans, and provide them with intelligence information on communist activity inside Inner Mongolia.

Much of this is confirmed by Sechin Jagchid, a Mongol native that later moved to the US and who had first-hand knowledge of American spy operations regarding Inner Mongolia (8). Until 1949, Jachid was one of the closest associates of the anti-communist Mongol Prince De, a descendant of despotic ruler Genghis Khan. Prince De was being groomed by the Americans, and in communication with CIA agents like Meitz operating in Inner Mongolia.

*

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

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1 Thomas Laird, Into Tibet, The CIA’s First Atomic Spy and His Secret Expedition to Lhasa (Grove Press; First Trade Paper edition, 13 Mar. 2003) p. 239

2 Laird, Into Tibet, The CIA’s First Atomic Spy and His Secret Expedition to Lhasa, p. 148

3 Historical Document, “Remembering CIA’s heroes: Douglas S. Mackiernan”, 29 April 2010, https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2010-featured-story-archive/douglas-s.-mackiernan.html

4 “U.S. Consul, fleeing China, Slain by Tibetan on Watch for Bandits; SLAIN IN TIBET”, New York Times, 30 July 1950, https://www.nytimes.com/1950/07/30/archives/us-consul-fleeing-china-slain-by-tibetan-on-watch-for-bandits-slain.html

5 Historical Document, “Director’s Remarks at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council”, 16 September 2008, https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/speeches-testimony-archive-2008/directors-remarks-at-lawac.html

6 Laird, Into Tibet, The CIA’s First Atomic Spy and His Secret Expedition to Lhasa, p. 89.

7 Bertil Lintner, Great Game East: India, China and the Struggle for Asia’s Most Volatile Frontier (Yale University Press, 28 May 2015) p. 33

8 David H. Price, Cold War Anthropology: The CIA, the Pentagon, and the Growth of Dual Use Anthropology (Duke University Press, 28 Mar. 2016)

The nationwide general strike in France, now entering its record seventh week, seems to be approaching its crisis point. Despite savage police repression, about a million people are in the streets protesting President Emmanuel Macron’s proposed neoliberal “reform” of France’s retirement system, established at the end of World War II and considered one of the best in the world. At bottom, what is at stake is a whole vision of what kind of society people want to live in – one based on cold market calculation or one based on human solidarity – and neither side shows any sign of willingness to compromise.

On one side, the Macron government has staked its legitimacy on pushing through this key “reform” intact as a matter of principle, however unpopular. On the other side stand the striking railroad and transit workers, who are bearing the brunt of this conflict and have already sacrificed thousands of Euros in lost pay since the strike began last December 5. After six weeks, they cannot accept the prospect of returning to work empty-handed, and they have set their sights high: withdrawal of the whole government project.

Now or Never?

This looks like a “now or never” situation. Moreover, it seems clear that the transport workers mean business. When the government (and the union leaders) proposed a “truce” in the transport strike during the sacred Christmas/New Year vacation period, the rank-and-file voted to continue the struggle, and their leaders were obliged to eat their words.

Nor are the transport workers isolated, despite the inconvenience to commuters and other travelers. They have been joined by emergency-room nurses and doctors (who have been on strike for months over lack of beds, personnel and materials), public school teachers (protesting undemocratic and incomprehensible “reforms” to the national curriculum), lawyers and judges (visible in their judicial robes), and the dancers at the Paris Opera (visible in their tutus), among the other professions joining the strike.

Strikers and “Yellow Vests” Together

Alongside the strikers, and quite visible among them, the so-called Yellow Vests (Gilets jaunes) are a crucial element. For over a year, they have been setting a “bad example” of self-organized, largely leaderless, social protest, which captured the public imagination, and through direct action in the streets, won some real concessions from Macron in December 2018. This victory impressed the rank-and-file of the French organized labour movement, which after three months of disciplined, but limited, stop-and-go strikes in the Spring of 2018, failed utterly to wring any concessions and went back to work poor and empty-handed while Macron pushed through a series of neoliberal privatizations and cuts in unemployment compensation.¹

Although their numbers diminished, the Yellow Vests continued their spontaneous protests throughout 2019 despite savage government repression, distorted media coverage stressing Black Block violence, and snubbing on the part of the union leadership, but their “bad example” was not lost on the union rank-and-file. January 13th’s general strike was originally sparked last September by a spontaneous walkout by Paris subway workers, who, contrary to custom, shut down the system without asking permission from their leaders and management.

Meanwhile, the Yellow Vests, initially suspicious of the unions but isolated in their struggle with Macron, had begun to seek “convergence” with the French labour movement. Finally, at the Yellow Vest national “Assembly of Assemblies” last November, their delegates voted near-unanimously to join the “unlimited general strike” proposed for December 5 by the unions. Reversing his previous standoffishness, Philippe Martinez, head of the CGT labour federation, immediately welcomed their participation.²

Government Provocation

The January 13 intractable nationwide confrontation over retirement – a sacred cow, like Social Security in the US – is best understood as a deliberate provocation on the part of Macron, both in its form and its substance. There was no urgent reason for pension reform, nor for abolishing the venerable system outright and hastily replacing it from above with an abstract neoliberal plan based on “universality.” The pension program was not in debt, and the alleged need to replace the twenty-odd “special” retirement funds – negotiated over the years with the representatives of different trades and professions – with a single “point system” in the name of fairness, efficiency, and rationality was only a smokescreen.

In fact, these “special funds” cover only about one percent of retirees – a million or so miners, railroad workers, transit workers, sailors, ballet dancers, and such – who get to retire early because of the physically or mentally taxing nature of their specific labours. (Even if you include the four million public employees as “special,” the figure rises to under 25%). Moreover, Macron has himself recently violated this principle of “universality” by giving special exceptions to the police and army (whom he cannot afford to alienate) and the ballerinas of the Opera (whom no one can imagine toe-dancing at the age of sixty).

Behind this confusing smokescreen of “fairness to all” is an old con: equalize benefits by reducing them to the lowest common denominator. Indeed, according to independent calculations, under Macron’s point system the average pension would be reduced by about 30%. And since these “points” would be calculated over the total lifetime number of years worked before retirement, rather than on the current criterion of 75% of the worker’ best or final years, Macron’s point system would particularly penalize those whose careers were irregular – for example, women who took off years for childcare. Yet the government brazenly claims that women will be “the big winners” in this so-called reform!

A Pig in a Poke

However, the biggest con embodied in this point system is that the actual cash value of each accumulated point would only be calculated at the time of retirement. The sum in Euros would then be determined by the government then in power on the basis of the economic situation at that moment (for example in 2037 when the plan goes into full effect). Thus, under the present system, every school-teacher, railroad worker and clerk can calculate how much s/he will receive when they retire at 62 and plan accordingly (for example, opting for early retirement). Macron’s point system would leave them in total darkness until it is too late. His system resembles a gambling casino where you buy 10 chips for a certain amount (say 10 Euros each), place your bets, and later take your winning chips to the cashier’s window only to discover that your chips are now worth only 5 Euros each. Surprise! The house wins!

Today, thanks to their existing pension system, French people live on the average five years longer than other Europeans. Moreover, according to the New York Times: “In France the poverty rate among those older than 65 is less than 5 percent, largely because of the pension system, while in the United States it approaches 20 percent, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In France, life expectancy is increasing, while in the United States it is diminishing in significant sectors of the population.” And although the pro-government French media have presented Macron’s confused and confusing reform in the best possible light, it is a hard sell. So why change it?

Not an Ordinary President

When Emmanuel Macron took power in 2017, he vowed he would not be “an ordinary president.” From the beginning he has openly proclaimed his iron determination to revolutionize French society in order to bring it into line with the neoliberal Thatcher/Reagan revolution of the 1980s, and his methods have been authoritarian. He has imposed his program of privatizations and counter-reforms from above, mainly by decree, deliberately circumventing negotiations with “intermediate bodies” like the parliament, the political parties, the local authorities, and above all, the labour unions, who have traditionally been the “social partners” (official designation) of government, along with the employers’ associations (who are Macron’s main base of support).

Backed by the mainstream media (controlled by the government and three big corporations), Macron has so far been largely successful in steam-rolling through his neoliberal program, openly designed to improve French “competivity” (i.e., corporate profits) by lowering living standards (thus increasing inequality). If successful, his proposed “reform” of pensions would open the gates to his ultimate goal, the “reform” of France’s socialized healthcare system (Medicare for all), already on the road to privatization.

Naturally, all these moves have been unpopular, but until now, Macron, whose executive style has been characterized as “imperial,” has been successful in dividing and destabilizing his opposition – if necessary, through massive use of police violence. This has been the fate of the spontaneous movement of Yellow Vests, who have been subjected to routine beatings and tear-gas attacks as well as hundreds of serious injuries (including blindings, torn-off hands, and several deaths) – all with police impunity and media cover-ups. Now the government’s savage repressive methods – condemned by the U.N. and the European Union – are being applied to strikers and union demonstrators traditionally tolerated by the forces of order in France.

This repression may turn out to be like throwing oil on the flames of conflict. On January 9, at the end of the peaceful, legal mass marches (estimated half-million demonstrators nationwide), members of the particularly brutal BAC (Anti-Criminal Brigade) in Paris, Rouen and Lille were ordered to break off sections of the marches, surround them, inundate them with teargas, and then charge in among them with truncheons and flash-ball launchers fired at close range, resulting in 124 injuries (25 of them serious), and 980 sickened by gas.

These brutal attacks, which focused particularly on journalists and females (nurses and teachers), were captured on shocking videos, viewed millions of times on YouTube, but pooh-poohed by government spokesmen. Far from discouraging the strikers, this deliberate violence may only enrage them. And, what with the “bad example” of the Yellow Vests, the labour leaders may not be able to reign them in.

The Center Cannot Hold

Why is Macron risking his prestige and his presidency on this precarious face-off with the labour leadership, traditionally viewed as the compliant hand-maidens of the government on such occasions? Historians here recall that in 1936 Maurice Thorez, leader of Communist-affiliated CGT (General Confederation of Workers), brought the general strike and factory occupations to an end with the slogan “We must learn how to end a strike” and that at the Liberation of France in 1945, the same Thorez, fresh from Moscow, told the workers to “roll up your sleeves” and rebuild French capitalism before striking for socialism. Similarly, in 1968, during the spontaneous student-worker uprising, the CGT negotiated a settlement with De Gaulle and literally dragged reluctant strikers back to work.

Not for nothing are today’s government-subsidized French unions officially designated as “social partners” (along with government and business), yet Macron, loyal to neoliberal Thatcherite doctrine, has consistently humiliated the CGT’s Martinez and the other union leaders, and excluded them – along with the other “intermediary bodies” – from the policy-making process.

Something’s Got to Give

France’s “not-an-ordinary-President” has from the beginning remained consistent with his vision of an imperial presidency. Although seen by many abroad as a “progressive,” Macron, like Trump, Putin, and other contemporary heads of state, adheres to the neoliberal doctrine of “authoritarian democracy,” and he is apparently willing to stake his future, and the future of France, on subduing his popular opposition, particularly the unions, once and for all.

Thus, what is at stake today is not just a quarrel over pension rights, which would normally be negotiated and adjudicated through a political process including political parties, elected representatives, parliamentary coalitions, and collective bargaining with labour, but a question of what kind of future society French people are going to live in: social-democratic or neoliberal authoritarian. The seasoned Paris bureau chief of the New York Times, Adam Nossiter, put it simply in his revealing January 9 article: “A fight between the rich and the poor amplified by 200 years of French history.”

A technocrat and former Rothschild banker, Macron rose to power unexpectedly in 2017 when the traditional Left and Right parties fell apart during the first round of the presidential election, leaving him alone as the lesser-of-two-evils candidate in a face-off with the proto-fascist National Front of LePen. Considered “the President of the rich” by most French people, Macron must remain inflexible because he has nothing behind him but the Bourse (Stock Exchange), the MEDEF (Manufacturers’ Association), and the police.

Second Thoughts

On the other hand, as the struggle enters its seventh week, it occurs to me that if this were a true general strike, if all the organized workers had walked out on December 5, if the railroads, the subways, the buses, the schools, and the hospitals – not to mention the refineries and the electrical generators – had been shut down, it would all have been over in a few days.

But this is not the US where in September-October 2019, 48,000 members of the United Auto Workers shut down 50 General Motors plants for more than six weeks, and where not a single worker, not a single delivery of parts, not a single finished car crossed the picket lines until the strike was settled.

In France, there are no “union shops,” much less closed shops, few if any strike funds, and as many as five different union federations competing for representation in a given industry. Here, picket lines, where they exist, are purely informational, and anywhere from 10% to 90% of the workers may show up on the job on any given day during a strike. Today, for example, seven out of ten TGV high-speed bullet-trains were running as many railroad workers returned to the job to pay their bills while planning to go back on strike and join the demonstrations later in the week. How long can this go on?

“When an irresistible force meets an immovable object, something’s got to give,” goes the old saying, and a showdown seems to be in the offing. With his arrogant intransigence over the retirement issue, Macron is apparently risking his presidency on one throw of the dice. Only time will tell. And Macron may be betting that time is on his side, waiting for the movement to slowly peter out so as to push through his reforms later in the Spring.

Update: French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe’s much ballyhooed January 12 declaration of a “provisionary” withdrawal of his proposal to extend the “pivotal” age of retirement from 62 to 64 is yet another smokescreen designed to divide the opposition and further prolong the struggle, as suggested above.

Although denounced as such by the CGT and other striking unions, the government’s promise was immediately accepted by the openly class-collaborationist (“moderate”) CFDT union, to their mutual advantage. The CFDT will now be included in the negotiations over the financing of the proposed point system, which the CFDT, having collaborated with previous governments in earlier neoliberal reforms, supports.

Philippe’s declaration is obviously an empty promise, as there are only two ways of increasing the retirement fund: either by extending the number of years paid in or by increasing the amount of annual contributions, which are shared by labour and management. And although labour has signaled its willingness to raise its dues, the MEDEF (manufacturers’ association) has adamantly refused to pay its share, ruling out the obvious solution to this manufactured crisis. Even if the official “pivotal” retirement age is retained, if the value of their pensions is reduced, employees will be obliged to continue working past age 62 in order to live.

*

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.

Richard Greeman has been active since 1957 in civil rights, anti-war, anti-nuke, environmental and labour struggles in the U.S., Latin America, France (where he has been a longtime resident) and Russia (where he helped found the Praxis Research and Education Center in 1997). He maintains a blog at richardgreeman.org.

1. For details on 2018 strikes, please see my “French Labour’s Historical Defeat; US Teachers’ Surprising Victories.”

2. Please see “French Unions, Yellow Vests Converge, Launch General Strike Today” by Richard Greeman.

Featured image is from The Bullet

The claim that Major General Qassem Soleimani was a “terrorist” on a mission to carry out an “imminent” attack that would kill hundreds of Americans turned out to be a lie, so why should one believe anything else relating to recent developments in Iran and Iraq? To be sure, Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 departing from Tehran’s Imam Khomeini International Airport on the morning of January 8^th with 176 passengers and crew on board was shot down by Iranian air defenses, something which the government of the Islamic Republic has admitted, but there just might  be considerably more to the story involving cyberwarfare carried out by the U.S. and possibly Israeli governments.

To be sure, the Iranian air defenses were on high alert fearing an American attack in the wake of the U.S. government’s assassination of Soleimani on January 3^rd followed by a missile strike from Iran directed against two U.S. bases in Iraq. In spite of the tension and the escalation, the Iranian government did not shut down the country’s airspace. Civilian passenger flights were still departing and arriving in Tehran, almost certainly an error in judgment on the part of the airport authorities. Inexplicably, civilian aircraft continued to take off and land even after Flight 752 was shot down.

Fifty-seven of the passengers on the flight were Canadians of Iranian descent, leading Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to point the finger both at the Iranian government for its carelessness and also at Washington, observing angrily that the Trump Administration had deliberately and recklessly sought to “escalate tensions” with Iran through an attack near Baghdad Airport, heedless of the impact on travelers and other civilians in the region.

What seems to have been a case of bad judgements and human error does, however, include some elements that have yet to be explained. The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable “jamming” and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched. There were also problems with the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.

The electronic jamming coming from an unknown source meant that the air defense system was placed on manual operation, relying on human intervention to launch. The human role meant that an operator had to make a quick judgment in a pressure situation in which he had only moments to react. The shutdown of the transponder, which would have automatically signaled to the operator and Tor electronics that the plane was civilian, instead automatically indicated that it was hostile. The operator, having been particularly briefed on the possibility of incoming American cruise missiles, then fired.

The two missiles that brought the plane down came from a Russian-made system designated SA-15 by NATO and called Tor by the Russians. Its eight missiles are normally mounted on a tracked vehicle. The system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an independent launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent accidents. Given what happened on that morning in Tehran, it is plausible to assume that something or someone deliberately interfered with both the Iranian air defenses and with the transponder on the airplane, possibly as part of an attempt to create an aviation accident that would be attributed to the Iranian government.

The SA-15 Tor defense system used by Iran has one major vulnerability. It can be hacked or “spoofed,” permitting an intruder to impersonate a legitimate user and take control. The United States Navy and Air Force reportedly have developed technologies “that can fool enemy radar systems with false and deceptively moving targets.” Fooling the system also means fooling the operator. The Guardian has also reported independently  how the United States military has long been developing systems that can from a distance alter the electronics and targeting of Iran’s available missiles.

The same technology can, of course, be used to alter or even mask the transponder on a civilian airliner in such a fashion as to send false information about identity and location. The United States has the cyber and electronic warfare capability to both jam and alter signals relating to both airliner transponders and to the Iranian air defenses. Israel presumably has the same ability. Joe Quinn at Sott.net also notes an interested back story to those photos and video footage that have appeared in the New York Times and elsewhere showing the Iranian missile launch, the impact with the plane and the remains after the crash, to include the missile remains. They appeared on January 9^th, in an Instagram account called ‘Rich Kids of Tehran‘. Quinn asks how the Rich Kids happened to be in “a low-income housing estate on the city’s outskirts [near the airport] at 6 a.m. on the morning of January 8^th with cameras pointed at the right part of the sky in time to capture a missile hitting a Ukrainian passenger plane…?”

Put together the Rich Kids and the possibility of electronic warfare and it all suggests a premeditated and carefully planned event of which the Soleimani assassination was only a part. There have been riots in Iran subsequent to the shooting down of the plane, blaming the government for its ineptitude.

Some of the people in the street are clearly calling for the goal long sought by the United States and Israel, i.e. “regime change.” If nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing of Soleimani, is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another unprincipled actor with blood on its hands. There is much still to explain about the downing of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752.

*

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 American Herald Tribune.

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: The remains of Ukraine Airlines Flight 752 (Source: AHT)

Stepping off his Cham Wings flight and onto the tarmac of Baghdad airport, Qassem Soleimani was met by a familiar face.

Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy head of the Hashd al-Shaabi Iraqi paramilitary, was a longstanding ally of the Iranian general and a close friend.

With him was a small reception party and two vehicles, ready to whisk the head of Iran’s Quds force back to Muhandis’ Green Zone home, his usual address in the Iraqi capital, according to Shia leaders in the country.

This time, something was wrong. Above them was a US drone hovering and ready to strike, and within minutes the two men would be dead.

Soleimani and Muhandis had been on the United States’ most-wanted list for years, and the two avoided using modern technology and followed strict security measures to keep them out of US hands, leaders of armed factions close to both men told Middle East Eye.

The number of people with access to them was strictly limited, and for the most part, the two made efforts to keep a low profile when moving around.

“These are their ideal security measures. They have always travelled without prior dates and without announcing their destination, and they use regular airlines,” a leader close to Muhandis told MEE.

“They do not pass through the regular formal channels to stamp their passports at the airports. They do not use smartphones, and they move in ordinary cars with the fewest possible number of people,” the leader added. Like everyone interviewed, he spoke on condition of anonymity for security reasons.

“Overall, it was difficult to track them. But the Damascus and Baghdad airports are full of pro-American intelligence sources, and because of this they have been hunted down.”

Beirut rendezvous

According to Iraqi officials familiar with Soleimani’s movements, the man charged with leading Iran’s armed forces abroad had several commonly used points of entry into Iraq.

Occasionally, as on Friday, he would land at Baghdad International Airport. Sometimes he would arrive at Najaf’s instead, or cross from Iran at the Munthiriya border crossing in Diyala governorate, some 120km east of Baghdad.

Increasingly, he had been flying into northern Iraq’s Kurdistan region, before travelling south to Baghdad by car.

None of those other routes would have saved Soleimani, a leader of the Iran-backed Lebanese Hezbollah movement told MEE, as he instead had been betrayed by “his itinerary during the last 36 hours”.

“It sounds like he was closely monitored from the moment he arrived in Damascus from Tehran on Thursday until he was assassinated in Baghdad on Friday,” the Hezbollah leader said.

Soleimani had arrived at Damascus airport on Thursday morning. He did not meet anyone in the Syrian capital and moved directly from the plane to a car that carried him to Beirut, where he met Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah.

“They sat for hours discussing the latest developments in Iraq, especially with regard to the US air strikes that recently hit [Iraqi paramilitary] Kataeb Hezbollah and the attack on the American embassy in Baghdad a few days ago,” the Hezbollah leader, who is familiar with the discussions, told MEE.

The aim of the talks, the Lebanese said, was to help coordinate the work of Iran-backed armed factions in the region and prepare them for any confrontation with the US.

The talks also, he said, were held “to resolve outstanding problems between some of the factions, especially those linked to Nasrallah”.

Arrival in Baghdad

Soleimani took no longer in Beirut than he needed to, and returned to Damascus that evening using the same procedures.

At Damascus airport, Soleimani boarded a Cham Wings flight to Baghdad alongside other passengers. The scheduled flight departure time was set at 20:20, but for unknown reasons, it was delayed to 22:28, the public data of the company shows.

At around the same time, Muhandis received news that suggested his friend would shortly be touching down in Iraq. The Hashd al-Shaabi’s top leader was given a very short note, detailing only the airline and arrival time.

Muhandis, one of the most powerful figures in Iraq and Iran’s point man, is known to ride around Baghdad in an open-top car. But not this night.

Instead, he summoned Mohammed Redha, a close aide responsible for the Hashd al-Shaabi’s arrangements in the airport, and ordered him to drive to him to the terminal and prepare for a special guest.

Baghdad International Airport has been subject to strict security measures since 2003, and its security is managed by the British company G4S under the supervision of the Iraqi intelligence and national security services.

Iraqi counterterrorism forces, in cooperation with the US, are meanwhile responsible for securing the airport perimeter, its airspace and the roads leading to it.

Security measures require ordinary passengers heading in and out of the airport to pass through several checkpoints deployed along 10km of road extending between Abbas bin Firnas Square, the last point personal cars can reach, and the departure halls.

As for travellers and officials who have a special escort, they are allowed to pass on VIP roads, which do not require more than informing a checkpoint there of the travellers’ identity and the vehicles’ physical and registration details.

Any information that reaches this point is shared with airport security, national security and intelligence, as well as with G4S.

Muhandis was seen by the US and his Iraqi rivals as the most dangerous man in Iraq, the executor of Iranian will. He has been monitored by the Americans for years, and it was no secret that Redha transported no one but Muhandis.

It was also, leaders close to Muhandis told MEE, well-known that the Hashd al-Shaabi chief received no one at the airport other than Soleimani.

A US source familiar with the latest developments told MEE that Americans received intelligence that Soleimani was on his way to Baghdad and that Muhandis would receive him at the airport and take him to his home in the heavily fortified Green Zone.

Three Iraqi security officials and several Hashd al-Shaabi leaders confirmed this was the plan.

The trap is set

The journey from Damascus to Baghdad took an hour and five minutes, according to Cham Wings’ public data. The plane landed at 12:32 am Baghdad time.

Soleimani and his two companions, one of whom was his son-in-law, were not kept waiting, with Muhandis and his entourage keen to set off and not make the meeting any more conspicuous. National security officials handled the guests’ travel documents and collected their luggage.

The Hyundai Starks minibus and Toyota Avalon did not travel far before three explosions rocked Baghdad’s western outskirts.

According to a national security report seen by MEE, the blasts hit Baghdad airport at 1.45 am, and initial investigations have concluded that three guided missiles were fired at the two vehicles.

The Hyundai Starks, travelling around 100-120 metres from the other vehicle, was struck first with one missile.

A second rocket narrowly missed the Toyota, which attempted to speed away. A third finished the job.

The Iraqi authorities needed several hours to identify the victims, some of whom had been completely torched.

Soleimani, however, was easy to spot, thanks to a large and distinctive ring he wore on his left hand, embedded with a dark red stone, security officials told MEE.

“The operation was carried out by drone. It was very significant, accurate, and not an improvised operation. And the information we gathered revealed that the drone was hovering, waiting for their departure,” a prominent Hashd al-Shaabi leader told MEE.

Briefly jeopardising the US operation, the Hashd leader said, were two cars that passed Soleimani’s convoy as it headed out of the airport, though the drone was able to target the vehicles nonetheless.

“We know that the Americans have been chasing the two men for a long time, but without success. It is clear that they [the Americans] have recruited some people close to the two to follow their movements and determine the place and time to assassinate them,” the paramilitary leader added.

“The leaders of the armed factions now are terrified because they do not know to what degree the Americans have infiltrated them, nor do they know what will happen next.”

*

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

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

Relevant article selected from the GR archive, first published on GR in February 2016.

Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:

For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.”

Let’s look at specific countries …

Iraq

Between 1932 and 1948, the roots for the current wars in Iraq were planted.  As Wikipedia explains:

The Mosul–Haifa oil pipeline (also known as Mediterranean pipeline) was a crude oil pipeline from the oil fields in Kirkuk, located in north Iraq, through Jordan to Haifa (now on the territory of Israel). The pipeline was operational in 1935–1948. Its length was about 942 kilometres (585 mi), with a diameter of 12 inches (300 mm) (reducing to 10 and 8 inches (250 and 200 mm) in parts), and it took about 10 days for crude oil to travel the full length of the line. The oil arriving in Haifa was distilled in the Haifa refineries, stored in tanks, and then put in tankers for shipment to Europe.

The pipeline was built by the Iraq Petroleum Company between 1932 and 1935, during which period most of the area through which the pipeline passed was under a British mandate approved by the League of Nations. The pipeline was one of two pipelines carrying oil from the Kirkuk oilfield to the Mediterranean coast. The main pipeline split at Haditha with a second line carrying oil to Tripoli, Lebanon, which was then under a French mandate. This line was built primarily to satisfy the demands of the French partner in IPC, Compagnie Française des Pétroles, for a separate line to be built across French mandated territory.

The pipeline and the Haifa refineries were considered strategically important by the British Government, and indeed provided much of the fuel needs of the British and American forces in the Mediterranean during the Second World War.

The pipeline was a target of attacks by Arab gangs during the Great Arab Revolt, and as a result one of the main objectives of a joint British-Jewish Special Night Squads commanded by Captain Orde Wingate was to protect the pipeline against such attacks. Later on, the pipeline was the target of attacks by the Irgun. [Background.]

In 1948, with the outbreak of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, the official operation of the pipeline ended when the Iraqi Government refused to pump any more oil through it.

Why is this relevant today?   Haaretz reported soon after the Iraq war started in 2003:

The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.

The Prime Minister’s Office, which views the pipeline to Haifa as a “bonus” the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq, had asked the Americans for the official telegram.

The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel. The U.S. telegram included a request for a cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was in use prior to 1948.  During the War of Independence [what Jews call the 1948 war to form the state of Israel], the Iraqis stopped the flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline fell into disrepair over the years.

***

National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky said yesterday that the port of Haifa is an attractive destination for Iraqi oil and that he plans to discuss this matter with the U.S. secretary of energy during his planned visit to Washington next month.

***

In response to rumors about the possible Kirkuk-Mosul-Haifa pipeline, Turkey has warned Israel that it would regard this development as a serious blow to Turkish-Israeli relations.

So the fighting over Iraq can be traced back to events occurring in 1948 and before.

But let’s fast-forward to subsequent little-known events in Iraq.

The CIA plotted to poison the Iraqi leader in 1960.

In 1963, the U.S. backed the coup which succeeded in killing the head of Iraq.

And everyone knows that the U.S. also toppled Saddam Hussein during the Iraq war.  But most don’t know that neoconservatives planned regime change in Iraq once again in 1991.

4-Star General Wesley Clark – former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO – said:

It came back to me … a 1991 meeting I had with Paul Wolfowitz.

***

In 1991, he was the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy – the number 3 position at the Pentagon. And I had gone to see him when I was a 1-Star General commanding the National Training Center.

***

And I said, “Mr. Secretary, you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm.” And he said: “Yeah, but not really, because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein, and we didn’t … But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran, IRAQ – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.”

And many people don’t know that the architects of the Iraq War themselves admitted the war was about oil. For example, former U.S. Secretary of Defense – and former 12-year Republican Senator – Chuck Hagel said of the Iraq war in 2007:

People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs.

4 Star General John Abizaid – the former commander of CENTCOM with responsibility for Iraq – said:

Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil, and we can’t really deny that.

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said in 2007:

I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil

President George W. Bush said in 2005 that keeping Iraqi oil away from the bad guys was a key motivefor the Iraq war:

‘If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks,” Bush said. ”They’d seize oil fields to fund their ambitions.”

John McCain said in 2008:

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will — that will then prevent us — that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

Sarah Palin said in 2008:

Better to start that drilling [for oil within the U.S.] today than wait and continue relying on foreign sources of energy. We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum – author of the infamous “Axis of Evil” claim in Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address – writes in Newsweek this week:

In 2002, Chalabi [the Iraqi politician and oil minister who the Bush Administration favored to lead Iraq after the war] joined the annual summer retreat of the American Enterprise Institute near Vail, Colorado. He and Cheney spent long hours together, contemplating the possibilities of a Western-oriented Iraq: an additional source of oil, an alternative to U.S. dependency on an unstable-looking Saudi Arabia.

Key war architect – and Under Secretary of State – John Bolton said:

The critical oil and natural gas producing region that we fought so many wars to try and protectour economy from the adverse impact of losing that supply or having it available only at very high prices.

A high-level National Security Council officer strongly implied that Cheney and the U.S. oil chiefs planned the Iraq war before 9/11 in order to get control of its oil.

The Sunday Herald reported:

It is a document that fundamentally questions the motives behind the Bush administration’s desire to take out Saddam Hussein and go to war with Iraq.

Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century describes how America is facing the biggest energy crisis in its history. It targets Saddam as a threat to American interests because of his control of Iraqi oilfields and recommends the use of ‘military intervention’ as a means to fix the US energy crisis.

The report is linked to a veritable who’s who of US hawks, oilmen and corporate bigwigs. It was commissioned by James Baker, the former US Secretary of State under George Bush Snr, and submitted to Vice-President Dick Cheney in April 2001 — a full five months before September 11. Yet it advocates a policy of using military force against an enemy such as Iraq to secure US access to, and control of, Middle Eastern oil fields.

One of the most telling passages in the document reads: ‘Iraq remains a destabilising influence to … the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets.

This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader … and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments.

***

‘Military intervention’ is supported …

***

The document also points out that ‘the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma’, and that one of the ‘consequences’ of this is a ‘need for military intervention’.

At the heart of the decision to target Iraq over oil lies dire mismanagement of the US energy policy over decades by consecutive administrations. The report refers to the huge power cuts that have affected California in recent years and warns of ‘more Californias’ ahead.

It says the ‘central dilemma’ for the US administration is that ‘the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience’. With the ‘energy sector in critical condition, a crisis could erupt at any time [which] could have potentially enormous impact on the US … and would affect US national security and foreign policy in dramatic ways.”

***

The response is to put oil at the heart of the administration — ‘a reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy’.

***

Iraq is described as the world’s ‘key swing producer … turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest”. The report also says there is a ‘possibility that Saddam may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time’, creating a volatile market.

***

Halliburton is one of the firms thought by analysts to be in line to make a killing in any clean-up operation after another US-led war on Iraq.

All five permanent members of the UN Security Council — the UK, France, China, Russia and the US — have international oil companies that would benefit from huge windfalls in the event of regime change in Baghdad. The best chance for US firms to make billions would come if Bush installed a pro-US Iraqi opposition member as the head of a new government.

Representatives of foreign oil firms have already met with leaders of the Iraqi opposition. Ahmed Chalabi, the London-based leader of the Iraqi National Congress, said: ‘American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.’

The Independent reported in 2011:

Plans to exploit Iraq’s oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world’s largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.

***

The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.

***

Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: “Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis.”

The minister then promised to “report back to the companies before Christmas” on her lobbying efforts.

The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq “post regime change”. Its minutes state: “Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity.”

After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office’s Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: “Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future… We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq.”

Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had “no strategic interest” in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was “more important than anything we’ve seen for a long time”.

BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf’s existing contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would make the French conglomerate the world’s leading oil company. BP told the Government it was willing to take “big risks” to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world.

Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002.

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq’s reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil …

[Note:  The 1990 Gulf war – while not a regime change – was also about oil.   Specifically, Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait caused oil prices to skyrocket. The U.S. invaded Iraq in order to calm oil markets. In its August 20, 1990 issue, Time Magazine quoted an anonymous U.S. Official as saying:

Even a dolt understands the principle.  We need the oil. It’s nice to talk about standing up for freedom, but Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are not exactly democracies, and if their principal export were oranges, a mid-level State Department official would have issued a statement and we would have closed Washington down for August.]

Syria

The history of western intervention in Syria is similar to our meddling in Iraq.

The CIA backed a right-wing coup in Syria in 1949. Douglas Little, Professor, Department of Clark University History professor Douglas Little notes:

As early as 1949, this newly independent Arab republic was an important staging ground for the CIA’s earliest experiments in covert action. The CIA secretly encouraged a right-wing military coup in 1949.

The reason the U.S. initiated the coup?  Little explains:

In late 1945, the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) announced plans to construct the Trans-Arabian Pipe Line (TAPLINE) from Saudi Arabia to the Mediterra- nean. With U.S. help, ARAMCO secured rights-of-way from Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.  The Syrian right-of-way was stalled in parliament.

In other words, Syria was the sole holdout for the lucrative oil pipeline.

Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:

The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949 — barely a year after the agency’s creation. Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March 1949, Syria’s democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation for Al-Quwatli’s lack of enthusiasm for the U.S. pipeline, the CIA engineered a coup replacing al-Quwatli with the CIA’s handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za’im. Al-Za’im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, four and a half months into his regime.

The BBC reports that –  in 1957 – the British and American leaders seriously considered attacking the Syrian government using Muslim extremists in Syria as a form of “false flag” attack:

In 1957 Harold Macmillan [then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom] and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria’s pro-western neighbours, and then to “eliminate” the most influential triumvirate in Damascus…. More importantly, Syria also had control of one of the main oil arteries of the Middle East, the pipeline which connected pro-western Iraq’s oilfields to Turkey.

***

The report said that once the necessary degree of fear had been created, frontier incidents and border clashes would be staged to provide a pretext for Iraqi and Jordanian military intervention. Syria had to be “made to appear as the sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighbouring governments,” the report says. “CIA and SIS should use their capabilities in both the psychological and action fields to augment tension.” That meant operations in Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon, taking the form of “sabotage, national conspiracies and various strong-arm activities” to be blamed on Damascus. The plan called for funding of a “Free Syria Committee” [hmmm … soundsvaguely familiar], and the arming of “political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities” within Syria. The CIA and MI6 would instigate internal uprisings, for instance by the Druze [a Shia Muslim sect] in the south, help to free political prisoners held in the Mezze prison, and stir up the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus.

Neoconservatives planned regime change in Syria once again in 1991 (as noted above in the quote from 4-Star General Wesley Clark).

And as the Guardian reported in 2013:

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009:

“I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business,” he told French television: “I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria.”

***

Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor, including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials, confirmed that as of 2011, US and UK special forces training of Syrian opposition forces was well underway. The goal was to elicit the “collapse” of Assad’s regime “from within.”

***

In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be“completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

It would seem that contradictory self-serving Saudi and Qatari oil interests are pulling the strings of an equally self-serving oil-focused US policy in Syria, if not the wider region. It is this – the problem of establishing a pliable opposition which the US and its oil allies feel confident will play ball, pipeline-style, in a post-Assad Syria – that will determine the nature of any prospective intervention: not concern for Syrian life.

[Footnote: The U.S. and its allies have toppled many other governments, as well.]

The war in Syria – like Iraq – is largely about oil and gas.   International Business Times noted in 2013:

[Syria] controls one of the largest conventional hydrocarbon resources in the eastern Mediterranean.

Syria possessed 2.5 billion barrels of crude oil as of January 2013, which makes it the largest proved reserve of crude oil in the eastern Mediterranean according to the Oil & Gas Journal estimate.

***

Syria also has oil shale resources with estimated reserves that range as high as 50 billion tons, according to a Syrian government source in 2010.

Moreover, Syria is a key chess piece in the pipeline wars.  Syria is an integral part of the proposed 1,200km Arab Gas Pipeline:Here are some additional graphics courtesy of Adam Curry:

Syria’s central role in the Arab gas pipeline is also a key to why it is now being targeted.

Just as the Taliban was scheduled for removal after they demanded too much in return for the Unocal pipeline, Syria’s Assad is being targeted because he is not a reliable “player”.

Specifically, Turkey, Israel and their ally the U.S. want an assured flow of gas through Syria, and don’t want a Syrian regime which is not unquestionably loyal to those 3 countries to stand in the way of the pipeline … or which demands too big a cut of the profits.

A deal has also been inked to run a natural gas pipeline from Iran’s giant South Pars field through Iraq and Syria (with a possible extension to Lebanon). And a deal to run petroleum from Iraq’s Kirkuk oil field to the Syrian port of Banias has also been approved:

Turkey and Israel would be cut out of these competing pipelines.

Gail Tverberg- an expert on financial aspects of the oil industry – writes:

One of the limits in ramping up Iraqi oil extraction is the limited amount of infrastructure available for exporting oil from Iraq. If pipelines through Syria could be added, this might alleviate part of the problem in getting oil to international markets.

Iran

The U.S. carried out regime change in Iran in 1953 … which led to radicalization of the country in the first place.

Specifically, the CIA admits that the U.S. overthrew the moderate, suit-and-tie-wearing, Democratically-elected prime minister of Iran in 1953. (He was overthrown because he had nationalized Iran’s oil, which had previously been controlled by BP and other Western oil companies). As part of that action, the CIAadmits that it hired Iranians to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its prime minister.

If the U.S. hadn’t overthrown the moderate Iranian government, the fundamentalist Mullahs would havenever taken over. Iran has been known for thousands of years for tolerating Christians and other religious minorities.

Hawks in the U.S. government been pushing for another round of regime change in Iran for decades.

Libya

Not only did the U.S. engage in direct military intervention against Gadafi, but also – as confirmed by a group of CIA officers – armed Al Qaeda so that they would help topple Gaddafi.

Emails from Hillary Clinton’s email server hint that regime change in Libya was about oil.

Turkey

The CIA has acknowledged that it was behind the 1980 coup in Turkey.

US war crimes then and now.

George H. W. Bush (1991). A “statesman” and “American hero”? What a lie!

George W. Bush declares war on Afghanistan (2001)

George W. Bush and Tony Blair wage war on Iraq (2003),

Barack Obama’s fake “counterterrorism” war against the people of Libya, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, (2011-2017),

Trump’s war against Iraq and Syria (2017-

The list is long…

**

When George H.W. Bush was president he ordered the massacre of Iraqi soldiers after the ceasefire in 1991, and after he had promised them safe passage out of Kuwait. This article, which went viral after the war, exposed Bush as a mass murderer and war criminal, directly involved in the “Highway of Death.” He is a “hero” only to Big Oil and the Wall Street financial empire. This account was assembled by the author and presented by her at a tribunal examining U.S. war crimes. It is still cited around the world on anniversaries of this war.

I want to give testimony on what are called the “highways of death.” These are the two Kuwaiti roadways, littered with remains of 2,000 mangled Iraqi military vehicles, and the charred and dismembered bodies of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers, who were withdrawing from Kuwait on February 26th and 27th 1991 in compliance with UN resolutions.

U.S. planes trapped the long convoys by disabling vehicles in the front, and at the rear, and then pounded the resulting traffic jams for hours. “It was like shooting fish in a barrel,” said one U.S. pilot. The horror is still there to see.

On the inland highway to Basra is mile after mile of burned, smashed, shattered vehicles of every description – tanks, armored cars, trucks, autos, fire trucks, according to the March 18, 1991, Time magazine. On the sixty miles of coastal highway, Iraqi military units sit in gruesome repose, scorched skeletons of vehicles and men alike, black and awful under the sun, says the Los Angeles Times of March 11, 1991. While 450 people survived the inland road bombing to surrender, this was not the case with the 60 miles of the coastal road. There for 60 miles every vehicle was strafed or bombed, every windshield is shattered, every tank is burned, every truck is riddled with shell fragments. No survivors are known or likely. The cabs of trucks were bombed so much that they were pushed into the ground, and it’s impossible to see if they contain drivers or not. Windshields were melted away, and huge tanks were reduced to shrapnel.

“Even in Vietnam I didn’t see anything like this. It’s pathetic,” said Major Bob Nugent, an Army intelligence officer. This one-sided carnage, this racist mass murder of Arab people, occurred while White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater promised that the U.S. and its coalition partners would not attack Iraqi forces leaving Kuwait. This is surely one of the most heinous war crimes in contemporary history.

The Iraqi troops were not being driven out of Kuwait by U.S. troops as the Bush administration maintains. They were not retreating in order to regroup and fight again. In fact, they were withdrawing, they were going home, responding to orders issued by Baghdad, announcing that it was complying with Resolution 660 and leaving Kuwait. At 5:35 p.m. (Eastern standard Time) Baghdad radio announced that Iraq’s Foreign Minister had accepted the Soviet cease-fire proposal and had issued the order for all Iraqi troops to withdraw to positions held before August 2, 1990 in compliance with UN Resolution 660. President Bush responded immediately from the White House saying (through spokesman Marlin Fitzwater) that “there was no evidence to suggest the Iraqi army is withdrawing. In fact, Iraqi units are continuing to fight. . . We continue to prosecute the war.” On the next day, February 26, 1991, Saddam Hussein announced on Baghdad radio that Iraqi troops had, indeed, begun to withdraw from Kuwait and that the withdrawal would be complete that day. Again, Bush reacted, calling Hussein’s announcement “an outrage” and “a cruel hoax.”

Eyewitness Kuwaitis attest that the withdrawal began the afternoon of February 26, 1991 and Baghdad radio announced at 2:00 AM (local time) that morning that the government had ordered all troops to withdraw.

The massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Common Article III, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who are out of combat. The point of contention involves the Bush administration’s claim that the Iraqi troops were retreating to regroup and fight again. Such a claim is the only way that the massacre which occurred could be considered legal under international law. But in fact the claim is false and obviously so. The troops were withdrawing and removing themselves from combat under direct orders from Baghdad that the war was over and that Iraq had quit and would fully comply with UN resolutions. To attack the soldiers returning home under these circumstances is a war crime.

Iraq accepted UN Resolution 660 and offered to withdraw from Kuwait through Soviet mediation on February 21, 1991. A statement made by George Bush on February 27, 1991, that no quarter would be given to remaining Iraqi soldiers violates even the U.S. Field Manual of 1956. The 1907 Hague Convention governing land warfare also makes it illegal to declare that no quarter will be given to withdrawing soldiers. On February 26,199 I, the following dispatch was filed from the deck of the U.S.S. Ranger, under the by-line of Randall Richard of the Providence Journal:

“Air strikes against Iraqi troops retreating from Kuwait were being launched so feverishly from this carrier today that pilots said they took whatever bombs happened to be closest to the flight deck. The crews, working to the strains of the Lone Ranger theme, often passed up the projectile of choice . . . because it took too long to load.”

New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd wrote,

“With the Iraqi leader facing military defeat, Mr. Bush decided that he would rather gamble on a violent and potentially unpopular ground war than risk the alternative: an imperfect settlement hammered out by the Soviets and Iraqis that world opinion might accept as tolerable.”

In short, rather than accept the offer of Iraq to surrender and leave the field of battle, Bush and the U.S. military strategists decided simply to kill as many Iraqis as they possibly could while the chance lasted. A Newsweek article on Norman Schwarzkopt, titled “A Soldier of Conscience” (March 11,1991), remarked that before the ground war the general was only worried about “How long the world would stand by and watch the United States pound the living hell out of Iraq without saying, ‘Wait a minute – enough is enough.’ He [Schwarzkopf] itched to send ground troops to finish the job.” The pretext for massive extermination of Iraqi soldiers was the desire of the U.S. to destroy Iraqi equipment. But in reality the plan was to prevent Iraqi soldiers from retreating at all. Powell remarked even before the start of the war that Iraqi soldiers knew that they had been sent to Kuwait to die. Rick Atkinson of the Washington Post reasoned that “the noose has been tightened” around Iraqi forces so effectively that “escape is impossible” (February 27, 1991). What all of this amounts to is not a war but a massacre.

There are also indications that some of those bombed during the withdrawal were Palestinians and Iraqi civilians. According to Time magazine of March 18, 1991, not just military vehicles, but cars, buses and trucks were also hit. In many cases, cars were loaded with Palestinian families and all their possessions. U.S. press accounts tried to make the discovery of burned and bombed household goods appear as if Iraqi troops were even at this late moment looting Kuwait. Attacks on civilians are specifically prohibited by the Geneva Accords and the 1977 Conventions.

How did it really happen? On February 26, 1991 Iraq had announced it was complying with the Soviet proposal, and its troops would withdraw from Kuwait. According to Kuwaiti eyewitnesses, quoted in the March 11, 1991 Washington Post, the withdrawal began on the two highways, and was in full swing by evening. Near midnight, the first U.S. bombing started. Hundreds of Iraqis jumped from their cars and their trucks, looking for shelter. U.S. pilots took whatever bombs happened to be close to the flight deck, from cluster bombs to 500 pound bombs. Can you imagine that on a car or truck? U.S. forces continued to drop bombs on the convoys until all humans were killed. So many jets swarmed over the inland road that it created an aerial traffic jam, and combat air controllers feared midair collisions.

The victims were not offering resistance. They weren’t being driven back in fierce battle, or trying to regroup to join another battle. They were just sitting ducks, according to Commander Frank Swiggert, the Ranger Bomb Squadron leader. According to an article in the March 11, 1991 Washington Post, headlined “U.S. Scrambles to Shape View of Highway of Death,” the U.S. government then conspired and in fact did all it could to hide this war crime from the people of this country and the world. What the U.S. government did became the focus of the public relations campaign managed by the U.S. Central Command in Riyad, according to that same issue of the Washington Post. The typical line has been that the convoys were engaged in “classic tank battles,” as if to suggest that Iraqi troops tried to fight back or even had a chance of fighting back. The truth is that it was simply a one-sided massacre of tens of thousands of people who had no ability to fight back or defend themselves.

The Washington Post says that senior officers with the U.S. Central Command in Riyad became worried that what they saw was a growing public perception that Iraqi forces were leaving Kuwait voluntarily, and that the U.S. pilots were bombing them mercilessly, which was the truth. So the U.S. government, says the Post, played down the evidence that Iraqi troops were actually leaving Kuwait.

U.S. field commanders gave the media a carefully drawn and inaccurate picture of the fast-changing events. The idea was to portray Iraq’s claimed withdrawal as a fighting retreat made necessary by heavy allied military pressure. Remember when Bush came to the Rose Garden and said that he would not accept Saddam Hussein’s withdrawal? That was part of it, too, and Bush was involved in this cover up. Bush’s statement was followed quickly by a televised military briefing from Saudi Arabia to explain that Iraqi forces were not withdrawing but were being pushed from the battlefield. In fact, tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers around Kuwait had begun to pull away more than thirty-six hours before allied forces reached the capital, Kuwait City. They did not move under any immediate pressure from allied tanks and infantry, which were still miles from Kuwait City.

This deliberate campaign of disinformation regarding this military action and the war crime that it really was, this manipulation of press briefings to deceive the public and keep the massacre from the world is also a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the right of the people to know.

*

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

This article was originally published on Liberation News.

Joyce Chediac presented her report  at the New York Commission hearing of the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal, May 11, 1991. It is reprinted from War Crimes: A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq, Maisonneuve Press, 1992.

Featured image: A small part of the highway of death. Photo: rarehistoricalphotos.com

The nuclear deal dispute resolution mechanism and sanctions snapback provision can take effect if one JCPOA signatory claims another failed to meet its obligations under the deal — depending on the specific complaint, along with following required procedures. They’re complicated.

The so-called Working Group on the Implementation of Sanctions Lifting, coordinated by the EU’s high representative, has 30 days to resolve the issue in question.

If impasse follows, a Joint Commission comprised of eight representatives from the P5+1 countries, the EU and Iran is convened to try resolving what’s disputed.

If resolution fails, the foreign ministerial level of the parties would get involved to try breaking the impasse.

Its members, in turn, could refer the matter to a three-member Advisory Board, including an independent representative from a non-signatory nation.

If impasse persists, the issue would go back to the Joint Commission.

If it remains unresolved after the above steps, the party raising it may cease observing its JCPOA commitments, and/or refer the matter to the Security Council for resolution.

If things go this far, the SC has 30 days to resolve impasse among the P5+1 countries.

If agreement still isn’t reached, previously removed SC sanctions would automatically be reimposed, nations with veto power not permitted to use it for this issue.

If the above process sounds confusing, it surely is.

If impasse persists throughout the above process, Iran may formally withdraw from the JCPOA before SC sanctions are reimposed. Either way, things appear headed in this direction.

Further complicating things are parts of the JCPOA that are subject to interpretation.

Here’s where things stand now. On Tuesday, Britain, France and Germany (the E3) triggered the JCPOA dispute resolution mechanism, the first step toward reimposing SC sanctions, a joint statement saying:

“(W)e (are) left with no choice (sic), given Iran’s actions, but to register today our concerns that Iran is not meeting its commitments under the JCPoA (sic) and to refer this matter to the Joint Commission under the Dispute Resolution Mechanism…”

“We do this in good faith (sic) with the overarching objective of preserving the JCPoA and in the sincere hope of finding a way forward to resolve the impasse through constructive diplomatic dialogue (sic).”

The full statement contained disinformation and Big Lies. The Trump regime unlawfully withdrew from the JCPOA in May 2018.

In response, Britain, France, Germany, and the EU breached their mandated obligations under the deal, falsely claiming otherwise.

Under JCPOA Articles 26 and 36, Iran may cease observing its voluntary commitments.

It may increase uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes beyond levels agreed on if other signatories fail to fulfill their obligations under the agreement.

That’s precisely what happened by Trump’s illegal withdrawal, along with breach of the agreement by Britain, France, Germany and the EU.

Iran remains in full compliance with its obligations as stipulated by JCPOA provisions.

The US is a lost cause. So are European signatories for siding with the Trump regime, breaching their mandated commitments while wrongfully blaming Iran for their own unlawful actions.

Yet their joint statement falsely said they “fully upheld (their) JCPOA commitments (sic).”

They did not! Further disinformation followed, saying:

“(W)e have worked tirelessly to support legitimate trade with Iran (sic).”

Polar opposite is true!

“The E3 have worked hard to address Iran’s concerns (sic).” They did not by breaching their obligations since May 2018, doing nothing constructive to change things.

“…Iran has continued to break key restrictions set out in the JCPoA (sic).” Iran is in full compliance with its provisions.

“Iran’s actions are inconsistent with the provisions of the nuclear agreement (sic)” — a willfully false statement.

“We do not accept the argument that Iran is entitled to reduce compliance with the JCPoA.”

As E3 nations know, Iran acted legally under Articles 26 and 36, the US and Europe illegally.

On July 20, 2015, Security Council members unanimously adopted Res. 2231, making the JCPOA binding international law

In the US, it’s also binding constitutional law under its Supremacy Clause (Article VI, clause 2).

Iran, Russia and China remain in compliance with their JCPOA obligations. The US, E3, and EU breached theirs.

What took years of negotiations to conclude is close to officially unravelling because European signatories side with hostile US policies toward Iran.

If unlawful US sanctions are lifted and Europe comes into compliance with its mandated obligations, Iran will again adhere to its voluntary commitments.

As things stand now, Europe’s breach effectively killed the deal.

Iran has no legal obligation to voluntarily adhere to commitments that Western signatories violated, showing no intention of reversing policy.

Iranian officials stressed that if European signatories remain in noncompliance, the landmark JCPOA will no longer exist.

In response to the E3’s action on Tuesday, triggering the dispute resolution mechanism, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said the following:

“(A)fter a year, the European side was not successful in fulfilling its obligations and this made Iran to reduce its JCPOA commitments in five interval steps taken under sections 26 and 36 of the nuclear deal,” adding:

“The Islamic Republic…is ready to preserve the nuclear dear and will support the related efforts done by other partners.”

“But Iran will give appropriate and serious response to any destructive measures” or other hostile US or E3 actions.

The Trump regime’s assassination of General Soleimani and failure of EU countries to fulfill their JCPOA obligations heightened regional tensions, increasing the chance for greater confrontation.

A Final Comment

A statement by Russia’s Foreign Ministry said the following:

“We reaffirm the stand that it is unacceptable to activate the mechanism under paragraph 36 of the JCPOA,” adding:

“We believe that the EU trio’s actions are inadmissible, as they contravene the goals and the sense of the JCPOA.”

Iran’s UN envoy Majid Takht-Ravanchi said his nation’s observance of JCPOA provisions was foiled by getting “almost nothing in return” from its Western signatories.

On Monday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif tweeted:

“For 20 months, the E3-following UK appeasement policy-has bowed to US diktat.”

“That hasn’t gotten it anywhere-and it never will.”

“E3 can save JCPOA but not by appeasing the bully & pressuring the complying party”

“Rather it should muster the courage to fulfill its own obligations.”

Nothing indicates what Europe hasn’t fulfilled since May 2018 is about to change.

Whatever happens ahead, the Islamic Republic of Iran no doubt will defend its sovereign rights while complying with its international law obligations — how it operated throughout the past 40 years.

*

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.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Russian President Vladimir Putin made a joint statement last week regarding the civil war raging in Libya to “declare a sustainable ceasefire, supported by the necessary measures to be taken for stabilizing the situation on the ground and normalizing daily life in Tripoli and other cities.” However, as I said in last week’s article, Russia has little influence over the Libyan National Army (LNA) and there is no incentive for General Khalifa Haftar to accept any terms made in any proposed ceasefire agreement.  

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had to admit to reporters that talks last night in Moscow “aimed at reaching an agreement on an unconditional and open ceasefire in Libya failed to make significant progress Monday, despite overall progress on the issue.”

The ceasefire talks were held separately as neither Haftar or Fayez al-Sarraj, the ethnic Turk leader of the Turkish-backed Muslim Brotherhood and internationally recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) based in Tripoli, wanted to be at the same table. The Russian delegation met with Haftar and the Turkish delegation held a similar meeting with Sarraj. Haftar declined to discuss any possible withdrawal of his troops from the outskirts of Tripoli and asked for more time to consider the parameters of the ceasefire proposal. Haftar made it clear that his army was at an advantage and did not have to make any concessions, but responded positively to the ceasefire that was in place at midnight on Sunday, despite isolated incidents of fire being exchanged. He even criticized Turkey for its involvement in the country and for the support to the GNA, which defends Tripoli with jihadists who also fought in Syria.

Despite initial positive signs at last night’s meeting held in Moscow for a ceasefire between the GNA, the LNA, it quickly became explosive. The hope of signing a ceasefire utterly failed with Haftar leaving Russia and military operations in Tripoli intensifying. This occurred because of the insistent unrealistic demands by the GNA, such as calling for Haftar’s forces to return to positions they held all the way back in April 2019 when the operation to liberate Tripoli began. This of course was rejected by the LNA since they would lose major territorial gains made.

“The document presented in front of me was a document of shame and betrayal, something the Government of National Accord were happy to sign, but our real Libyan hands never could,” said Haftar when explaining why he did not sign the ceasefire.

It is a fact that the big players on the Libyan issue are Russia, despite having little influence over the LNA and Turkey. The U.S. is watching discreetly and remotely while the Europeans are acting powerless to react vigorously and to get enough resolutions. Despite the failure of the ceasefire agreement, Russia has proven once again to be a country that continually works towards peace initiatives, just as it consistently does in Syria through a variety of forums, such as the Astana Peace Process with Turkey and Iran. Russia would have known the ceasefire would not be signed; however, it provided an opportunity to strengthen relations with Turkey as Moscow proves it is willing to actively acknowledge and attempt to deal on issues of importance with Ankara.

It appears that Russia is becoming the power to pacify Turkey after it creates crises. Although Russia is working closely with Turkey to bring peace to Syria and Libya, it cannot be forgotten that Turkey was one of the main players in sowing instability in both Syria and Libya. The militancy against the legitimate government of Syria would not have been possible without Turkish funding, arming and equipment of jihadists, as well as being a base for anti-government forces to mobilize and train. In Libya, the GNA whose stint in power has gone well beyond its two-year mandate, would not have survived for as long as it has without Turkish assistance. While Turkey manufactures crises across the region, it is increasingly appearing that Russia is the one to clean up, or attempting to clean up the chaos created.

Although Moscow, at no fault of its own, failed to convince the LNA to sign a ceasefire agreement, its attempts demonstrate the importance Russia is placing in its relations with Turkey. As Turkey occupies strategic space in Eurasia and controls the Bosporus Straits, strong relations with Ankara is critical for Moscow. For the time being, such relations are crucial for finding peaceful solutions, but Moscow’s patience will surely be limited if Turkey continues to create crises.

*

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.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

“And after what my source had sent me on Wednesday morning…I was pretty confident that they would have to back off because the reasons were overwhelming in terms of Iranian military power… In fact there was an indirect, a direct-indirect message that if Iranian soil was hit the retortion would it be against Haifa in Israel, and Dubai in The Emirates.” – Pepe Escobar (from this week’s interview)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The tensions between Iran and the Trump administration on display since before U.S. President’s inauguration are now strained to near the breaking point in the first two weeks of January.

A targeted drone strike at Baghdad Airport late on the evening of January 2nd claimed the lives of Iraqi politician and military commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and the Iranian Major-General Qasem Soleimani.

Soleimani served in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and commanded its Quds force. The U.S. Department of Defense claimed that Soleimani was “actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more….This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”

For Iranians, Soleimani was broadly seen as a national hero. A 2018 University of Maryland survey revealed that Soleimani had a popularity rating among Iranians of 82 percent, well ahead of President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

Millions took to the streets in cities across the Islamic Republic to mourn the death of Soleimani. Iranian Supreme leader Ali Khamenei  had gone on State television within 24 hours of the assassination vowing  “severe revenge” for Soleimani’s death.

The Iraqi parliament has voted on the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Meanwhile, Iran carried out missile attacks against two bases in Iraq housing U.S. servicemen, with reportedly no casualties.

Later that day, President Trump in a speech to the nation and the world condemned the Islamic Republic’s supposed quest for nuclear weapons, its alleged support of terrorism, and the ‘bad’ nuclear deal which Trump claims strengthened the regional power’s hand. The speech also called for more sanctions against the country, and more NATO involvement, though fell short of a formal declaration of war.

The year 2020 began with news of President Trump’s bold military adventure which garnered the attention of the people around the world. 82 Iranians, 63 Canadians, 11 Ukrainians, 10 Swedish, 4 Afghans, 3 Britons, and 3 Germans lost their lives innocently January 8^th in the deadly downing of a Ukrainian airliner over Tehran.

They were professionals, university students, newlyweds, families with their children who became the victims of “human error”. Their passenger jet was accidentally shot down by the anti-aircraft missiles of the Iran’s Air Defense Unit over Tehran just a few tense hours after Iran launched missiles attacks against American Airbases in Iraq.

After almost 3 days of denial and unjustified hesitation, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani finally offered his apologies and condolences on Twitter and wrote:

“The Islamic Republic of Iran deeply regrets this disastrous mistake” and promised that “Investigations continue to identify & prosecute this great tragedy & unforgivable mistake.”

However, no apologies or punishments can resolve the anguish of the families who lost their loved ones. Subsequently and understandably, sizeable demonstrations in Tehran and other cities in Iran took place which displayed people’s dissatisfaction of the government’’ misconduct.

A vigil in Toronto, Canada

These demonstrations without conscious leadership (which can win the hearts and minds of the majority in Iran) can easily be dispersed either by the security forces (like in any other capitalist countries these days) or gradually be demoralized like the past demonstrations.

Iran’s classical revolution in 1979 (in which all layers in society participated and supported historical change) toppled the monarchy and Pahlavi Dynasty once and for all. Revolution opened the gate of freedom in hope for a new form of governance, a Democratic Republic. The nation’s aspiration to enjoy democratic rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association was suppressed by the new ruling religious cast which was unable to end to the economic system that puts profit over people but at the same time for its own survival had to stand against the imperialist powers. After 4 decades, the Iranian people are still struggling to gain their democratic rights in order to create a better future for all working families in Iran. This fact is reflected in the statement issued on January 12^th by the students demonstrating in Amirkabir University in Iran. The statement (translated from Farsi by Farhang Jahanpour) in part reads:

“The events of the past two months have been a clear testimony to the complete incompetence of the regime ruling over Iran, a regime whose only answer to every crisis is to resort to force. It is our duty today to direct all our efforts at the totality of the system of suppression, whether in the form of an oppressive government or an imperialist power. During the past few years, America’s presence in the Middle East has produced nothing but increasing insecurity and chaos. Our approach towards that aggressive power is quite clear. However, it is also clear to us that America’s adventurism in the region should not be used as an excuse for domestic suppression. As today everybody is repeating the mantra of “national security”, we should ask which social groups, classes and strata they have in mind. We are not afraid of saying loud and clear that the security of the poor, deprived and marginalized has been undermined for many years. The economic policies of the past 30 years have resulted in creating a whole host of neglected groups, alongside a group of privileged, rich and corrupt individuals.”

Meantime, some participants in these demonstrations intentionally or unconsciously would imagine creating a scenario that has been plotted by the Trump administration in Venezuela or recently in Bolivia. Iranian people who wish to end all sanctions and all military conflicts should reach out to the peaceful American people who think the same way and indeed are dissatisfied with their own government also.

Demonstration in front of Amirkabir University of Technology in Tehran, Iran

The Trump administration’s justification to assassinate an Iranian General was said to be because it had the knowledge of an “imminent” threat and to “prevent further casualties”! This clear lie has been already exposed by the politicians in Washington. At the same time, the Iranian government in response to the President Trump’s lies, claims that their military decision in targeting the American airbases in Iraq is solely to “de-escalate” the tension and not a call for an all-out war! This is an illogical claim. People around the world are following the conflict between the U.S. and Iran with much anxiety. It must be realized that so-called “surgical” drone assassinations or “accurate” missile attacks have deadly consequences that are unavoidable and cannot be prevented or even anticipated in advance. The problem lies in the nature of war. No one believes that drone and missile attacks will be the last of the military operations and the tragedy of the Ukrainian plane crash is the last accidental disaster.

On the contrary, after the recent events, the militarists of every government are vigorously pushing their war agenda forward. In the U.S., the phrase “Military Options” has been replaced by the reality of Military Operations. According to Aljazeera on the same day that General Soleimani was assassinated, the U.S. conducted a separate military operation in Yemen targeting Abdul Reza Shahlai, a high-ranking commander in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), but the mission was not successful. Also on January 8^th 2020, more than 60 civilians were killed or wounded in a U.S. drone attack targeting Mullah Nangyalay, a top Taliban splinter-group commander in Herat Province. Considering that the Iraqi parliament has already approved a resolution to expel all foreign forces from Iraq, there is no doubt that U.S. aggressive military operations in the region will be increased.

Both the phony and toothless antiwar resolution by Democrats and the elusive message of ready to “embrace peace” by the U.S. fascistic minded President should not distract and pacify the peace activists. The true peace activists rely on PEOPLE TO PEOPLE DIPLOMACY rather than be used as cheap pawns in the impeachment saga or phony debates about who really has the constitutional power to declare war on sovereign nations! Peace activists will not benefit from the current insoluble 1% family feud.

Professor Ussama Makdisi’s informative article in the Houston Chronicle (Jan. 11, 2020) is a good reminder to all peace activists that how we have reached this point of chaos in the Middle East after decades by the same type of “leaders” that now are promising us a peaceful and prosperous Iraq, Iran and beyond. He wrote: “Drone killings, after all, were embraced by the Barack Obama administration. Iraq was invaded by the George W. Bush administration — and many of the falsehoods that today are justifying violence against Iran are recycled from the neoconservatives of 2003. The Clinton administration oversaw a devastating sanctions regime against Iraq — with then US ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright telling “60 Minutes” in 1996 that the death of an estimated half a million Iraqi children as a result of sanctions was “worth it” to ensure U.S. goals in the region. Even today’s affable Jimmy Carter declared in 1980, for example, that the U.S. reserved the right to use military force to repel any threat to U.S. hegemony over the Gulf region.”

American Airbase in Iraq

Fear and fright, death and destruction are the components of war. Those who have experienced the sound, smell and horror of war beside their family and shivering children, will never justify any military option.

They will tell the truth. A short video report from Al-Asad Airbase by the CNN reporter Arwa Damon, which was aired 3 days after the missiles strikes by Iran, simply shows even in the heart of the most powerful and dreadful army, the human factor is still alive and critical.

Lt. Col. Staci Colemsan standing next to a cradle and remains of the damaged living quarters, in response to the question “what was that night like?” said: “It is very hard to describe it. I will tell you, it was extremely scary … you could feel the shock waves … even inside the bunker…”.

One can imagine how defenseless, ordinary people who are the victims of constant U.S. drone attacks must feel. FEAR is the universal emotion of people who witness the wickedness of war. The effect of war for the American soldiers in the heavy bunkers in Iraq or theater of operation elsewhere, are as strong as the frightened children in a modest elementary school in Gaza under Israeli missiles attacks or horrified patients and medical staff in a poor structured public hospital in Yemen under Saudi bombardments.

The peaceful nature of humans seeks for progress, innovation and creation. As mothers give birth and nurture their children around the world; nations must create peace and protect it in unity from the warlords and their evil nuclear arsenals. People to People Diplomacy, independent from the wealthy elite’s politics is the only practical option against endless wars.

No US war against Iran!

US out of the Middle East now!

*

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

Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

On Tuesday Boris Johnson submitted a letter to Nicola Sturgeon, rejecting outright her request for powers to be transferred to the Scottish parliament to call a second referendum on independence. It read:

“The UK government will continue to uphold the democratic decision of the Scottish people and the promise you made to them. For that reason, I cannot agree to any request for a transfer of power which would lead to future independence referendums.”

The promise to which Johnson is referring, of course, is that of Nicola Sturgeon back in 2014 when she commented that the independence referendum was a once in a generation vote. What the Prime Minister fails to recognise, however, is that a comment of that nature is not legally binding, any more than Boris Johnson’s comments were that Brexit would take place by October 31st last year ‘come what may’. Moreover, the circumstances in which that vote took place were completely different. At that point there was no Brexit on the horizon, let alone a referendum on the subject. And ironically, one of the main points made by the ‘No’ campaign, was that Scotland’s future in the EU could be jeopardised if it didn’t vote to remain part of the United Kingdom.

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has, for her part, responded to the letter by stating the Prime Minister’s position was ‘unsustainable and self-defeating’ and that it would only boost support for independence. And although indicating that the SNP would put forward its plans for ‘next steps’ following Johnson’s letter, she did not give any detail as to what these might consist of. What is clear however, is that trying to persuade Westminster of the need for another referendum is a fruitless task. Naturally, Sturgeon is keen to pursue independence peacefully (unlike the situation in Catalonia) and most importantly, legally, but we cannot forget the circumstances in which the Union was first formed – Scotland was taken by force, and ever since has not ruled side by side with England, but been ruled over.  London will do all it can to prevent Scottish independence.

Indeed, as I write there is a bill currently with the House of Lords which is designed to make a second independence referendum unconstitutional unless a series of unreasonable conditions are met. The bill titled ‘Referendums Criteria bill’ would stipulate that the following would apply to any future referendum:

1) A vote in the House of Lords and House of Commons

2) The number of MPs or Lords who vote in favour of a referendum MUST equal two thirds or more in BOTH HOUSES.

3) If a referendum takes place, 55% of the registered electorate must vote in it for it to be valid.

4) 60% must vote for independence for it to be valid.

In order to pursue independence therefore, Scotland has to think outside of the box (Particularly as all it is requesting initially, is another referendum, not outright independence). Instead of operating within the boundaries of UK law, it should be looking instead to international law, and following the example of other break-away republics, like Kosovo for example. When Kosovo seceded from Serbia in 2008 it was done without Belgrade’s agreement. And although the US and UK argued at the time that its secession did not provide a legal precedent due to the unique circumstances of ethnic conflict which Kosovo found itself in, it has triggered a debate ever since about whether other states can follow Serbia’s example. It has been said by Professor Christopher Greenwood, former judge at the International Court of Justice that in fact:

“Everything that States do constitutes a precedent for the future, because the nature of customary international law is that it is derived from State practice and the assertion by States of a legal right or their acknowledgement of a legal obligation”.

And herein lies the point.

The Scottish case differs of course from the Kosovan, but each case of secession would, by default, have its own specific circumstances. Just as the Kosovo case was unique, so is the Scottish.  Therefore a new approach is required. Scotland has its own history as an independent country for hundreds of years before the Union, for example. A new way of thinking needs to be applied to carving out Scotland’s future. It will be a waste of time to try to establish independence within the parameters of domestic UK law. It’s time to understand that if the rules don’t fit, they ought to be rewritten.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Featured image is from Jane Barlow/PA Wire

Now, get this straight. I am not a ‘Democratic Socialist’ or a supporter of the Democratic Party. Yes, I just changed my political affiliation here in Florida so I can vote for Sanders in the upcoming Florida primary. My ‘short term’ goal is to see this retro fascist infection that has surged with the election of Mr. Trump stopped of its momentum.

What those ‘Trump thumpers’  are allowing to happen is not only a return to the glorious days of outright white supremacist thinking, but a tragic renaissance of a Nazi mindset. Some of the pus from this wound would be wiped clean by the Democrats defeating Trump and his allies. Not entirely, but at least for the time being. That is real.

We as a nation, as a culture, have regressed so far that the meat of the Two Party/One Party system has been, shall we say, tenderized by this Military Industrial Empire. Folks, wake up and realize that most of us are simply serfs working on the feudal lands of the barons of empire…. for longer than one can imagine. The overwhelming majority of the two political parties work NOT for the 99+ % of us, rather for the less than even 1/2 % of us AKA The Super Rich. As a socialist I can say categorically that Bernie Sanders is not socialist enough. Yet, to the masses the movers and shakers of the Democratic Party and the hacks in this embedded-in-empire media have mesmerized them into thinking Sanders is one step from being a card carrying Commie! You watch the latest (so called) debate and see how the hack media moderators squeezed Sanders into a  corner usually reserved for rats. They thought this (so called) new controversy of whether Sanders told his friend Elizabeth Warren that a woman cannot win the presidency was urgent and mind shattering. He denied having said it, but the stain will remain.

When these hacks actually got to discussing Sanders’ Medicare for All/ Single Payer plan, they once again wished to corner him on ‘How can we afford it?’ For it seems the umpteenth time Sanders explained how his plan would actually cost not only American working families LESS, mountains less in costs, but that, and this is key, it would save billions from what it now costs to administer health care. One surmises that most, if not all of those on the stage, candidates and moderators, do not have to worry about THEIR healthcare costs. Either the taxpayer is picking up the tab, or the owners of the  corporate media pay for their media hacks’ coverage, or the hacks make enough to not make this a crucial issue for them. Perhaps the young lady from the Des Moines Register, the one who was so intent on grilling Sanders on this, might have to worry about her health care insurance costs… who knows? Regardless of this, the others on the stage, even Warren, still dance to the empire’s tune too much to allow real and viable changes in this current system. For those reading this, think about how terrible this current health care mess is. Each year the predatory insurance giants raise prices while restricting coverage. The only thing one can say in defense of what we now have in place is that ‘Even a broken clock is correct twice a day’.

If one can recall from the Wiki Leaks release of the emails from the Hillary Clinton campaign in the 2016 election, Sanders was, shall we say, squeezed out by those in his own party! Many, including this writer, felt that he had a better chance to defeat Trump then. Why? Because what Sanders was focusing on was 180 degrees from what Trump was representing. Plus, Trump actually used some of Sanders’ arguments about this empire and the need to pull it back in his rhetoric. Of course, Trump has shown that he never meant it… Sanders always has. Sanders is no ‘Knight in shining armor’, but he is consistent about leveling the playing field when it comes to we working stiffs. Perhaps NOT as far as this writer would like to go… but The one eyed man is a better leader when the rest of us are blind. Sadly, too many of our friends and neighbors are blind to this Military Industrial Empire.

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image is from The Unz Review

Washington’s criminal class is bipartisan.

Both right wings of the US war party pose an unparalleled threat to world peace, stability, security, and humanity’s survival.

The rhetoric of each wing differs, the agenda the same, notably since the neoliberal 90s, especially post-9/11.

Not a dime’s worth of difference separates each wing on war and peace, corporate favoritism, neoliberal harshness, and police state crackdowns on nonbelievers.

Democracy in America is for the privileged few alone, the real thing serving everyone equitably nonexistent from inception.

US exceptionalism, the indispensable state, and moral superiority don’t exist, never did.

Permanent war on humanity is undeclared official US policy. Deterrence is code language for waging it, wanting pro-Western puppet rule replacing sovereign independent governments everywhere.

That’s what the scourge of imperialism is all about, promoted by Big Lies and deception, supported by establishment media, most Americans none the wiser about the threat to their lives, welfare, and futures.

On Monday at the right wing Hoover Institute, Pompeo said Trump and his regime’s national security team prioritize “deterrence” — code language for endless hot wars and by other means on humanity, notably against nations on the US target list for regime change, especially Russia, China and Iran.

Separately, US war secretary Esper falsely claimed the US has legal authority to attack Iran under the Constitution’s Article 2. No such authority exists.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, the so-called War Powers Clause, vests in Congress alone the power to declare war, stating:

“The Congress shall have power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water…To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years…”

The Constitution affords the president no power to wage war without congressional approval.

Since establishment of the UN Charter, warmaking by one nation on others is unlawful without Security Council authorization, permitted only in self-defense, never preemptively.

Under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, international laws to which the US is a signatory are automatically constitutional law.

No presidential directive in any form or congressional legislation may legally circumvent international law.

The Security Council has exclusive authority on issues of war and peace.

On Monday, Esper falsely claimed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Resolution (AUMF – Sept. 2001) permits the US to attack its enemies — invented not real, he failed to explain.

So-called Iranian “proxies” he cited are self-defense forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the region, not aggressors like the US and its “proxies.”

Throughout the post-WW II era, especially post-9/11, the US attacked one country after another preemptively, never in self-defense, what naked aggression is all about, the highest of high crimes.

No nations or elements therein today threaten US national security. Claims otherwise reflect willful deception, a way to justify what’s unjustifiable, to defend the indefensible.

Esper falsely claimed Iranian General Soleimani was killed because he had “the blood of hundreds of American soldiers and Marines on his hands (sic).”

Pompeo called his assassination an act of “deterrence (sic),” earlier saying he posed an “imminent threat (sic),” citing other reasons, then changing the narrative.

Soleimani may have been killed on January 3 because of his success in combatting the scourge of ISIS it appears the Trump regime intends resurrecting in Iraq as a pretext for continued occupation of the country.

Nations on the US target list for regime change wage peace, not war — notably Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Syria, its forces combatting the scourge of US supported terrorists. Pentagon troops illegally occupying its territory assure endless war.

The US and its imperial allies threaten humanity, waging hot war and by other means worldwide to control other nations, their resources and populations.

One day the US will go the way of all other empires in history, self-destroyed by its endless wars, arrogance, and unwillingness to change.

*

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.

War is inevitable. More innocent people will be murdered, maimed, raped or sold into slavery. War is indescribable, a nightmare, yet those who are currently in power, the establishment or what some like to call “the elite” are on Trump’s team leading the world into another war In the Middle East that can go nuclear.

Trump has not drained the swamp, in fact he has filled his administration with war hawks, bankers, Zionists and the Neoconservatives (Neocons) who are all inter-connected to various corporations and special interests. It was reported by NBC news that Trump had actually approved the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani several months ago

“President Donald Trump authorized the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani seven months ago if Iran’s increased aggression resulted in the death of an American, according to five current and former senior administration officials. The presidential directive in June came with the condition that Trump would have final signoff on any specific operation to kill Soleimani, officials said.”

Trump’s decision to assassinate Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, a popular figure among Muslims and Christians who fought against ISIS, Al-Nusra and other terrorist organizations in Syria and Iraq was the powder keg that has exploded in the Middle East and now there is no turning back. Real terrorists were actually celebrating the death of Soleimani.

RT news reported that

“the weekly Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) newspaper Al-Naba portrayed Soleimani’s death as an act of god in support of its cause, and Muslims in general, according to BBC Monitoring.”

What was interesting was that “an editorial in the jihadi paper was careful not to credit the US or even mention Soleimani by name.” My guess is that terrorists know the rules, never rat on your friends! However, it’s also noteworthy to consider that the strike could lead ISIS and the other terrorist organizations to regroup as “the paper also reported on the US and its allies suspending operations against IS as an opportunity for the group’s resurgence, according to BBC journalist Mina Al-Lami.” The world will once again see a new push into Syria by ISIS and other terrorist groups with US and Israeli support in an effort to remove Syrian President, Bashar Al-Assad. That is why Russian President Vladimir Putin went to Syria for talks with President Assad as reported by RT news:

The two leaders were briefed on the military situation in Syria, including the northwestern province of Idlib, occupied by militants linked to Al-Qaeda. Assad thanked Putin and Russia for their support in restoring peace in Syria. Russian troops have been assisting the Syrian army since September 2015 in battling various terrorist groups, including Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS)

All anti-US and anti-Israel movements from Lebanon to Iran and all the way to central Asia with Afghanistan and Pakistan are now united for one cause, and that is to end US presence in the Middle East by targeting all US bases, embassies and other installations.

I could just imagine what world leaders are thinking at this point, especially those who are in some form of conflict with Washington including Russia, China, Syria, Lebanon, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Argentina, the Palestinians, Pakistan, past and re-emerging former Latin American presidents Lula de Silva of Brazil and Evo Morales of Bolivia, leaders from political, social and Indigenous movements including those within the US and occupied territories must be saying to themselves: What will America do to us? Would they drone strike me if I don’t obey them?

The Trump regime has stepped-up its economic wars with sanctions that has caused mass suffering among populations in the Middle East with Iran and Syria as their targets and in Latin America with Venezuela and don’t forget that 59 year embargo on Cuba that Trump has kept going, so Trump is already a war president. Trump is a typical example of what you would call a “Chicken hawk” a term particularly used in the US which is defined by Wikipedia as “a person who strongly supports war or other military action yet who actively avoids or avoided military service when of age.” Newsweek magazine reported that “In all, Trump secured five deferments from the Vietnam War draft, four of which were because he was still studying at college. The fifth and final deferment was granted on medical grounds after a doctor signed Trump off as having bone spurs in his heels.” The article also claimed the following:

The daughters of the late podiatrist in question, Dr. Larry Braunstein, told The New York Times that their father did it as a favor to Fred Trump, the president’s father, who owned the building in which the doctor had an office. They said the suggestion from their father in his oft-told story was that Trump did not have a foot problem that should have disqualified him from the Vietnam troop drafts, and it was not clear if the podiatrist had ever examined him

I do not know if the claims made by Newsweek or The New York Times who have credibility issues are true or not, but if Dr. Larry Braunstein did do Trump’s father a favor, then it should be of no surprise because many wealthy people especially those in the East Coast of the United States did have the right connections to pull the strings to prevent their children from getting drafted into the Vietnam war.

However, Trump has committed young men and women who mostly come from poor families to the coming war effort against Iran. Not only will US forces be fighting another war for oil and other natural resources, they will be fighting for Israel. Trump decisions concerning Israel has made his close friend and ally, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu very happy because Israel needs Iran and Syria to become another Iraq. US troops will be used for the protection and expansion of Israel who will become a powerful player in the Middle East with nuclear weapons. One thing is certain, the Muslim world is not going to except that under any circumstances.

Source: author

Prepare Now, The War Has Begun

A report by the Financial Times on December 27th, 2019 ‘Russia, China and Iran Launch Gulf of Oman War Games’:

Russia, China and Iran launched their first joint naval exercises in the Gulf of Oman on Friday in a direct challenge to US influence in the Middle East. The move reflects growing co-operation between the US’s two main rivals and the Islamic republic, which is under sanctions imposed by Washington. 

“The most important achievement of these drills . . . is this message that the Islamic republic of Iran cannot be isolated,” vice-admiral Gholamreza Tahani, a deputy naval commander, said. “These exercises show that relations between Iran, Russia and China have reached a new high level while this trend will continue in the coming years” 

After Trump’s reckless strike against Soleimani, Russia and China quickly condemned the actions. It was reported by RT news that “Moscow considers the operation “an adventurous move that will lead to an escalation of tension throughout the region.” China’s response was similar. CNBC reported that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had said that “China opposes the use of force in international relations” and that “Military means will lead nowhere. Maximum pressure won’t work either. China urges the U.S. to seek resolutions through dialogue instead of abusing force.”China will be monitoring the crisis very closely “China will continue to uphold an objective and just position and play a constructive role in safeguarding peace and security in the Gulf region of the Middle East.“ Trump and the neoconservatives have now escalated tensions in the Middle East and in almost every region in the world with economic sanctions, failed coup attempts on Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro and the other coup that succeeded in Bolivia. The Trump regime also managed to instigate a trade war with China while funding protests in Hong Kong to create instability in Asia and the list goes on.

A new resistance has become a reality in the Middle East that will eventually force US troops out of the region. Expect more anti-war protests to grow substantially across the world as the US and its allies become more aggressive. The US economy is also collapsing, putting its own national security at risk with a $22 trillion in debt because let’s face it, when the US economy collapses, all of the debt bubbles will pop and all hell will break out across the US. However, Trump proudly tweeted that “The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and without hesitation!” There is a new neoconservative movement within the Trump White House driving foreign policy in the Middle East with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice-President Mike Pence leading the charge thus bringing back the memories of the Bush Neocons.  Let’s go back to an interesting Christian Science Monitor article from 2003 which can also be found on Global Research that describes what the Neocons believe in. The article ‘Neocon 101: What do Neoconservatives Believe?’ said the following:

What does a neoconservative dream world look like? Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a “benevolent global hegemon.” In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of “failed states” or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.  

Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not “appeased” or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary

In an important note, neoconservative ideology is not limited to the Republicans. Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept published a report in 2017 titled ‘With New D.C. Policy Group, Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons’ pointed out that “one of the most under-discussed yet consequential changes in the American political landscape is the reunion between the Democratic Party and the country’s most extreme and discredited neocons.” The report continued:

A newly formed and, by all appearances, well-funded national security advocacy group, devoted to more hawkish U.S. policies toward Russia and other adversaries, provides the most vivid evidence yet of this alliance. Calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, the group describes itself as “a bipartisan, transatlantic initiative” that “will develop comprehensive strategies to defend against, deter, and raise the costs on Russian and other state actors’ efforts to undermine democracy and democratic institutions,” and also “will work to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin’s ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the United States and Europe.” 

It is, in fact, the ultimate union of mainstream Democratic foreign policy officials and the world’s most militant, and militaristic, neocons. The group is led by two longtime Washington foreign policy hands, one from the establishment Democratic wing and the other a key figure among leading GOP neocons. 

The Democrat, Laura Rosenberger, served as a foreign policy adviser for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and chief of staff to two Obama national security officials. The Republican is Jamie Fly, who spent the last four years as counselor for foreign and national security affairs to one of the Senate’s most hawkish members, Marco Rubio; prior to that, he served in various capacities in the Bush Pentagon and National Security Council 

The neocons are back in the White House, reminiscent of the Bush regime, so another war is on the table. Be prepared, for the worst is yet to come.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Silent Crow News.

Timothy Alexander Guzman is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The planned signing of “phase one” of a more comprehensive US-Chinese trade deal is extremely bad news for India because its chief Asian competitor is committing to gradually open up its economy and therefore become even more attractive of an investment destination by comparison, which further reduces the odds that India will recover from its relative economic slump over the past year and ever have anything even remotely resembling a credible chance to eventually compete with China on this front.

Another slot of judicial history, another notch to be added to the woeful record of legal proceedings being undertaken against Julian Assange.  The ailing WikiLeaks founder was coping as well as he could, showing the resourcefulness of the desperate at his Monday hearing.  At the Westminster Magistrates Court, Assange faced a 12-minute process, an ordinary affair in which he was asked to confirm his name, an ongoing ludicrous state of affairs, and seek clarification about an aspect of the proceedings. 

Of immediate concern to the lawyers, specifically seasoned human rights advocate Gareth Peirce, was the issue that prison officers at Belmarsh have been obstructing and preventing the legal team from spending sufficient time with their client, despite the availability of empty rooms.  “We have pushed Belmarsh in every way – it is a breach of a defendant’s rights.”  Three substantial sets of documents and evidence required signing off by Assange before being submitted to the prosecution, a state of affairs distinctly impossible given the time constraints.   

A compounding problem was also cited by Peirce: the shift from moving the hearing a day forward resulted in a loss of time. “This slippage in the timetable is extremely worrying.”  Whether this shows indifference to protocol or malice on the part of prosecuting authorities is hard to say, but either way, justice is being given a good flaying.

The argument carried sufficient weight with District Judge Vanessa Baraitser to result in an adjournment till 2 pm in the afternoon, but this had more to do with logistics than any broader principle of conviction.  As Baraitser reasoned, 47 people were currently in custody at court; a mere eight rooms were available for interviewing, leaving an additional hour to the day.  In her view, if Assange was sinned against, so was everybody else, given that others in custody should not be prevented from access to counsel. (This judge has a nose for justice, albeit using it selectively.) 

As things stand, Peirce is aiming to finalise the exhibits for submission to the prosecution by January 18.  The government deadline for responding to those documents will be February 7.  The case proceeding itself was adjourned till January 23, and Assange will have the choice, limited as it is, of having the hearing at the Westminster Magistrates Court or Belmarsh.

Supporters outside the court were also of same mind regarding the paltry amount of time awarded Assange.  The rapper M.I.A, showing how support for the publisher can at times be sketchy, managed to have a dig at the state while also acknowledging thanks from it.  (An announcement had just been made that she would be receiving an MBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List.)  “I think it is important to follow this case.  I am off to get a medal at Buckingham Palace tomorrow and I think today is just as important.  To give somebody an hour to put their case together is not quite right.”  Assange supporters would agree with her view that, for “a case of this scale, having only access to two hours to prepare, is illegal in itself.”

The atmosphere around the proceedings has thickened of late, and the WikiLeaks argument here about CIA interference and surveillance conducted by the Spanish firm Undercover Global S.L. while Assange was in the Ecuadorean embassy in London is biting.  Prior to Christmas he gave testimony to Spanish judge Jose de la Mata claiming he was not aware that cameras installed by the company in the Ecuadorean embassy were also capturing audio details.    

Leaving aside the broader issues of free speech, an argument has been made that CIA meddling might well be the fly in the ointment that impairs the prosecution’s case.  This might be wishful thinking, but this is a line of inquiry worth pursuing.  The WikiLeaks legal team is keen to press the matter in February during the extradition hearing.

In the well-considered view of James C. Goodale, former Vice Chairman and General Counsel for The New York Times, “After reading El Pais’s series, you would have to be a dunce not to believe the CIA didn’t monitor Assange’s every move at the Ecuadorean embassy, including trips to the bathroom.” 

Goodale cites the Pentagon Papers case as an example that the defence may well draw upon.  Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked classified Pentagon reports to The Washington Post and The New York Times, had the office of his psychiatrist broken into by President Richard Nixon’s notorious “plumbers”, led by former CIA agent E. Howard Hunt.  The conscience stricken analyst was also facing charges under the Espionage Act of 1917.  When it came to the trial judge’s attention that government misconduct, including the FBI’s interception of Ellsberg’s telephone conversations with a government official had characterised the entire effort against the whistleblower, the case was dismissed with prejudice.  Ellsberg’s treatment had “offended a sense of justice” and “incurably infected the prosecution”.

As with Assange, the footprint of the CIA in Ellsberg’s case was far from negligible.  It assisted in the muddled break-in.  It penned a clumsy psychiatric profile of Ellsberg and assembled a full identification ensemble for the plumbers: Social Security cards, disguises, drivers’ licenses, speech alternation devices.  As Goodale rhetorically poses, “Can anything be more offensive to a ‘sense of justice’ than an unlimited surveillance, particularly of lawyer-client conversations, livestreamed to the opposing party in a criminal case?”  It remains for the British courts to consider whether that degree of offensiveness has been achieved in this case.

*

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

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

Featured image is from 21st Century Wire

By the series of actions in recent months in Iraq and across the Middle East, Washington has forced a strategic shift towards China and to an extent Russia and away from the United States. If events continue on the present trajectory it can well be that a main reason that Washington backed the destabilization of Assad in Syria, to block a planned Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline, will now happen, short of Washington initiating a full scorched earth politics in the region. This is what we can call unintended consequences.

If nature abhors a vacuum, so too does geopolitics. When President Trump months ago announced plans to pull US troops out of Syria and the Middle East generally, Russia and especially China began quietly to intensify contacts with key states in the region.

Chinese involvement with Iraqi oil development and other infrastructure projects, though large, was significantly disrupted by the ISIS occupation of some one third of Iraqi territory. In September, 2019 Washington demanded that Iraq pay for completion of key infrastructure projects destroyed by the ISIS war– a war where Washington as well as Ankara, Israel and Saudi Arabia played the key hidden role—by giving the US government 50% of Iraqi oil revenues, an outrageous demand to put it politely.

Iraq China Pivot

Iraq refused. Instead Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi went to Beijing as head of a 55-member delegation to discuss Chinese involvement in the rebuilding of Iraq. This visit did not go unnoticed in Washington. Even before that, Iraqi-China ties were significant. China was Iraq’s number one trading partner and Iraq was China’s third-leading source of oil after Saudi Arabia and Russia. In April 2019 in Baghdad, China’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Relations Lee Joon said China was ready to contribute to Iraq’s reconstruction.

For Abdul-Mahdi the Beijing trip was a major success; he called it a “quantum jump” in relations. The visit saw the signing of eight wide-ranging memoranda of understanding (MoUs), a framework credit agreement, and the announcement of plans for Iraq to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It included Chinese involvement in rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure as well as developing Iraqi oilfields. For both countries an apparent “win-win” as the Chinese like to say.

It was only a matter of days after the Beijing talks of Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi that nationwide protests against Iraqi government corruption and economic policies broke out, led by opposition cries that Abdul-Mahdi resign. Reuters witnessed snipers carefully fanning the violent protest firing on the protesters giving the impression of government repression much as the CIA did in Maidan in Kiev in February 2014 or in Cairo in 2011.

There is now strong evidence that the China talks and the timing of the spontaneous October 2019 protests against the Abdul-Mahdi government were connected. The Trump Administration is the link. According to a report by Federico Pieraccini, “Abdul-Medhi made a speech to Parliament speaking about how the Americans had ruined the country and now refused to complete infrastructure and electricity grid projects unless they were promised 50% of oil revenues, which Abdul-Mehdi refused.” He then quotes sections of Abdul-Mahdi’s speech translated from Arabic: “This is why I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the construction instead. Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement. When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my premiership. Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me. I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us rescinding our deal with the Chinese.”

Now the US assassination of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, just as he landed in Baghdad reportedly on a mediation mission with Saudi Arabia via Abdul-Mahdi, has thrown the entire region into political chaos amid talk of possible World War III. The soft Iranian “retaliation” missile firings on US bases in Iraq and the surprise admission by Teheran that they accidentally downed a Ukrainian commercial airline as if left Teheran, all amid reports that Trump and Rouhani were in back channel secret talks to calm things down, leave many scratching their heads as to what is really going on.

Quiet ‘silk’ inroads

One thing is clear. Beijing is looking at its prospects, along with Russia to replace the domination of Iraqi politics that Washington has held since its 2003 war of occupation. OilPrice.com reports that beginning October just after Abdul-Mahdi’s successful Beijing talks, Iraq started exporting 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil to China as part of the 20-year oil-for-infrastructure deal agreed between the two countries. According to Iraqi oil ministry sources, China will build its influence in Iraq by beginning with oil and gas investments and from there building infrastructure including factories and railways using Chinese companies and personnel along with Iraqi labor. The Chinese-built factories will use the same assembly lines and structure to be integrated with similar factories in China.

Iran’s Vice President, Eshaq Jahangiri has announced that Iran signed a contract with China to implement a project to electrify the main 900 kilometer railway connecting Tehran to the north-eastern city of Mashhad near the border to Turkmenistan and to Afghanistan. Jahangiri added that there are also plans to establish a Tehran-Qom-Isfahan high-speed train line and to extend this up to the north-west through Tabriz. OilPrice notes, “Tabriz, home to a number of key sites relating to oil, gas, and petrochemicals, and the starting point for the Tabriz-Ankara gas pipeline, will be a pivot point of the 2,300 kilometre New Silk Road that links Urumqi (the capital of China’s western Xinjiang Province) to Tehran, and connecting Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan along the way, and then via Turkey into Europe. Once the plans for this are making substantial progress then China will extend the transport links into Iraq to the West.”

Additionally, according to Iraq’s Electricity Minister Louay al-Khateeb, “China is our primary option as a strategic partner in the long run…We started with a US$10 billion financial framework for a limited quantity of oil to finance some infrastructure projects…[but] Chinese funding tends to increase with the growing Iraqi oil production.” That is, the more Iraqi oil China extracts the more Iraqi projects it can finance. Today Iraq is dependent on Iran for gas to serve its electric generators owing to lack of gas infrastructure. China says it will change that.

Further the oil industry source states that Russia and China are quietly preparing the ground to relaunch the Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline from Iran’s huge Persian Gulf South Pars gas field it shares with Qatar. A US-backed proxy war began against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad in 2011 just after he signed a deal with Iran and Iraq to build the pipeline, rejecting an earlier Qatar proposal for an alternative route. Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Qatar poured billions of covert funds to finance terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and later ISIS in a vain effort to topple Assad.

China is not alone in its efforts in Iraq and throughout the Middle East, as erratic and unpredictable US foreign policy drives former US allies away. Russia, which just brokered a ceasefire in Libya along with Turkey’s Erdogan, just offered to sell its advanced S-400 Triumf air defense system to Iraq, an offer that would have been unthinkable even weeks ago. With Iraqi parliamentarians voting to demand all foreign troops, including US and Iranian, leave Iraq in the wake of the brazen US assassination of Soleimani in Baghdad, it is conceivable Baghdad would accept the offer at this point, despite protest from Washington. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Algeria, Morocco and Egypt, have all be in discussions with Russia in recent months to buy the Russian defense system, said to be the world’s most effective. Turkey has already purchased it.

Before the US assassination of Soleimani, there were numerous back-channel efforts for détente in the costly wars that have raged across the region since the US-instigated Arab Spring between Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran and Iraq. Russia and China have both in different ways been playing a key role in changing the geopolitical tensions. At this juncture the credibility of Washington as any honest partner is effectively zero if not minus.

The temporary calm following Iran’s admission of shooting down the Ukraine airliner in no way suggests Washington will go quietly. Trump and his Defense Secretary Esper have defiantly rejected the call to pull US troops from Iraq. The US president just tweeted his support for renewed anti-government Iran protests, in Farsi. We are clearly in for some very nasty trouble in the Middle East as Washington tries to deal with the unintended consequences of its recent Middle East actions.

*

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

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

Featured image is from NEO

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

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

Year: 2007

Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

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

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

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

This is an international appeal by professional astronomers open for subscription to ask for an intervention from institutions and governments.

To sign/subscribe follow this link.

Astronomical observations from the ground can be greatly harmed by the ongoing deployment of large satellite fleets in preparation for the next generation of telecommunications.

For centuries the astronomical observations from the ground have led to exceptional progress in our scientific understanding of the Laws of Nature. Currently, the capability of astronomical instrumentation from the ground is endangered by the deployment of satellites fleets.

Through this international appeal and following the same concerns expressed by the International Astronomical Union, IAU [1] and other institutions, we raise a formal request for greater effective protection and safeguard for professional astronomical observations from the ground, guaranteeing the right to observe a sky free from unnecessary artificial polluting sources.

In particular, all the signers, astronomers and collaborators wish to manifest humanly and personally their worry and contrariety to the sky coverage produced by artificial satellites, which represent a dramatic degradation of the scientific content for a huge set of astronomical observations.

The sky degradation is not only due to light pollution in the sky near cities and the most populated areas, but it is also due to artificial satellite fleets crossing and scarring observations with bright parallel streaks/trails at all latitudes.

Astronomers are extremely concerned by the possibility that Earth may be blanketed by tens of thousands of satellites, which will greatly outnumber the approximately 9,000 stars that are visible to the unaided human eye. This is not some distant threat. It’s already happening. The american private company SpaceX has already put 180 of these small satellites, collectively called Starlink, in the sky and plans to constellate the whole sky with about 42,000 satellites. Thus, together with other telecommunication space projects in the near future (i.e. the English OneWeb, the Canadian Telesat, the American Amazon, Lynk and Facebook, the Russian Roscosmos and the Chinese Aerospace Science and Industry corp), there could be over 50,000 small satellites encircling the Earth for various telecommunication purposes but mainly delivering internet.

These new satellites are small, mass-produced, and orbit very close to the Earth with the intent to provide speedy internet connection with low-latency signals. But that closeness also makes them more visible, and brighter in the night sky (satellites launched by SpaceX, 180 at the present day, are brighter than 99 percent of the population of objects visible by the Earth orbit ).

The current total number of cataloged objects in Earth orbit is less than 20,000 among spacecrafts, rocket bodies, fragmented mission and other related debrids, so with only the nominal Starlink fleet the total number of orbiting objects will triple (see pictures).

In the mid and long term, this will severely diminish our view of the Universe, create more space debris, and, deprive humanity of an unblemished view of the night sky. It has been computed that most of these satellites will be visible to the naked eye (with a brightness between the 3^rd and 7^th magnitude, reaching the brightness of the stars in the Ursa Minor constellation (there are only 172 stars in the whole sky exceeding the expected brightness of Starlink satellites particularly in the time after sunset and before sunrise). Thus with 50k satellites the “normality” will be a sky crowded with artificial objects (every one square degree of the sky will have a satellite crawling in it along the whole observing night).

Not only observations with wide-field survey telescopes will be damaged (e.g. LSST [2] or VST [3] or Pan-STARRS [4], …), but also deep/long exposures with small-field facilities will be unavoidably impaired, see picture and [7].

Considering that large area astronomical observations and sky survey are commonly used in NEO and asteroids monitoring and research related projects to guard the Earth planet from potential impact events, such satellite constellations could negatively impact on the ability to prevent and warn the whole humankind.

Few starlink satellites visible in a mosaic of an astronomical image (NSF’s National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory/NSF/AURA/CTIO/DELVE)

This light pollution is extremely damaging for astronomical observations at all wavelengths. The recent attempt to use non-reflecting paint on the body (i.e. not the solar panels which represents 75% of the reflecting surface) of one of the Starlink satellites will not stop the degradation of the scientific observations for two reasons: 1) the stars and other objects in the universe will be eclipsed, therefore harming time-dependent (variability) studies, and,  2) the reflectivity of surface depends on the observational wavelength, so what becomes dark in one part of the spectrum (e.g. visible) remains bright or shines in other parts of the spectrum  (e.g. infrared or radio).

It should also be noted that during nominal service operations SpaceX expects to dismiss and replace from 2,000 to 8,000 Starlink satellites every year, disintegrating them in the lower atmosphere, with all related issues.

What is not widely acknowledged is that the development of the latest generation telecommunication networks (from space and from Earth) is going to deeply affect radio-astronomical observations (at all sub-bands).

In particular, low Earth orbit satellite’s spectral windows identified to communicate with earth stations in the Ku (12-18GHz), Ka (27-40GHz) and V (40-75GHz) bands will overlap with the nominal radio-astronomy bands and so will interfere with ground radio telescopes and radio interferometers, making the radio detectors enter in a non-linear regime in the K band (18.26.5GHz) and in Q band (33-50GHz). This fact will irreparably compromise the whole chain of analysis in those bands with repercussions on our understanding of the Universe, or even, making the astrophysics community blind to these spectral windows.

To aggravate the matter, with the current technological development, the planned density of radio frequency transmitters is impossible to envisage. In addition to millions of new commercial wireless hot spot base stations on Earth directly connected to the ~50,000 new satellites in space, will produce at least 200 billion of new transmitting objects, according to estimates, as part of the Internet of Things (IoT) by 2020-2022, and one trillion of objects a few years later. Such a large number of radio-emitting objects could make radio astronomy from ground stations impossible without a real protection made by countries’ safe zones where radio astronomy facility are placed. We wish to avoid that technological development without serious control would turn radio astronomy practice into an ancient extinct science.

For all these reasons

We, astronomers subscribing to this appeal state THERE IS NO MORE TIME TO DISCUSS, IT IS TIME TO ACT!

Ask governments, institutions and agencies all around the world

1. to be committed to provide legal protection to ground astronomical facilities in all of the available observation electromagnetic windows.
2. to put on hold further Starlink launches (and other projects) and carry out an accurate moratorium on all technologies that can negatively impact astronomical observations from space and from the ground, or impact on the scientific, technological and economic investments that each State engages in astrophysical projects.
3. to put in place a clear evaluation of risks and predictive impacts on astronomical observatories (i.e. loss of scientific and economic value), giving stringent guidelines to private individuals, societies and industries to plan satellite investments without clearly understanding all of the negative effects on outstanding astronomical facilities.
4. that the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and any other national agency be wary of granting permission to ship non-geostationary low-orbit  satellites into orbit or alternatively to limit the authorization of only satellites  being above the airspace of the “home country”.
5. to demand a worldwide orchestration, where national and international astronomical agencies can impose the right of veto on all those projects that negatively interfere with astronomical outstanding facilities.
6. to limit and regulate the number of telecommunication satellite fleets to the “strictly necessary number” and to put them in orbit only when old-outdated technology satellites are deorbited, according to the Outer Space Treaty (1967) – the Art IX [5], and the United Nations Guidelines for the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities (2018) – guideline 2.2(c) [6], requiring the use of outer space be conducted “so as to avoid [its] harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth” and […omissis…] risks to people, property, public health and the environment associated with the launch, in-orbit operation and re-entry of space objects”.

Finally

All of these requests come from the heartfelt concern of scientists arising from threatens to be barred from accessing the full knowledge of the Cosmos and the loss of an intangible asset of immeasurable value for humanity. In this context, all co-signers of this appeal consider ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to put in place all possible measures to protect the night sky right also on the legal side. It would be desirable to adopt contingent and limiting resolutions to be ratified with shared international rules, which must be adopted by all space agencies to ensure protection for astronomical bands observable from the ground. All of this to continue to admire and study our Universe, for as long as possible.

This appeal/petition can be signed by professional Astrophysicists & Astronomers, Technologists/Engineers, Collaborators & PHD Students involved in professional astronomical observations.

*

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

Sources

[1]  https://www.iau.org/ – https://www.iau.org/news/announcements/detail/ann19035/?lang

[2]  https://www.lsst.org – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_C._Rubin_Observatory

[3]  https://www.eso.org/public/ – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLT_Survey_Telescope

[4]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-STARRS

[5]  https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html

[6]  https://www.unoosa.org/res/oosadoc/data/documents/2018/aac_1052018crp/aac_1052018crp_20_0_html/AC105_2018_CRP20E.pdf

[7] Simulated prediction of “only” 12k Starlink satellites in the sky: https://youtu.be/LGBuk2BTvJE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9hQfKd9kfA

Selected Articles

Trump Prosecutors Make Move to Ensure that Embassy Protectors Are Convicted

By Kevin Zeese, Ajamu Baraka, and Bahman Azad, January 15, 2020

As the trial approaches, the lawyers for the Trump Administration’s  prosecution of the four Venezuelan Embassy Protectors who were arrested last May are asking the court to make sure the jury is kept ignorant about the facts and circumstances surrounding the actions of the protectors.

In a recently filed motion by government lawyers, state prosecutors are seeking to severely restrict what can be discussed during the trial  scheduled for February 11, 2020. Judge Beryl Howell will hear arguments on the motion at the pre-trial hearing on January 29.

The Pentagon’s and CIA’s Power to Assassinate Americans

By Jacob G. Hornberger, January 15, 2020

Pentagon officials are assuring Americans that the Pentagon’s recent assassination of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani will make Americans safer. There is at least one big problem with that formulation, one that, unfortunately, many Americans still don’t recognize. That problem is this: the power of assassination wielded by the Pentagon and the CIA extends to American citizens.

Why is that a problem?

Over 100 Years Ago the US Government Lied Us into World War I

By Jeff Harris, January 15, 2020

You may think “fake news” is a fairly recent development made possible by the internet and social media. But a little over 100 years ago President Woodrow Wilson created an official fake news agency to persuade the American people to support the United States entry into WWI.

But first a little perspective on what drove Wilson’s unorthodox methods.

1983 CIA Document Reveals Plan To Destroy Syria, Foreshadows Current Crisis

By Zero Hedge, January 15, 2020

Prophetically foreshadowing the current crisis (and apparent action plan), leaked CIA documents from the reign of Bashar al-Assad’s father in the 1980s show a Washington Deep State plan coalescing to “bring real muscle to bear against Syria,” toppling its leader (in favor of one amenable to US demands), severing ties with Russia (its primary arms dealer), and paving the way for an oil and gas pipeline of Washington’s choosing.

The Machines Have Us Trained for Obedience

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, January 15, 2020

Many decades ago there was an issue of Mad comics that portrayed a future time when everything was done by robots and humans had no function.  One day the system failed. As it had been eons since humans had to do anything, no one knew how to fix the system.  It was Mad comics version of Armageddon.

I think that is where the digital revolution is taking us.  I remember when appliances and cars responded to humans, and now humans respond to them.  When I grew up cars and home appliances did not go “beep-beep” to remind you of the things you were supposed to do, such as turn off the car lights and take the keys out of the ignition, or turn off the oven and shut the fridge.

Permanent War and Poverty or Widespread Truth Awareness?

By Mark Taliano, January 14, 2020

Transnational corporations impose impoverishing neoliberal diktats, the “Washington Consensus”, at home and abroad. Privatization schemes impoverish domestic populations at the expense of the public sphere. Equal access to health care and schooling is disappeared. The industrial base is delocated to vassal stooge countries where human and labour rights are largely non-existent.

Video: How and Why Iran Shot Down Ukrainian Boeing

By South Front, January 14, 2020

The Iran Air Defense Forces brought down the Ukraine International Airlines Boeing 737-800 (Flight PS752) near Tehran due to “a human error”, the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces said in an official statement on January 11. The statement denounced the previous Iranian main version that the tragedy was a result of technical malfunction.

*

Global Research strives to shine light on the under-reported, less known injustices ignored or buried.

Governments know it too, which is why there is an unprecedented threat to the independent media and the Internet. Fight-back was never more needed.

Please consider donating something, however large or small, to Global Research’s continuation.

*

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.

I arrived in Sao Paulo, the financial and economic capital of Brazil, on the night of 14 November 2019. The city has over 12 million inhabitants. In all the districts I visited poverty is flagrant. You see homeless people living on the street with no access to sanitation of any kind and prey to the most extreme poverty. A significant number of people are undernourished. Reliable sources mention about 100,000 people who live on the streets of Sao Paulo, 25,000 of them permanently and 75,000 on a temporary basis.

I first came to Sao Paulo in December 1991 to participate in the first congress of the Workers’ Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores or PT) led by the former metal worker Lula. At that time Lula and the PT stood for the struggle against odious and illegitimate debt (see the interview I had with him in Managua in July 1991. He said among other things ‘Any Third World government that decides to further repay the external debt chooses to lead his people into the abyss.’).

Lula had led workers’ strikes against the dictatorship in the 1980s, and in 1988 a ‘democratic’ regime replaced the dictatorship after a transitional stage. The bases of the main trade union federation CUT (Central Única de Trabalhadores or Unified Workers’ Central), and of the new party, the PT, had been brought together during the valiant struggle against the dictatorship. The PT had been built from the bottom by activists in social movements and small very active politically radical organizations. The CUT and the PT were against repaying debt and wanted a citizens’ audit. Part of the debt had been accumulated during the military dictatorship which lasted more than 20 years, and afterwards it increased steeply during the debt crisis in the 1980s, a crisis that resulted from commodity prices plummeting while Washington had decided on a sharp increase in interest rates. More generally, the PT clearly stated that radical anti-capitalist policies had to be implemented which were to lead to the construction of a democratic socialist, self-managed and anti-bureaucratic society. This outcome stirred genuine enthusiasm in Brazil and beyond.

I went to Sao Paulo in 1991 in order to prepare Lula’s and another PT leader Marco Aurelio Garcia’s visit to Belgium at the invitation of the CADTM. The talks were to take place some ten days before Christmas 1991. Eventually for health reasons Lula couldn’t come over and was replaced by Marco Aurelio Garcia, who became president of the PT in 2006 and was Lula’s main adviser on foreign policy while Lula was president from 2003 to 2011. I met Lula four or five times from 1991 to 2003. I can remember a long discussion we had in Havana in 1993. It followed upon a meeting Lula had had with Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega. Lula explained that in order to become president of Brazil he had to neutralize US imperialism, the army and the Brazilian bourgeoisie. I understood that he meant not to thwart US strategic interests and to promise the army leadership and big capital that he would implement no measures that went against their interests. Lula told me that he would be the president of all Brazilians, as was all too often said. What I understood was that he would use his experience as a trade unionist to seal a pact between those at the bottom and those at the top, asking those at the top to concede some improvements in purchasing power (i.e. allowing the State to increase social aid with public money) while those at the bottom would accept that nothing would really change at the structural level. This is indeed what he attempted to do when he was president ten years later.

I saw him for the last time in June 2003 and stated how much I disapproved of the neoliberal reform he had introduced into the civil service pension system. The meeting occurred on the occasion of the G8 annual summit (United States, Canada, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Russia) in Evian on 1 and 2 June 2003. Several heads of states that did not belong to the G8 had been invited by the French president, Jacques Chirac, who wished to show that the G8, and France in particular, were open to dialogue with the rest of the world. Among those who had responded positively were President Lula of Brazil and the heads of states or governments of China, India, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Egypt and Mexico. Chirac was trying to give legitimacy to the G8, an informal club of major global powers, at a time when its credibility was in question, particularly after the brutal repression of the counter-G8 protest in Genoa in 2001. President Chirac’s guests met in Evian before the actual G8 summit meeting while over 100,000 marched through the streets of Geneva (Switzerland) and Annemasse (France) shouting ‘G8 is illegal’. Luis Inacio Lula Da Silva wanted to meet leaders of the European anti globalization movements. There were four delegates: the president of ATTAC France, a woman representative of the Italian Social Forum, a Swedish woman representative of the campaign against the WTO, and myself for the CADTM. The meeting occurred in Geneva in the residence of the Brazilian ambassador and it highlighted the gap between Lula and the international anti globalization movements (see my interview: President Lula’s “realpolitik” and the “alterglobalisation” movement).

Changes in the PT and the CUT

It should be pointed out that during the 1990s, the position of the PT and the CUT was gradually watered down. The PT won many elected officials in large cities as well as in small and medium-sized towns. In particular, the PT had mayors elected in Sao Paulo and Porto Alegre, where it gradually adopted a managerial orientation and lost its role as a spur to radical anti-capitalist changes. I followed this process of adaptation to the institutions of the capitalist state with great disappointment. When Lula was elected President of Brazil at the end of 2002 with a landslide 65% of the votes, he and the PT had fundamentally changed. They no longer really questioned the capitalist system and Lula signed a letter of submission to the IMF in the middle of the election campaign (in August 2002). In this letter, he solemnly declared that if elected president, he would abide strictly by the previous government’s agreements with the IMF.

Only a couple of months after his election, he introduced a neoliberal reform of retirement pensions. Lula also appointed as president of the Central Bank one of the big bosses, Henrique Meirelles, former president of one of the major US banks in Brazil, the Fleet Boston. The message was clear: a representative of the capitalist class was at the head of the Central Bank. Lula did not interfere with the army and did not suspend the amnesty extended to those officers of the dictatorship responsible for crimes against humanity. This is a major difference with Argentina where the 1986 amnesty was cancelled in 2005, which made it possible to condemn and incarcerate several military leaders including the major figures of the military dictatorship enforced in 1976. Under the Lula presidency, the Brazilian army participated in the occupation of Haiti, which was denounced by Haitian social movements. The top Brazilian military leader during the occupation of Haiti became a member of Bolsonaro’s government in 2019. Under Lula’s presidency not a single private corporation was brought back into the public sector. On the contrary, he supported the interests of private corporations that did not hesitate to bribe civil servants in order to secure procurements as was the case for the emblematic construction company Odebrecht (see Euronews, “What is the Odebrecht corruption scandal in Latin America, and who is implicated?”).

The Lula government scrupulously repaid its debts without carrying out the audit he had called for when he was in the opposition. To qualify this highly critical assessment, it should be mentioned that the Lula government developed a policy of public aid to the poorest through the distribution of social benefits under the programme entitled Bolsa Familia (family grant). This programme improved the income of more than 12 million families, i.e. about 20% of Brazil’s poorest families. Please note that the amount of aid was limited. At the time of the PT government, a family of three could receive a maximum of 50 euros. It should be noted that Bolsonaro has not stopped this programme which in 2019 benefited 13.5 million families, i.e. one fifth of Brazilian families (see this). In 2019, a poor family could receive a maximum of 200 reales per month (at the exchange rate of November 2019, that is around 40 euros). To be entitled to this grant, the family must show that its monthly income is below 89 reales (that is, 20 euros! or less than one euro a day per family).

Why did the Lula government not combat illegitimate public debt?

The Lula government did not combat illegitimate public debt because they did not want to antagonize Brazilian big capital. Questioning debt repayment as a government would have meant conflict with Brazilian big capital, which benefits largely from the debt, buying Brazil’s internal and external public debt securities. These insure a high return since interest rates are very high. Questioning debt repayment would also involve conflict with major private banks and foreign investment funds, as well as with the IMF. Lula and the PT leadership wanted to avoid such conflicts. As they gave legitimacy to the debt, continued paying it and went even further, calling on big capital to contract new public loans, the Lula government was tolerated, or even appreciated, by the bourgeoisie. All the more so as social measures that benefited people with the lowest income increased the purchasing power of the poor, which was good for capitalists’ business.

Lula’s neoliberal policies resulted in a split within the PT, with a new party emerging to its left in 2004. That party is the PSOL (Party for Socialism and Freedom).

Since 2001 I often went back to Brazil, for the large gatherings of the World Social Forums (around 100,000 people participated each time), for meetings of the WSF’s International Council of which I had been a member from the start and for meetings of social movements. There were meetings organized by the Brazilian Citizens’ Debt Audit, a member of the CADTM’s international network. The CADTM’s international network repeatedly sent significant delegations to Brazil for WSF activities, particularly in Porto Alegre in 2005 and in Belem in 2009 (when one of the CADTM’s world assemblies was held). The political situation has changed a lot. As pointed out above, from 2003 onward, the PT clearly turned away from its revolutionary past to become a manager of the system. This eventually resulted in deep disappointment, not to say distrust, especially since several of its leaders were actively involved in major corruption cases, including Lula himself. Eventually, when the bourgeoisie felt it could manage the country without the PT’s collaboration, it exposed the party as corrupt, this while all other traditional parties are just as deeply corrupt or much more. Dilma Rousseff, the PT leader who won the 2010 presidential elections and became president of Brazil in 2011, was impeached by the Senate in 2016, in what was actually an institutional coup d’Etat (see this in French, Spanish or Portuguese). But disappointment towards the PT was so deep that the Brazilian people hardly mobilized to defend the PT and its leaders in 2016, and the right-wing vice-president Michel Temer – appointed by the PT in 2011–replaced Dilma Rousseff (PT) as president after masterminding the institutional coup.

Later, the antisocial policies implemented by President Temer, a corrupt right-wing leader, eventually stirred some popular support for Lula as a credible candidate to be reelected president in 2018. So the judiciary system, largely controlled by big capital, was relentless in its efforts to prevent Lula from running for president. Despite his imprisonment, Lula was the most likely to win and his supporters hoped that he would be able to participate in the elections. This is why the judiciary prohibited him from running and Jair Bolsonaro was elected president end of 2018 and started his mandate in early 2019; Bolsonaro is a far-right politician yearning for dictatorship (see this), a racist, sexist, homophobic, climate-change negationist. He is similar to Trump, while possibly even further to the right. His deeply reactionary and antipopular nature is beyond doubt (see this, in French or Spanish). On 21 October 2018, at the end of the election campaign, he stated that if he was elected president, he would conduct a purge “such as Brazil has never known”. He affirmed that the leaders of the Workers’ Party “must all rot in prison,” and said of the leftist movements, “they will have to submit to the law like everyone else. Either they leave or they go to jail.” Shortly after starting his mandate, he promised to remove civil servants with”communist” ideas. His election is a real tragedy for the Brazilian people and for the international left.

After Bolsonaro’s victory, a large part of the left fortunately formed a united front and demanded Lula’s liberation. They got it in early November 2019 and Lula immediately started a political campaign to win the presidential elections in 2022. This being said, we should not expect Lula to go back to the sources of the PT. His orientation remains the one that prevailed from 2003 to 2016. But he might get elected in 2022 since it is clear that Bolsonaro, if he completes his mandate, will have implemented antisocial policies that increase poverty and deepen the gap between a handful of very rich and the overwhelming majority of Brazil’s population. Obviously we need to mobilize widely against the Bolsonaro government and in spite of disagreements with the PT, we need a broad left-wing front within which the PT will play an active part.

Auditing Brazil’s debt from 2000 and Ecuador’s in 2007-2008

The Brazilian Citizens’ Debt Audit is an organization founded in the early 2000s. In 2000, a referendum was organized on popular initiative by the MST (Landless Workers’ Movement), the CUT, Brazil’s Jubilee South Campaign, the National Conference of Bishops (which has been positioned on the left since the years 1980-1990), with the support of the PT and more than 90 % of the 6 million Brazilians who voted were in favour of suspending debt payments for the time it took to carry out an audit to determine how much of it was illegitimate (see in Portuguese: Folha Online – Brasil – 90% dos votantes de plebiscito da CNBB pedem auditoria da dívida – 14/09/2000). There was acute awareness of the illegitimate character of Brazil’s debt in a large part of the left and the Brazilian population. Although the audit was provided for in the 1988 constitution, the government had never carried it through. After the popular referendum of September 2000, parliamentary representatives from the PT brought a draft bill to get it done. It was in the aftermath of the referendum that the Brazilian Citizens’ Debt Audit was set up. It subsequently joined the CADTM (see the Brazilian Citizens’ Debt Audit website, in Portuguese. See also Maria Lucia Fattorelli’s interview where she explains how the collaboration between her organization and the CADTM developed: in French, Spanish and Portuguese).

As pointed out above, as soon as Lula became president of Brazil in 2003, he forgot his commitment to set up an audit of the debt.

In 2005, during the 5^th World Social Forum, the Brazilian Citizens’ Debt Audit, the CADTM and Jubilee South, with the support of the MST (Landless Workers’ Movement), organized a three-day long Tribunal against Debt in Porto Alegre which brought together 1000 participants from every continent.

Next, in Brazil, support for the struggle against illegitimate debt faded mainly because the MST considered that they should rack up their critical support of President Lula’s government. As for the leadership of the CUT, they had deserted the fight against debt as soon as Lula came to office as president. Nevertheless, that did not prevent the Brazilian Citizens’ Debt Audit from battling on through thick and thin to denounce repayment of mainly illegitimate debt. The CADTM International gave its constant support to this fight.

In 2007, at the behest of militants combating illegitimate debt in Ecuador, Maria Lucia Fattorelli, the Coordinator of the Brazilian Citizens’ Debt Audit, and myself for the CADTM, became members of the Committee for Integral Debt Audit (CAIC) established by the new president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa. The CAIC’s task was to identify illegitimate debts contracted during the period of 1976-2006. Our work, reported to the government in September 2008 and made public in November of the same year resulted in the suspension of payments on a significant part of debt demanded from Ecuador in the form of sovereign bonds mainly held by banks of the USA. The unilateral suspension of payment brought about a resounding victory (see Eric Toussaint, Hugo Arias Palacios, Aris Chatzistefanou – Video: “The Ecuador debt audit, a seven minute summary”). Ecuador imposed on its creditors a reduction of 70 % of the debts concerned. This enabled a significant increase in social spending from 2009-2010.

It is important to note that President Lula did not help Ecuador with its debt auditing initiative. This is proved by what happened in the case of the Brazilian firm Odebrecht which I mentioned earlier. The firm built a hydro-electric power plant of very poor quality in Ecuador. Odebrecht had overcharged for the work and had not complied with the technical specifications. The plant was so badly built that it broke down. The Audit Committee had identified the debt Brazil was demanding of Ecuador for the plant’s construction as illegal and illegitimate. Despite the fact that it was obviously in the wrong, the firm of Odebrecht refused to indemnify the State of Ecuador. In September 2008, to force Odebrecht to fulfil its obligations towards the government of Ecuador, President Rafael Correa sent the army to occupy the installations of the hydroelectric plant. Instead of backing up the progressive government of Ecuador in face of Odebrecht, Lula protested against Ecuador’s intervention and recalled his ambassador. He demanded that Rafael Correa cease applying pressure on Odebrecht and persuaded him to take it to arbitration in a Paris court. Correa accepted, though knowing only too well that the arbitration would favour Odebrecht. Indeed, Ecuador lost partially. The government of Brazil and Odebrecht came out on top.

President Lula’s intervention in 2009 to prevent the launch of a committee to audit odious debt called for by Brazilian companies in Paraguay

Now let us look at the case of Paraguay, an enclave country surrounded by Brazil, Argentina and Bolivia. In December 2008, the progressive president Fernando Lugo, who had been in office for six months, invited me to help him create an audit committee of Paraguayan debt. I went to Asunción for a personal interview with the president followed by a meeting with the Paraguayan government (see “Paraguay. The Belgian who met with the president is an adviser to Correa and works with Chavez”. See also: Interview with the economic and political analyst Eric Toussaint “The Itaipu Treaty signed in 1973 could be declared void.” and this).

It was clear that most of Paraguay’s debt could be qualified as odious, as it resulted (as is always the case) from a major agreement made in the 1970s between two military dictatorships: the Brazilian military junta and the Paraguayan dictatorship of General Stroessner. [1] The offending treaty dealt with the construction, running and maintenance of what was at the time the biggest dam in the world, the Itaipu Dam. I had studied the matter in depth using the excellent documentation elaborated by Paraguyan experts. Moreover a former member of staff of the CADTM in Belgium, the Paraguayan jurist Hugo Ruiz Diaz Balbuena, had become an adviser to President Lugo, which made contacts easier. [2] The international audit initiative with citizen participation had withered under pressure from the Brazilian government during Lula’s presidency. Note that big Brazilian companies are the main creditors of Paraguay, which they exploit. Although he had intended to sign a presidential decree creating the debt audit committee, Fernando Lugo finally gave in to pressure from Lula and his government who were protecting the interests of the Brazilian firms who were creditors. To persuade the Paraguayan government to drop the idea of an international audit and of questioning the debt claimed by Brazilian firms, Lula made a few marginal concessions and increased the amount Brazil paid Paraguay every year for electricity provided by the Itaipu Dam. (See a commentary in French of the agreement signed between Paraguay and Brazil in July 2009: this). That said, despite the pressure from Brazil, an audit was carried out by the Court of Auditors in 2010 and 2011 (See this (in French and Spanish) and this (French only). At the time I went back to Paraguay at President Fernando Lugo’s invitation. In June 2012, he was eventually overthrown by a ‘parliamentary coup’, to use a phrase that had been used in Honduras in 2009 and was applied in Brazil when Dilma Rousseff, who had succeeded Lula as president of Brazil from 2011, was overthrown (see Eric Toussaint, “Paraguay (juin 2012) – Honduras (juin 2009): d’un coup d’Etat à l’autre”, in French or Spanish).

The fact that the right was able to use this form of institutional coup d’Etat, whether in Brazil or in Paraguay, is partly due to the inability of those two left-wing governments to affront creditors forcefully and carry out structural reform. At the beginning of their mandates they enjoyed enormous popular support; but this was deeply eroded by the disappointment engendered by conciliatory policies towards big capital, both local and international. By the time the right decided to take action, people on the left were too disillusioned and disorientated to mobilize in defence of those in power.

The Brazilian Citizens’ Debt Audit from 2009 to 2019

In 2009, the Brazilian Citizens’ Debt Audit managed to set up a parliamentary committee thanks, particularly, to active support from the PSOL (Socialism and Freedom Party. Yet PT MPs joined conservative MPs to prevent the Committee from questioning the legitimacy of Brazil’s debt. Then President Dilma Rousseff (2011-2016) vetoed the organization of such an audit. Here is an assessment by Maria Lucia Fattorelli (in French).

The Brazilian Citizens’ Debt Audit conducted a tireless campaign of consciousness-raising in Brazil. The group trained numerous local sections in Brazil and organized correspondence courses to train activists who wanted to audit debt. They organized several international rallies. The Coordinator, Maria Lucia Fattorelli, also participated in the Greek Public Debt Truth Committee in Greece in 2015. Before that, she had coordinated the publication of a debt-auditing handbook that was translated into French, Spanish and English: Maria Lucia Fattorelli, Citizen Public Debt Audit – Experiences and methods, see this.)

In 2018, during the electoral campaign, The Brazilian Citizens’ Debt Audit was bitterly disappointed by the presidential campaign of the PSOL candidate, Guilherme Bolos. With the agreement of the majority of the PSOL leadership, Bolos set aside the issue of questioning debt payment. He considered that continuing debt repayments was not really a problem. This caused a profound malaise within the PSOL, to put it mildly.

Indeed, G. Bolos’s electoral score as the PSOL candidate for the presidency fell far below the one the party had obtained in the previous presidential campaign in 2014. In 2014, the PSOL candidate Luciana Genro had vigorously defended the debt audit and the idea of suspending payments on debt identified as illegitimate. G. Bolos only won a third of the votes Luciana Genro had won even though, for the first time, the PSOL had benefited from a considerable government subsidy for the electoral campaign. It only goes to show that by watering down his positions, the PSOL candidate lost part of the radical electorate that had previously supported the PSOL.

Will this be a lasting development? Of the ten PSOL representatives in the Brazilian parliament at present, several maintain a clear position on debt but what is the true position of the party’s leadership? At the next PSOL congress, to be held in May 2020, we shall see whether its militants will push for a return to policies more in line with the party’s origins.

Within the PT (Workers’ Party), which has 53 members of parliament, acceptance of the debt system is deeply anchored in the party’s official line and unfortunately we must not nourish any illusions to the contrary.

Despite the criticisms aired above, it is obvious that to counter Bolsonaro, left-wing parties and social movements must unite in the broadest possible front.

Only the future will tell whether the huge social mobilizations that have taken or are taking place in countries such as Chile, Ecuador, Columbia, Haiti, Puerto Rico and Bolivia will find an echo in Brazil.

*

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.

Translated by Vicki Briault Manus and Christine Pagnoulle (CADTM)

Eric Toussaint is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège, is the spokesperson of the CADTM International, and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France.

Notes

There is mounting evidence that a healthy soil microbiome protects plants from pests and diseases. One of the greatest natural assets that humankind has is soil. But when you drench it with proprietary synthetic chemicals or continuously monocrop as part of a corporate-controlled industrial farming system, you can kill essential microbes, upset soil balance and end up feeding soil a limited doughnut diet of unhealthy inputs. 

Armed with their synthetic biocides, this is what the transnational agritech conglommerates do. These companies attempt to get various regulatory and policy-making bodies to bow before the altar of corporate ‘science’. But, in reality, they have limited insight into the long-term impacts their actions have on soil and its complex networks of microbes and microbiological processes. Soil microbiologists are themselves still trying to comprehend it all.

That much is clear when Linda Kinkel of the University of Minnesota’s Department of Plant Pathology said back in 2014: “We understand only a fraction of what microbes do to aid in plant growth.”

And it’s the same where ‘human soil’ is concerned.

People have a deep microbiological connection to soils and traditional processing and fermentation processes, which all affect the gut microbiome – the up to six pounds of bacteria, viruses and microbes akin to human soil. And as with actual soil, the microbiome can become degraded according to what we ingest (or fail to ingest). Many nerve endings from major organs are located in the gut and the microbiome effectively nourishes them. There is ongoing research taking place into how the microbiome is disrupted by the modern globalised food production/processing system and the chemical bombardment it is subjected to.

The human microbiome is of vital importance to human health yet it is under chemical attack from agri-food giants and their agrochemicals and food additives. As soon as we stopped eating locally-grown, traditionally-processed food, cultivated in healthy soils and began eating food subjected to chemical-laden cultivation and processing activities, we began to change ourselves. Along with cultural traditions surrounding food production and the seasons, we also lost our deep-rooted microbiological connection with our localities. It was traded in for corporate chemicals and seeds and global food chains dominated by the likes of Monsanto (now Bayer), Nestle and Cargill.

Environmentalist Dr Rosemary Mason says that glyphosate disrupts the shikimate pathway within these gut bacteria and is a strong chelator of essential minerals, such as cobalt, zinc, manganese, calcium, molybdenum and sulphate. In addition, it kills off beneficial gut bacteria and allows toxic bacteria to flourish. She adds that we are therefore facing a global metabolic health crisis linked to glyphosate.

Many key neurotransmitters are located in the gut. Aside from affecting the functioning of major organs, these transmitters affect our moods and thinking.  There is strong evidence that gut bacteria can have a direct physical impact on the brain. Alterations in the composition of the gut microbiome have been implicated in a wide range of neurological and psychiatric conditions, including autism, chronic pain, depression and Parkinson’s Disease.

Recently published research indicates that glyphosate and Roundup are proven to disrupt gut microbiome by inhibiting the shikimate pathway. Dr Michael Antoniou of King’s College London has found that Roundup herbicide and its active ingredient glyphosate cause a dramatic increase in the levels of two substances, shikimic acid and 3-dehydroshikimic acid, in the gut, which are a direct indication that the EPSPS enzyme of the shikimic acid pathway has been severely inhibited. The researchers found that Roundup and glyphosate affected the microbiome at all dose levels tested, causing shifts in bacterial populations.

This confirms what Mason has been highlighting for some time. However, she has also been pointing out the environmental degradation resulting from the spiralling use of glyphosate-based herbicides and has just written an open letter to the Principal Fisheries Officer of Natural Resources Wales (NRW), Peter Gough (NRW is the environment agency for Wales).

The letter runs to 20 pages and focuses on glyphosate and neonicotinoid insecticides. She asks who would re-authorise a pesticide that is toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects and is causing serious eye damage along with various forms of cancers and a wide range of other health conditions?

She answers her question by saying the European Glyphosate Task Force and Jean-Claude Juncker President of the EC along with various regulators in Europe who have basically capitulated to an industry agenda. Mason argues that the European Glyphosate Task Force (who actually did the re-assessment of glyphosate) omitted all the studies from South America where they had been growing GM Roundup Ready crops since 1996. She discusses the suppression of key research which indicated the harmful effects of glyphosate.

The Principal Fisheries Scientist Wales sent Mason two NRW Reports two years ago. In it, Mason discovered that giant hogweed on the River Usk bank had been treated with a glyphosate-based herbicide. NRW had also admitted to not studying the effects of neonicotinoids, which had been introduced in 1994. Mason pointed out to NRW that run-off from farms of clothianidin in seeds would be enough to kill off aquatic invertebrates.

In early January, NRW attempted to explain the absence of salmon and trout in the River Usk on climate change (warming of the river), rather than poisoning of the river, which is what Mason had warned the agency about two years ago.

In Britain, information on emerging water contaminants has been suppressed, according to Mason, and there is no monitoring of either neonics or glyphosate in surface or ground water. In the US, though, measurements of these chemicals have been carried out on farmland and their correlation with massive declines in invertebrates by separate agencies and universities in the US and Canada.

Mason notes there has been 70 years of poisoning the land with pesticides. Although the National Farmers Union and the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs in the UK say fewer pesticides are now being applied, the Soil Association indicates massive increases of increasing numbers of pesticides at decreasing intervals (official statistics obtained via a Freedom of Information request).

Readers should consult the full text of Mason’s open letter on the acamedia.edu site to gain wider insight into the issues outlined above and many more, such as government collusion with major agrochemical corporations, the shaping of official narratives on illness and disease to obscure the role of pesticides and Monsanto’s poisoning of Wales.

What Mason outlines is not specific to Wales or the UK; the increasing use of damaging agrochemicals and government collusion with the industry transcends national borders. Nation states are becoming increasingly obsolete and powerless in the face of globalised capitalist interests that seek to capture and exploit markets, especially in the Global South.

What follows is the e-mail that Mason sent to Peter Gough by way of introducing her letter to him.

 ***

Dear Peter,

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) classified glyphosate as a substance that is toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects

Your colleague Dave Charlesworth declared on BBC 1 Breakfast last week that the declines in salmon and trout were due to climate change and warming of the rivers. I told you just over 2 years ago that it was due to pesticides and showed you the proof from assorted NRW documents you sent me.

Why are NRW, the government, ‘top’ UK doctors, farmers, the corporations, the media and global pesticides regulators protecting the agrochemical industry? All of you could suffer from the effects of pesticides in food, in water, in the air and in rain. Why don’t you inform the people?

Monsanto claims that Roundup doesn’t affect humans, but their sealed secret studies that scientist Anthony Samsel obtained from the US EPA, shows evidence of cancers and that bioaccumulation of ¹⁴C labelled glyphosate occurred in every organ of the body (page 9).

The NFU and Defra deny they are responsible for 70 years of poisoning the land and the subsequent insect apocalypse; they should read their own document “Healthy Harvest.” The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), the Crop Protection Association (CPA) and the Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) combined to lobby the EU not to restrict the 320+ pesticides available to them. The publication is called: HEALTHY HARVEST. ^[1] (Pages 6-9)

The Department of Health and the Chief Medical Officer for England claim that parents are responsible for obesity in primary school children. However, Pesticides Action Network (PAN) analysed the Department of Health’s Schools Fruit and Vegetable Scheme and found that there were residues of 123 pesticides in it, some of which are linked to serious health problems such as cancer and disruption of the hormone system.

When PAN informed them, they said that pesticides were not the concern of the DOH. (Page 14, 13-16).

Dr Don Huber, Emeritus Professor of Plant Pathology, Purdue University, US, speaking about GMO crops and glyphosate, said: “Future historians may well look back upon our time and write, not about how many pounds of pesticide we did or didn’t apply, but by how willing we are to sacrifice our children and future generations for this massive genetic engineering experiment that is based on flawed science and failed promises just to benefit the bottom line of a commercial enterprise.” (Page 18)

Kind regards,

Rosemary

*

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.

Featured image is from Flickr

As the U.S. engages in its annual ritual of parading out the state-sanctioned “I have a dream” Dr. King, it attempts to accomplish the amazing feat of reconciling Dr. King’s commitment to peace and principled non-violence with the normalized violence of the U.S. settler-state’s bloody history. The events in just the last month reaffirm Dr. Kings assessment that the United States is “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”

During the last month, we witnessed several graphic reminders that King’s declaration is as relevant today as it was 52 years ago; the assassination of Iranian General Soleimani; the announcement by the Trump Administration that it would defy the Iraqi government’s demand to withdraw U.S. troops; and the unveiling of operation “Relentless pursuit,” the latest State version of the racist war on the Black working class in the guise of fighting crime.

And while the U.S. state with the support of the capitalist media still promotes the U.S. as a “force for good” domestically, as Secretary of State Pompeo declared after announcing that the administration had just murdered a foreign leader who the U.S. was not officially at war with, the international community views the U.S. as the primary threat to global humanity.

For the past few years, international opinion polls have revealed that the U.S. is seen as the greatest threat to international peace.  This analysis predates the Trump Administration and reflects a sophisticated understanding on the part of the international public that the rhetoric of U.S. exceptionalism and moral self-righteousness – which is used so effectively to obscure the agenda of the corporate and financial elite within the U.S. – had little relationship to how the U.S. actually behaved in the real world.

But the U.S. is not alone in empire-building, as BAP continues to remind our members to the chagrin of some Western oriented “radical” apologists of European imperialism. It wasn’t surprising that most European heads of state supported the assassination of Soleimani, but it was disappointing that a number of European radical organizations were also either silent or gave “critical support” to his murder.

Western, white, cross-class collaboration in support of the Pan-European colonial/capitalist project is the reason why that even though BAP advocates for the principled unity of the working class and oppressed, we take the position that the Black working class and poor must be independently organized.  We will work with friends and allies from an autonomous place of organizational strength.

Some of the agitational and organizational work from BAP over the last few weeks include

Oppose any war with Iran. BAP is clear –  we said: If you believe in peace you must defeat the warmongers: https://blackallianceforpeace.com/bapstatements/defeat-warmongers-no-war-with-iran

BAP National Organizer Ajamu Baraka points out the hypocrisy of the democrat posing as Anti-war advocates: https://blackagendareport.com/sheep-dogging-steroids-new-democratic-party-anti-war-activists

BAP African team member Mark P. Fancher provides a legal analysis of the hit on Soleimani: https://blackagendareport.com/beware-imperialist-gaslighting-assassination-not-legal

Margaret Kimberley reminds the public that organized resistance is the most effective weapon we have if we are to confront the pro-war and anti-people agenda of the corporate state: https://blackagendareport.com/freedom-rider-iran-and-need-black-activism

BAP members took part in actions against any possible war with Iran in various parts of the country. However, in our messages on Iran we also had to alert the public on the racist and reactionary plan by the Trump regime to initiate a domestic military surge against the Black community.

Baltimore was one of seven cities chosen by the Trump Administration for its domestic surge. BAP-Baltimore responded: https://blackallianceforpeace.com/bapstatements/bapbaltimore-trump-military-surge

In an expanded statement on the surge “Black Alliance for Peace- Baltimore Demand End to Policing Surge” by Ready for Revolution
Thursday – January 9, 2020 – Hood Communist
http://hoodcommunist.org/2020/01/09/black-alliance-for-peace-baltimore-demand-end-to-policing-surge/

Two other interviews by BAP members Netfa Freeman and Brandon Walker elaborated on the interconnected issues of the war on Black people and the U.S. war on global democratic and human rights.

BAP Coordinating Committee member and Pan African Community Action organizer Netfa Freeman discusses the media “white out” on the subject: https://blackagendareport.com/us-surges-police-state-while-media-white-out-structural-racism

Ujima Peoples Progress Party organizer and BAP Coordinating Committee member Brandon Walker talked with BAP member and journalist Jacqueline Luqman on the impact of the surge on the people of Baltimore: $71 Million for More Cops; Not A Dime for Jobs and Healthcare – January 8, 2020 – The Real News Network: https://therealnews.com/stories/71-million-cops-not-jobs-healthcare

Other issues and actions that BAP members and supporters must be aware of

The reactionary arsenal of U.S. and Western pro-war weapons also includes the use of economic sanctions meant to target and punish the people in states that have been designated for subversion.  Popular Resistance provides a historical overview and analysis of U.S. sanctions that result in the lost of thousands of innocent lives:  https://popularresistance.org/illegal-us-economic-war/

BAP is supporting the Embassy Defense Committee and its call for an International Day of Action on January 22 to demand that all  charges of against the Venezuela embassy protectors are dropped: https://defendembassyprotectors.org/urgent-call-for-action-on-january-22nd-international-day-of-action-in-support-of-venezuela-embassy-protectors/

The Embassy Protectors will be on a short east coast tour to raise money for their defense. See here for a city near you in the East and attend if you can: https://defendembassyprotectors.org/embassy-protectors-january-tour/

All out for the United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC) conference February 21-23 in New York: https://www.unacpeace.org/home.html

Stop the School to Military Pipeline: The poverty and austerity draft that drives workers and the poor into the military makes this sector a priority for organizing resistance to the corporate capitalist imperial agenda. Rory Fanning talks about the need to incorporate veterans and active duty soldiers into the Anti-war movement. https://truthout.org/articles/many-soldiers-want-to-stop-fighting-lets-build-a-movement-that-welcomes-them/

If you want to honor King and the movement for human rights that produced him, struggle for justice. There is a clear connection between the turn to global war by the ruling class and that includes the intensification of the war against workers, with Black workers and poor the principle target.

BAP makes that connection and will continue to prepare our resistance to the war being waged against the Black working class, the poor, and all other oppressed peoples, nations and classes by the white supremacist Western capitalist oligarchy.

Join or support us.

*

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.

Conservation groups sued the Trump administration today challenging the last step in the administration’s plan to allow oil drilling and fracking on more than 1 million acres of public lands and minerals in Central California.

Today’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, says the Bureau of Land Management violated federal law by failing to consider fracking’s potential harm to public health and recreation in the region, as well as harm to the climate and possible groundwater and air pollution. The suit also notes the potential for oil-industry-induced earthquakes.

The BLM plan would allow drilling and fracking on public lands across eight counties in California’s Central Valley and Central Coast: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare and Ventura.

“Trump’s illegal, deeply unjust fracking plan would be a disaster for Central Valley communities, as well as our climate, wildlife and water,” said Clare Lakewood, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We need to phase out fracking and oil drilling, not throw open our public lands to polluters. The future of our beautiful state and our children depends on it.”

The Trump administration also plans to allow fracking on an additional 725,500 acres across 11 counties in California’s Central Coast and Bay Area. In October conservation groups filed suit to challenge that decision.

“BLM’s ill-considered plan to fling wide the door to fracking on public lands is yet another assault on California’s efforts to protect its environment and move away from dirty fossil fuels,” said Ann Alexander, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Gov. Newsom just announced curbs on oil drilling, but BLM is charging full speed ahead with it. California is trying to find a way to rationally address its limited water supply, and now BLM is greenlighting activities that can contaminate it with toxic chemicals. This federal war on California really needs to stop.”

The BLM has not held an oil and gas lease sale in California since 2012, when a federal judge ruled that the agency had violated the National Environmental Policy Act by issuing oil leases in Monterey County without considering fracking’s environmental dangers.

“BLM continues to choose the oil industry over the health and safety of local communities in Central California,” said Michelle Ghafar, an attorney at Earthjustice. “A federal court already agreed with us once that the BLM failed to fully evaluate the impacts of the oil and gas expansion it is authorizing on public land. We’re returning to court once again to ensure the agency properly analyzes the impacts of devastating fracking activities in its plan.”

Most of the land the BLM plans to open to the oil industry is in the San Joaquin Valley, which already has some of the most severe air pollution in the country.

“The BLM’s illegal plan to open up 1 million acres of our public lands to oil extraction is a dangerous risk to our communities, company, homes and schools,” said Robert Tadlock, associate general counsel at Patagonia. “It would also accelerate the climate crisis, and Ventura County already ranks as the fastest-warming county in the continental U.S. We should be working harder and smarter to stop climate change, not ignoring impacts of further drilling.”

“California’s Central Valley already suffers from some of the worst air and water quality in the state, and the decision allowing leases for oil extraction in public lands would be catastrophic for our region and especially for the health of our communities,” said Nayamin Martinez, director of the Central California Environmental Justice Network. “For years CCEJN staff has monitored emissions from oil and gas facilities and has documented that residents living near pumpjacks and storage tanks are constantly exposed to benzene and other VOCs that are carcinogenic. We need to protect our communities from further toxic pollution, not increase their exposure.”

Areas planned for drilling and fracking are near spectacular public lands, including state parks and beaches, national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, the Pacific Crest Trail and Carrizo Plain National Monument. The lands are also home to threatened and endangered animals, including San Joaquin kit foxes and California condors.

“This reckless plan threatens the iconic landscapes that define central California, endangering our communities and moving us further away from a clean energy future,” said Jeff Kuyper, executive director of Los Padres ForestWatch. “Our action today seeks to uphold our nation’s environmental protection laws while securing a safe and healthy future for our region’s public lands.”

“Throughout this planning process, the Trump administration has ignored our warnings about the long-term impacts to nearby communities and national parks, in favor of short-term gains for oil and gas developers,” said Mark Rose, Sierra Nevada program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association. “This plan could allow drilling near several of our most cherished public lands, like Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks and Cesar E. Chavez National Monument, which already suffer from some of the worst air quality of any park units in the country.”

In November Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration announced a moratorium on new high-pressure steam injection wells and scientific reviews of all current fracking permit applications.

“The BLM is breaking the law by failing to adequately analyze the impacts that increased fracking would cause to air and water quality, public health and global climate change,” said Alex Daue, assistant director for energy and climate at The Wilderness Society. “Residents of California’s Central Valley and our public lands deserve thoughtful, science-backed planning. We are joining this lawsuit as part of our continued support for environmental justice and good stewardship of America’s shared public lands.”

Today’s lawsuit adds to a raft of recent legal challenges to the federal oil and gas leasing program over the damage to the climate. Climate scientists are urging drastic cuts to greenhouse gas pollution, but new oil and gas leases commit public lands to producing more pollution for decades. Federal fossil fuel production causes about one-quarter of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

“At a time when we need to be taking urgent action to address the climate crisis, the Trump administration’s attempts to expand fossil fuel extraction on our public lands represent a huge step in the wrong direction,” said Gary Lasky, chair of the Sierra Club Tehipite Chapter in Fresno. “This reckless plan is a threat to our public lands, our health and our climate, and we will not allow it to go unchallenged.”

Fracking is an extreme oil-extraction process that blasts a mixture of toxic chemicals and water into the ground to crack open oil-bearing rocks. According to the BLM, about 90 percent of new oil and gas wells on public lands are fracked.

A 2015 report from the California Council on Science and Technology concluded that fracking in California happens at unusually shallow depths, dangerously close to underground drinking-water supplies, with unusually high concentrations of toxic chemicals.

*

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

Last April and May we were in the Venezuelan embassy in Washington, DC protecting it from a US coup takeover. We were in the embassy for 37 days and are now being prosecuted by the federal government for ‘interference with protective function.’ The prosecutors have submitted a motion in limine, which restricts what can be said in the trial. If the court approves it the jurors will be sitting in judgment of us based on fantasy facts, i.e. they will be told Juan Guido is the president, Nicolas Maduro will not be mentioned. They will never be told that we were in the embassy with the permission of the elected government of Venezuela, recognized as the government under Venezuelan law and by the United Nations. The Vienna Convention, which forbids the US government from entering foreign embassies in the United States will not be mentioned.

Ajamu and Bahman summarize this ‘Alice in Wonderland’ moment in an article below.

– Kevin Zeese, January 15, 2020

***

As the trial approaches, the lawyers for the Trump Administration’s  prosecution of the four Venezuelan Embassy Protectors who were arrested last May are asking the court to make sure the jury is kept ignorant about the facts and circumstances surrounding the actions of the protectors.

In a recently filed motion by government lawyers, state prosecutors are seeking to severely restrict what can be discussed during the trial  scheduled for February 11, 2020. Judge Beryl Howell will hear arguments on the motion at the pre-trial hearing on January 29.

What does the prosecution want to repress? Everything that might give the defenders the ability to challenge the state’s case.

The prosecutors do not want jurors to know that Nicolas Maduro is the democratically-elected president of Venezuela. They also do not want the illegitimacy of the failed coup leader Juan Guaido to be known to the jurors as the eviction and arrest of the four was based on the direction of a fake ambassador, Carlos Vecchio, who is wanted for violent crimes in Venezuela and is allied with Guaido.

The Trump prosecutors do not want the jury to know that the Embassy Protectors were inside the embassy with the permission of the elected government of Venezuela that is recognized under Venezuelan law and by the United Nations.

And, they do not want the Vienna Convention discussed so jurors are unaware that the United States violated international law when police entered the embassy to arrest the four who remained inside.

The parties will also discuss voir dire, i.e., the questions that will be used to pick the jury and ensure they are not biased, as well as jury instructions, which the court will read to the jurors before they deliberate.

The government’s motion in limine, if approved by the judge, would leave the jury wearing a blindfold, unaware of the facts, context or why the Embassy Protectors were in the embassy. This will ensure the desired outcome of the state which is to convict the defenders and make them a model for how the state intends to deal with challenges to its illegal policies.

The jurors will also not be told that the protectors were under siege, surrounded by a pro-coup mob that was working with the police, threatening the protectors and blocking food from going into the embassy. And, they will not know the government had the electricity and water turned off in the embassy.

While there were negotiations between the US and Venezuela for a mutual protecting power agreement during the final days of the embassy protection, the jurors will not be told that the negotiations were occurring and that they would have resulted in Switzerland protecting the US embassy in Caracas and Turkey protecting the Venezuelan embassy in DC. The embassy protectors told the police they would leave voluntarily when that agreement was reached. The day before the four were arrested, Samuel Moncada, the Venezuelan ambassador to the UN, held a press conference where he discussed the negotiations for a protecting power agreement and said the Embassy Protectors were in the embassy with Venezuela’s permission.

The government is also urging the court not to allow the four to explain they were exercising their rights under the First Amendment to political expression and criticizing the US government for their continuing efforts to force the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Venezuela.

If Judge Howell grants the Trump government’s motion, it will leave the Embassy Protectors virtually defenseless. The government wants the prosecution to be about three things (1) the four were in the embassy, (2) they were given a notice of eviction by the police, and (3) they refused to leave.

The judge has thus far shown she leans toward the government’s narrow view of the case and does not want the questionable legality of the state’s order to vacate the embassy and its clearly illegal entry into the embassy and arrest of the defenders as part of the trial. When the motion for discovery was argued, the judge ruled against the Embassy Protectors regarding documents and other materials related to some of the above issues. See this article we wrote at the time, Embassy Protectors Are Being Denied Their Right To A Fair Trial.

For more information on the prosecution, this page provides background on the case, Frequently Asked Questions.

You can also show support for the Embassy Protectors by supporting our demand to drop charges against the defenders on the home page of Embassy Protectors Defense Committee‘s web site.

• We are still raising money for the defenders legal defense (Donate here).
• There will be an international day of action on January 22nd (Click Here for More Information)
• You can also attend one of the events of the defenders upcoming January tour on the East Coast if you are in the area.
• We are asking the public to attend the trial in Washington, DC, which begins on February 11.

In this period of normalized illegality and attempts at intimidation, we shall not allow the state to move against these courageous activists without resistance from our movements. While today it is the defenders tomorrow it could be any of us.

*

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 Embassy Protection Collective

Pentagon officials are assuring Americans that the Pentagon’s recent assassination of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani will make Americans safer. There is at least one big problem with that formulation, one that, unfortunately, many Americans still don’t recognize. That problem is this: the power of assassination wielded by the Pentagon and the CIA extends to American citizens.

Why is that a problem?

Because there is no way to reconcile a government’s power to assassinate its own citizens with the principles of a free society. A free society necessarily is one in which the government lacks the power to assassinate its own citizens.

Our American ancestors clearly understood this aspect of a free society. That’s why they demanded the enactment of the Fifth Amendment as a condition for accepting the new limited-government republic that was being proposed by the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment reads in part: “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” That phrase — due process of law, which stretches back to Magna Carta — has come to mean notice and trial, including trial by jury.

Americans had been operating under the Articles of Confederation for some 13 years when the delegates at the Constitutional Convention proposed a limited-government republic type of governmental system. Under the Articles, the federal government hadn’t even been given the power to tax, much less the power to assassinate American citizens. Americans were leery about the proposal for a limited-government republic because they feared that it might evolve into a government with totalitarian-like powers, such as the power to assassinate its own citizens.

Americans finally were persuaded to accept the deal but they demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights to make sure that federal officials got the point. The Bill of Rights essentially says: “You don’t have the power to destroy our fundamental, God-given rights, and you also lack the power to kill us without following the principles of due process of law.”

The Framers did not bring into existence a government in which federal officials would be entrusted with the power of assassination. Instead, they made certain that the federal government was denied the power of assassination. They understood that freedom isn’t a government in which officials are exercising a power of assassination prudently, rarely, and wisely. They understood that freedom is a government in which officials don’t have the power to assassinate at all.

It is impossible to overstate the magnitude of the change that took place after World War II, when the federal government was converted from a limited-government republic to a national-security state form of governmental structure. A national-security state is a totalitarian form of governmental structure, one that wields totalitarian-like powers. North Korea is a national security state. So are China, Russia, Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. And post-World War II United States.

The conversion of the federal government to a national-security state automatically brought into existence the power of the federal government to assassinate American citizens. At the moment of the conversion, the freedom of the American people was destroyed because, again, it is impossible to reconcile the totalitarian power of assassination with the principles of a free society.

It doesn’t matter how much Americans are convinced that they are a free people. It doesn’t matter how many times they thank the troops for defending their freedom. The fact remains: A people whose government wields the power to assassinate its own people are not a free people.

It’s no different here in the United States. The power to assassinate, which is reserved to the Pentagon and the CIA, two of the principal components of the national-security establishment (the other is the NSA), is omnipotent and non-reviewable, so long as the Pentagon and the CIA say that the assassination relates to “national security.” Once they utter those two words, there isn’t a court in the land, including the U.S. Supreme Court, that will interfere with the Pentagon’s or CIA’s assassination of any American citizen or, for that matter, any other citizen.

An American citizen who learns that he has been targeted for assassination has no recourse to prevent his killing. If he kills the assassin or any other Pentagon or CIA official, they will arrest him, prosecute him, and execute him as a terrorist and murderer. If he seeks an injunction in U.S. District Court, they will assassinate him on his way to court. If a relative sues for an injunction on his behalf, the court will dismiss the suit for “lack of standing.” If relatives sue for wrongful death, their suit will be summarily dismissed. If a state grand jury returns an indictment for murder against the Pentagon or the CIA, a federal district court will enjoin the prosecution. If a federal grand jury returns a similar indictment, a federal district judge will summarily dismiss it.

In a national-security state, national security is everything. Once the Pentagon or the CIA utter those two words to justify their assassination of an American citizen, the other three branches of government, including the judiciary, immediately go silent, passive, and deferential.

Can Americans regain their freedom? Of course! But to do so requires a dismantling of the national-security state form of governmental structure and a restoration of a limited-government republic form of governmental structure. Once a critical mass of Americans desire liberty and a limited-government republic over national security and a national-security state, Americans will be on the road toward the restoration of a free society.

*

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.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

You may think “fake news” is a fairly recent development made possible by the internet and social media. But a little over 100 years ago President Woodrow Wilson created an official fake news agency to persuade the American people to support the United States entry into WWI.

But first a little perspective on what drove Wilson’s unorthodox methods.

Woodrow Wilson was elected President of the United States in 1912. Politically, he was a novice having only served two years as governor of New Jersey prior to his elevation to the Presidency. Wilson’s lack of political experience made him easy to manipulate by the seasoned political pros who surrounded him. “Colonel” Edward M. House, a well-connected associate of the Rothschild international banking dynasty was handpicked as an informal advisor to President Wilson.

The Rothschilds were working hard behind the scenes to foment a global war so their banks could fund the massive costs of military conflict. Colonel House was their man in the White House to “nudge” the new President in the right direction. In the fall of 1914 WWI erupted with the assignation of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo, Bosnia. France, Britain and Russia faced off against Germany and her allies Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire (modern day Turkey), and Bulgaria.

But the United States had no compelling reason to join the fray and the vast majority of the nation wanted nothing to do with the war. Indeed, Wilson ran for his second Presidential term in 1916 under the slogan, “He kept us out of war!” Colonel House used Wilson’s grandiose ego by persuading him that he could go down in history as the man who ended world wars forever with a League of Nations, today’s modern day United Nations.

There was only one major problem. Wilson would have no credibility with the combatants to pitch his League of Nation’s idea unless America shared in the bloody conflict. And to accomplish that trick House hatched a plan to turn the hearts and minds of ordinary US citizens into clamoring for war! This was accomplished with a brazen propaganda campaign of “fake news” that painted Germany and her allies as heartless monsters that threatened the globe.

America Enters the War

Great Britain used a naval blockade in an attempt to starve the German people into submission. Germany responded with unrestricted submarine warfare sinking any ship the German Navy suspected of aiding the British. Several US ships (suspected of secretly transporting war materials to Great Britain) were torpedoed by German U Boats. On April 2nd, 1917 President Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany and her allies and four days later Congress did so.

On April 13th, 1917 President Wilson created the Committee on Public Information (CPI) an independent government agency through Executive Order #2594. Wilson appointed George Creel, a journalist, to head up the agency. They recruited approximately 75,000 volunteers to spread carefully crafted messages deemed crucial to molding the hearts and minds of American citizens to support the war.

The committee used newsprint, posters, radio, telegraph and movies to broadcast its message. The volunteer speakers were dubbed “Four Minute Men” because that’s how long it took to change a reel of film at a movie theatre. In between reels they would jump up and recite their carefully rehearsed propaganda to sway the crowd for war. They spoke in Churches, arena’s, concert halls and even on street corners in cities and towns large and small.

According to historians the CPI’s grip on war news was ironclad as they recounted the average citizen’s experience.

Every item of war news they saw—in the country weekly, in magazines, or in the city daily picked up occasionally in the general store—was not merely officially approved information but precisely the same kind that millions of their fellow citizens were getting at the same moment. Every war story had been censored somewhere along the line— at the source, in transit, or in the newspaper offices in accordance with ‘voluntary’ rules established by the CPI.

And while the CPI was officially disbanded on August 21st, 1919 their influence is still felt today. Overall the CPI was considered a glorious success and paved the way for today’s 24/7 news cycles that promote endless wars.

A report published in 1940 by the Council on Foreign Relations credits the Committee with creating:

…the most efficient engine of war propaganda which the world had ever seen, producing a ‘revolutionary change’ in public attitude toward US participation in WWI.

Fake news is nothing new, but its bloody legacy continues to mold the hearts and minds of unsuspecting, unthinking US citizens today.

*

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.

Jeff Harris and his wife own and operate a small organic grass fed beef and pastured pork farm in South Carolina.

Featured image is from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

Relevant Zero Hedge article first published and crossposted on GR in April 2017.

Prophetically foreshadowing the current crisis (and apparent action plan), leaked CIA documents from the reign of Bashar al-Assad’s father in the 1980s show a Washington Deep State plan coalescing to “bring real muscle to bear against Syria,” toppling its leader (in favor of one amenable to US demands), severing ties with Russia (its primary arms dealer), and paving the way for an oil and gas pipeline of Washington’s choosing.

As ActivistPost.com’s Brandon Turbeville detailed (just a day before Trump unleashed his Tomahawks), as the Syrian crisis enters its sixth year, the Donald Trump administration is looking more and more like the Obama administration every day. With the Trump regime refusing to open useful dialogue with Russia regarding Syria, its obvious anti-Iran and pro-Israel positioning, and support for a very questionable “safe zone” plan for Syria, the odds of a rational U.S. policy in regards to Syria has lower and lower odds of existence as time progresses.

Yet, despite the fact that the Trump administration is apparently poised to continue the Obama regime’s proxy war of aggression against the people of Syria, an example of seamless transition, it should also be remembered that the plan to destroy Syria did not begin with Obama but with the Bush administration.

Even now, as the world awaits the continuation of the Syrian war through a Democratic and Republican administration, the genesis of that war goes back to the Republican Bush administration, demonstrating that there is indeed an overarching agenda and an overarching infrastructure of an oligarchical deep state intent on moving forward regardless of which party is seemingly in power.

As journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in his article, “The Redirection,”

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

“Extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam” who are “hostile to America and sympathetic to al-Qaeda” are the definition of the so-called “rebels” turned loose on Syria in 2011. Likewise, the fact that both Iran and Hezbollah, who are natural enemies of al-Qaeda and such radical Sunni groups, are involved in the battle against ISIS and other related terrorist organizations in Syria proves the accuracy of the article on another level.

Hersh also wrote,

The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.”

Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said.

. . . . . .

This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”

. . . . . .

Fourth, the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations. Syria is a major conduit of arms to Hezbollah.

. . . . .

In January, after an outburst of street violence in Beirut involving supporters of both the Siniora government and Hezbollah, Prince Bandar flew to Tehran to discuss the political impasse in Lebanon and to meet with Ali Larijani, the Iranians’ negotiator on nuclear issues. According to a Middle Eastern ambassador, Bandar’s mission—which the ambassador said was endorsed by the White House—also aimed “to create problems between the Iranians and Syria.” There had been tensions between the two countries about Syrian talks with Israel, and the Saudis’ goal was to encourage a breach. However, the ambassador said, “It did not work. Syria and Iran are not going to betray each other. Bandar’s approach is very unlikely to succeed.”

. . . . . .

The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, a branch of a radical Sunni movement founded in Egypt in 1928, engaged in more than a decade of violent opposition to the regime of Hafez Assad, Bashir’s father. In 1982, the Brotherhood took control of the city of Hama; Assad bombarded the city for a week, killing between six thousand and twenty thousand people. Membership in the Brotherhood is punishable by death in Syria. The Brotherhood is also an avowed enemy of the U.S. and of Israel. Nevertheless, Jumblatt said, “We told Cheney that the basic link between Iran and Lebanon is Syria—and to weaken Iran you need to open the door to effective Syrian opposition.”

. . . . .

There is evidence that the Administration’s redirection strategy has already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, “The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.” He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front’s members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents.

Hersh also spoke with Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Shi’ite Lebanese militia, Hezbollah. In relation to the Western strategy against Syria, he reported,

Nasrallah said he believed that America also wanted to bring about the partition of Lebanon and of Syria. In Syria, he said, the result would be to push the country “into chaos and internal battles like in Iraq.” In Lebanon, “There will be a Sunni state, an Alawi state, a Christian state, and a Druze state.” But, he said, “I do not know if there will be a Shiite state.” Nasrallah told me that he suspected that one aim of the Israeli bombing of Lebanon last summer was “the destruction of Shiite areas and the displacement of Shiites from Lebanon. The idea was to have the Shiites of Lebanon and Syria flee to southern Iraq,” which is dominated by Shiites. “I am not sure, but I smell this,” he told me.

Partition would leave Israel surrounded by “small tranquil states,” he said. “I can assure you that the Saudi kingdom will also be divided, and the issue will reach to North African states. There will be small ethnic and confessional states,” he said. “In other words, Israel will be the most important and the strongest state in a region that has been partitioned into ethnic and confessional states that are in agreement with each other. This is the new Middle East.”

Yet, while even the connections between the plans to destroy Syria and the Bush administration are generally unknown, what is even less well-known is the fact that there existed a plan to destroy Syria as far back as 1983.

Documents contained in the U.S. National Archives and drawn up by the CIA reveal a plan to destroy the Syrian government going back decades. One such document entitled, “Bringing Real Muscle To Bear In Syria,” written by CIA officer Graham Fuller, is particularly illuminating. In this document, Fuller wrote,

Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf — through closure of Iraq’s pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the [Iran-Iraq] war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey.

Even as far back as 1983, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s father, Hafez Assad, was viewed as a gadfly to the plans of Western imperialists seeking to weaken both the Iraqis and the Iranians and extend hegemony over the Middle East and Persia. The document shows that Assad and hence Syria represented a resistance to Western imperialism, a threat to Israel, and that Assad himself was well aware of the game the United States, Israel, and other members of the Western imperialist coalition were trying to play against him. The report reads,

Syria continues to maintain a hammerlock on two key U.S. interests in the Middle East:

— Syrian refusal to withdraw its troops from Lebanon ensures Israeli occupation in the south;

— Syrian closure of the Iraqi pipeline has been a key factor in bringing Iraq to its financial knees, impelling it towards dangerous internationalization of the war in the Gulf

Diplomatic initiatives to date have had little effect on Assad who has so far correctly calculated the play of forces in the area and concluded that they are only weakly arrayed against him. If the U.S. is to rein in Syria’s spoiling role, it can only do so through exertion of real muscle which will pose a vital threat to Assad’s position and power.

The author then presents a plan that sounds eerily similar to those now being discussed publicly by Western and specifically American corporate-financier think tanks and private non-governmental organizations who unofficially craft American policy. Fuller writes,

The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey. Iraq, perceived to be increasingly desperate in the Gulf war, would undertake limited military (air) operations against Syria with the sole goal of opening the pipeline. Although opening war on a second front against Syria poses considerable risk to Iraq, Syria would also face a two-front war since it is already heavily engaged in the Bekaa, on the Golan and in maintaining control over a hostile and restive population inside Syria.

Israel would simultaneously raise tensions along Syria’s Lebanon front without actually going to war. Turkey, angered by Syrian support to Armenian terrorism, to Iraqi Kurds on Turkey’s Kurdish border areas and to Turkish terrorists operating out of northern Syria, has often considered launching unilateral military operations against terrorist camps in northern Syria. Virtually all Arab states would have sympathy for Iraq.

Faced with three belligerent fronts, Assad would probably be forced to abandon his policy of closure of the pipeline. Such a concession would relieve the economic pressure on Iraq, and perhaps force Iran to reconsider bringing the war to an end. It would be a sharpening blow to Syria’s prestige and could effect the equation of forces in Lebanon.

Thus, Fuller outlines that not only would Syria be forced to reopen the pipeline of interest at the time, but that it would be a regional shockwave effecting the makeup of forces in and around Lebanon, weakening the prestige of the Syrian state and, presumably, the psychological state of the Syrian President and the Syrian people, as well as a message to Iran.

The document continues,

Such a threat must be primarily military in nature. At present there are three relatively hostile elements around Syria’s borders: Israel, Iraq and Turkey. Consideration must be given to orchestrating a credible military threat against Syria in order to induce at least some moderate change in its policies.

This paper proposes serious examination of the use of all three states – acting independently – to exert the necessary threat. Use of any one state in isolation cannot create such a credible threat.

The strategy proposed here by the CIA is virtually identical to the one being discussed by deep state establishment think tanks like the Brookings Institution today. For instance, in the Brookings document “Middle East Memo #21: Saving Syria: Assessing Options For Regime Change,” it says,

Turkey’s participation would be vital for success, and Washington would have to encourage the Turks to play a more helpful role than they have so far. While Ankara has lost all patience with Damascus, it has taken few concrete steps that would increase the pressure on Asad (and thereby antagonize Tehran). Turkish policy toward the Syrian opposition has actually worked at cross-purposes with American efforts to foster a broad, unified national organization. With an eye to its own domestic Kurdish dilemmas, Ankara has frustrated efforts to integrate the Syrian Kurds into a broader opposition framework. In addition, it has overtly favored the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood over all other opposition groups. Washington must impress upon Turkey the need to be more accommodating of legitimate Kurdish political and cultural demands in a post-Asad Syria, and to be less insistent on the primacy of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Some voices in Washington and Jerusalem are exploring whether Israel could contribute to coercing Syrian elites to remove Asad. The Israelis have the region’s most formidable military, impressive intelligence services, and keen interests in Syria. In addition, Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly.

While Syria is not in conflict with Iraq today, after being destroyed by the United States in 2003, Western Iraq now houses the mysteriously-funded Islamic State on the border between Iraq and Syria.

That being said, this plan is not merely being discussed, it is being implemented as one can clearly see by the fact that Israel routinely launches airstrikes against the Syrian military, Turkey continues to funnel ISIS and related terrorists into Syria through its own territory, and ISIS continues to present itself as an Eastern front militarily. As a result, the “multi-front” war envisioned and written about by the CIA in 1983 and discussed by Brookings in 2012 has come to fruition and is in full swing today.

Full Document below:

Then three years later, another CIA report (found recently in CREST database by Wikileaks) confirms much of the above, raising once again the goal of reducing Russian influence, and toppling any Syrian leadership that was inclined to escalate tensions with Israel…

Under most circumstances Moscow’s position in Syria should remain strong, but should Syria suffer another devastating military defeat at the hands of Israel new leaders might decide to look elsewhere for military equipment.

A shift to a Western arms supplier also could prompt parallel efforts to seek Western financial advice and support.

Best case scenario for Washington…

We judge that US interests in Syria probably would be best served by a Sunni regime as it might well include relative moderates interested in securing Western aid and investment.

Such a regime probably would be less inclined to escalate tensions with Israel.

Russian relations…

Syria is the centerpiece of Moscow’s influence in the Middle East. Moscow thus has a vested interest in major policy shifts or changes in Syrian leadership. The Soviet Union and its East European allies provide virtually all of Syria’s arms, and the Soviets deliver more weapons to Syria than to any other Third World client.

We believe Moscow’s interests would be seriously jeopardized if Sunnis came to power through a civil war. Many Sunnis resent the Soviets because they are closely identified with Alawi dominance, and Sunnis would be especially hostile toward the Soviets if they had supported Alawis with military equipment and advisors in a civil war.

SCENARIOS OF DRAMATIC POLITICAL CHANGE

US biggest fear was series of coups over succession of Bashar al-Assad’s father… That did not come to be.

Civil war (similar to what is very evident now)…

Sunni dissidence has been minimal since Assad crushed the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1980s, but deep-seated tensions remain–keeping alive the potential for minor incidents to grow into major flareups of communal violence. For example, disgruntlement over price hikes, altercations between Sunni citizens and security forces, or anger at privileges accorded to Alawis at the expense of Sunnis could foster small-scale protests. Excessive government force in quelling such disturbances might be seen by Sunnis as evidence of a government vendetta against all Sunnis, precipitating even larger protests by other Sunni groups.

Best case scenario…

Many decades ago there was an issue of Mad comics that portrayed a future time when everything was done by robots and humans had no function.  One day the system failed. As it had been eons since humans had to do anything, no one knew how to fix the system.  It was Mad comics version of Armageddon.

I think that is where the digital revolution is taking us.  I remember when appliances and cars responded to humans, and now humans respond to them.  When I grew up cars and home appliances did not go “beep-beep” to remind you of the things you were supposed to do, such as turn off the car lights and take the keys out of the ignition, or turn off the oven and shut the fridge.

Cars, except for British sports cars, didn’t have seat belts.  Today a car doesn’t stop beeping until you fasten your seat belts.  I hear that soon the cars won’t start until the seat belts are fastened. 

When the electric company’s outsourced crew failed to connect the neutral line to my house and blew out all appliances, sprinkler system, and garage openers, the electric company replaced everything on a prorated depreciated basis that cost me thousands of dollars.  The worst part of it is that the new appliances boss me around.  

The old microwave would gently beep three times and stop.  The new one beeps in the most insistent way—open the door you dumb human right this second, immediately—and keeps on insisting until I obey.  The fridge refuses to let me leave it open for cleaning.  The oven insists that I open it immediately, despite my habit of cutting the on time short and leaving whatever it is to cook awhile longer in the hot oven.  

Here is an explanation of how our electric meters spy on us and pass on the information to interested parties.  

Self-driving cars seem to be our future, and robots are taking our jobs away even faster than global corporations offshored them to Asia.  

What exactly is it that humans are going to be good for?  Nothing it seems.

Why will we need a driving license when cars drive themselves?  If there is an accident, who is to blame?  The company that made the car?  The company responsible for the softwear?  What is the point of car insurance when drivers have no responsibility?

Perhaps it is true that aliens are living among us.  Their language is “beep-beep” and they are using our machines and cars to train us, like Pavlov’s dogs, to respond to their command.

I can remember when telephones were a convenience before they became a nuisance.  When my land line rings, 95% of the time it is a scam or a telemarketing call, usually robotic.  Now, a man will listen to a sexy female voice, for a time, and a woman will listen to a courtly gentleman’s voice, but until sex doll robots catch on, no one wants to listen to a machine’s voice.  So why the calls?  Why do the telephone companies permit their customers to be scammed and their privacy to be constantly invaded?  How do the phone companies benefit from permitting unethical people to destroy the value of phone service?

The same thing, I am told, happens to cell phone users.  Recently I finally had to acquire a smart phone, because two people I need to reach only respond to text messages.  They refuse to answer any phone, and email is so invaded by scammers, malware, and marketeers that they do not use email.  They do not even set up the message system on their cell phones. If you try to call them, you get instead of an answer the message that the person you are attempting to call has not set up their message box.  

So there you have it.  Except for texting, which can’t (yet) be done with a land line, telephones are a nuisance.

Growing up in Atlanta during the 1940s and into the early 1950s, you could not yourself place a call from your telephone.  When you picked up the receiver, an AT&T operator answered and asked: “number please.”  You gave her the number, and she rang it and connected you if there was an answer.  If you did not know the number, you asked her for information.  If you knew the complete name and perhaps the street address, you were provided with the telephone number.

In those halcycon days even in a city such as Atlanta, Georgia, there were party lines.  That meant that you shared a telephone line with a neighbor.  If you picked up the receiver to make a call through the operator and heard voices speaking, you knew the line was in use and decency required that you hang up immediately.  As the talking parties heard the click when you picked up the line, if they didn’t hear the click when you hung up they asked you to get off their call.

In that system, there was no anonymity. Anonymity appeared with dial phones, which allowed you to make your own calls.  From a public telephone, the call was not traceable to you.  This technology was the beginning of our downfall.  

Dial phones, something youths have seen only in antique shops or old movies are still with us in everyday language. We still say “dial the number” when we are punching buttons.

Today thanks to technological “progress,” it is much easier to invade privacy.

Technology is destroying us and the planet.  The pollution from technology is phenomenal. 5G itself may do us in. The destruction of privacy, identity, and freedom by the digital revolution is far beyond George Orwell’s imagination.  Insouciant humans delight in the gadgets that are turning themselves into unfree people who are under control but who themselves control nothing.

This outcome is easily seen in China where the government uses universal spying to construct for each person a social credit score.  It that person is a dissident, has bad habits, etc., that person gets a score too low to qualify for a loan, university admission, employment, etc., and becomes a non-being.  Here is Soren Korsgaard’s explanation of our 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.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Globes English 

What are we really supporting when we refuse the truth and accept the war lies and the permanent war agenda?

We are supporting al Qaeda/ISIS, Empire’s proxies. We are supporting the military dictatorship of Washington-led NATO and the collapse of International Law.

We are supporting a New Fascist World Order and our subservience to supranational diktats.We are supporting the thirdworldization of our own political economies.

The Truth is deplatformed in this New Fascist Order. Politicians do not represent the people. Representative government is a projected perception, empty of substance.

Transnational corporations impose impoverishing neoliberal diktats, the “Washington Consensus”, at home and abroad. Privatization schemes impoverish domestic populations at the expense of the public sphere. Equal access to health care and schooling is disappeared. The industrial base is delocated to vassal stooge countries where human and labour rights are largely non-existent.

The Fascist world order creates holocausts but denies it all.

“Those with consciences,” wrote Gideon Polya in 2015:

“recently marked the 12th anniversary on 19 March 2015 of the illegal and war criminal US, UK and Australian invasion of Iraq in 2003  that was based on false assertions of Iraqi possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction, was conducted in the absence of  UN sanction  or Iraqi threat to the invading nations, and led to 2.7 million Iraqi deaths from  violence (1.5 million) or from violently-imposed deprivation (1.2 million). The West has now commenced its Seventh Iraq War since 1914 in over a century of Western violence in which Iraqi deaths from violence or violently-imposed deprivation have totalled  9 million. However  Western Mainstream media have resolutely ignored  the carnage, this tragically illustrating the adage ‘History ignored yields history repeated’. ” (1)

Permanent warfare and globalizing poverty are hallmarks of this dystopia, as is widespread despair.

“It’s not only the impoverishment of large sectors of the world population;” explains Prof. Michel Chossudovsky:

“It is precipitating people into total despair and it’s the destruction of the institutional fabric, the collapse of schools and hospitals which are closed down, the legal system disintegrating, borders are redefined.

Essentially this stage, which goes beyond impoverishment, is the transformation of countries into territories and we see it occurring in the Middle East. The objective for Iraq and Libya and Yemen is certainly to transform a country into a territory, and then you recolonize it. You’re in a very different environment to that which has prevailed until recently.” (2)

But it doesn’t have to be this way. The Axis of Resistance is fighting back against the war lies, the terrorism, the permanent warfare. It is fighting for international law, nation-state sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is fighting against globalized fascism, poverty, and despair.

Those of us in the West who still believe in the ideals of democracy and freedom need to denounce the NATO occupation of our lands, our minds, and our pocket books. We need to denounce wars of aggression, imperialism, and war lies. We need Pro-Life political economies, not Pro-Death diseconomies.

The choice is ours.

*

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.

Notes

(1) Dr. Gideon Polya, “An Iraqi Holocaust, 2.7 Million Iraqi Dead From Violence Or War-imposed Deprivation.” “ICH”, March 27, 2015, (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41378.htm) Accessed January 10, 2020.

(2) Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, “Neoliberalism and the New World Order. IMF-World Bank ‘Reforms’, The Role of Wall Street.” Global Research, 24 March, 2017 Guns and Butter 22 June 2016.
(https://www.globalresearch.ca/neoliberalism-and-the-new-world-order-imf-world-bank-reforms/5572157) Accessed 10 January, 2020.

Featured image is CC BY SA 2.0

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

On January 10, SouthFront released a video entitled “What’s Behind Boeing Crash In Iran” on the January 8 airliner crash near Tehran. This video was produced because the Iranian side released new facts and details regarding the incident.

The Iran Air Defense Forces brought down the Ukraine International Airlines Boeing 737-800 (Flight PS752) near Tehran due to “a human error”, the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces said in an official statement on January 11. The statement denounced the previous Iranian main version that the tragedy was a result of technical malfunction.

The data provided in the statement of the General Staff, and the press conference of the Head of the Aerospace Division of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) provide the following chain of events:

1. At approximate 23:00 UTC, on January 7, the IRGC carried out a missile strike on US military targets in Iraq;
2. The country’s air defense network was on highest alert amid reports on a possible cruise missile strike by the United States and increased flights of US warplanes near Iranian airspace;
3. At 2:38 UTC, January 8, the PS752 took off from Imam Khomeini International Airport and moved close to a “sensitive” facility of the IRGC “when completing a loop”. The aircraft reportedly deviated from the general PS752 course for around 2km;
4. The altitude and the direction of the flight’s movement “were like an enemy target”. The surface-to-air missile system operator mistakenly identified as the plane as an incoming “cruise missile” 19km away;
5. The missile system operator acted independently because of a failure in the communication system;
6. The operator then “took the wrong decision” of firing on the perceived threat in a “ten-second” time span to shoot or ignore the flying object. During the night, the operator repeatedly called for a halt in flights in the area. This was not done.
7. A “short-range missile” exploded next to the plane. After this, the plane continued flying for a while, and “exploded when it hit the ground.” The Iranian side did not mention the missile system used. Supposedly, it was the Tor low to medium altitude, short-range surface-to-air missile system.

Thus, Iran described the situation with the Boeing as a result of the combination of aforementioned factors in the “atmosphere of threats and intimidation by the aggressive American regime against the Iranian nation”. Nonetheless, the real picture of events may have been different.

It remains unclear how the Boeing 737-800 may have been mistaken for an incoming cruise missile, especially taking into account that this situation developed near the capital’s working airport. If one takes this explanation with a grain of salt, the scenario could have been the following.

The plane experienced some technical difficulties during or immediately after the take-off and deviated from the course moving closer to the IRGC military site. Information appeared that the preflight inspection checklist was not signed by Iranian airport engineers, but the Ukrainian side insisted to fly at its own risk and responsibility.

Therefore, the system operator, that experienced a communication failure, considered the plane as a ‘military threat’ because it may have been hijacked for a 9/11-style attack, got under control via a cyber-attack and/or used as a cover for a pinpoint missile strike on the IRGC site.

This version does not explain how the communication failure could appear at the air defense post that must have two shielded communication channels: primary tactical circuit and the alternative. The possible explanation with an electronic warfare attack does not hold up against criticism civilian communication channels remained operational with routine flights continuing from the Tehran airport. Another factor is the video of the missile hit that appeared online. How this person, could have known when and what exactly to film without advance knowledge of the developments?

Then, there is one more explanation: The plane was shot down deliberately to exert additional pressure on Iran from the United States during the alleged acute phase of the crisis between Iran and the United States, which had a chance to develop into an open regional war. In the framework of this version, it could be suspected that the operator may have been recruited by US intelligence or blackmailed, or the system was captured in an act of sabotage by the US or its affiliated forces.

Regardless the existing gaps in the current official version of the events and the real course of the developments, Iran will and further be forced to claim that the airliner shoot down was a “human error”. Iran can ill-afford to admit the lack of control over key objects of military infrastructure in the heart of the country.

*

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

Russian leader Vladimir Putin made a surprise Christmas visit to Syria, where he met with the country’s president, Bashar Assad. The tranquility of their meeting was in sharp contrast to the hell breaking out in neighboring Iraq.

According to the Pentagon, US forces are in 164 (of the world’s 193) countries.

They’re on over 1,000 US bases of varying sizes and on others of host countries. Much information about their numbers, troop strength, and location is secret.

According to analyst Nick Turse, the US maintains “an imperial military presence (globally) unlike any other” country in world history, adding:

“Never has a single country had so many military bases on so many parts of Planet Earth…How many such bases?”

The Pentagon won’t say. In his book titled “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic,” Chalmers Johnson explained the following:

“Once upon a time, you could trace the spread of imperialism by counting up colonies,” adding:

“America’s version of the colony is the military base; and by following the changing politics of global basing, one can learn much about our ever more all-encompassing imperial footprint and the militarism that grows with it.”

“(E)ven more than in past empires, a well-entrenched militarism (globally lies) at the heart of (US) imperial adventures.”

Reflecting “force projection,” they’re positioned to strike nations anywhere to advance the US imperium, notably against nations targeted for regime change.

They come at an enormous cost. With all categories included, the US spends more on militarism and belligerence than all other countries combined.

Wherever US forces are based, their presence is intrusive at the expense of the host country’s population.

They have nothing to do with protecting host countries from external threats, nothing to do with requests by these countries for a US military presence on their territory.

They’re all about pursuing the US global war OF terror, not on it. Their mission is advancing Washington’s imperium at the expense of world peace, stability and security.

Its aim is controlling other nations, their resources and populations.

Its rage for dominance by brute force and other hostile actions is a prescription for endless wars, instability, chaos, a nation in decline, others rising at its expense.

Numerous US bases in Iraq are key to pursuing its hostile regional agenda. They’re platforms for endless Middle East war.

Controlling Iraqi territory maintains supply lines to Pentagon bases in Syria.

Without Iraqi bases, US control over northern parts of the Syrian Arab Republic would be weakened.

Iraqi Prime Minister Mahdi called the Trump regime’s assassination of Iranian General Soleimani and Iraqi deputy PMU commander Muhandis “a massive breach of (the country’s) sovereignty, (a) “clear breach of the terms of the American forces’ presence.”

He and Iraqi MPs want US forces expelled. According to Mahdi, they’re “guests” in the country no longer wanted. The Iraqi street considers them hostile “occupiers.”

No status of forces agreement (SOFA) authorizes their presence, an informal arrangement alone — to combat the scourge of ISIS the US created and supports.

Terms of an earlier 2009 US SOFA with Iraq (no longer applicable now) required Iraqi government approval for US military operations within or from the country’s territory.

If Baghdad and Iraqi parliamentarians want US forces out of the country, it’ll be illegally occupied territory if Trump refuses to leave, where things now stand.

Their removal from Iraq is essential to advance things toward restoration of regional peace and stability — a blow to Washington’s regional agenda if achieved.

On Monday, Pompeo suggested a possible reduction in the Pentagon’s Iraq’s footprint, short of withdrawing all US forces.

Speaking at the right-wing Hoover Institution, he unjustifiably justified Soleimani’s assassination, repeating his earlier stated litany of bald-faced Big Lies about a widely respected, now martyred, figure in Iran, Iraq, and elsewhere regionally.

The US has no intention of voluntarily withdrawing troops from parts of the world where its ruling authorities want them based.

As long as the US empire of bases exists, world peace and stability will remain unattainable.

Iraq wants US forces out of the country. Clearly the Trump regime won’t leave voluntarily. Nor is withdrawal likely any time soon.

Because of the US presence in Middle East countries, the region remains the world’s top hot spot, a hugely dangerous situation, risking greater war than already.

A Final Comment

According to a 2019 US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment, Iran’s missile capabilities are formidable, saying:

“Iran has the largest missile force in the Middle East, with a substantial inventory of close-range ballistic missiles (CRBMs), short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs), and medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) that can strike targets throughout the region as far as 2,000 (to 2,500) kilometers from (its) borders.”

They can strike anywhere in the Middle East with pinpoint accuracy and destructive force.

The DIA noted that Iran is working to increase the capability of its missile strength.

Its retaliatory strike on US Iraq bases last week in retaliation against Soleimani’s assassination, penetrating its missile defenses, was a slap-on-the-wrist example of its capabilities.

It’s why Pentagon commanders likely oppose tangling with Iran militarily by striking its territory.

All its regional bases, warships, and allied nations would be vulnerable to destructive retaliation.

*

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.

„Der Iran hält sich nicht an die Nuklearabkommen“ (Il Tempo), „Iran zieht sich aus den Nuklearabkommen zurück – ein Schritt in Richtung Atombombe“ (Corriere della Sera), „Iran bereitet Atombomben vor – Abschied vom Atomabkommen“ (Libero). Auf diese Weise haben fast alle Medien die Entscheidung des Iran nach der von Präsident Trump angeordneten Ermordung von General Soleimani dargestellt, die für 2015 geplanten Beschränkungen der Urananreicherung durch die 5+1-Gruppe (USA, Frankreich, Großbritannien, Russland, China und Deutschland) nicht mehr zu akzeptieren.

Diese „informationsorgane“ haben also offensichtlich keinen Zweifel an der Quelle der nuklearen Bedrohung im Nahen Osten. Sie vergessen, dass es Präsident Trump war, der 2018 die USA aus dem Abkommen, das Israel als „die Kapitulation des Westens vor der vom Iran geführten Achse des Bösen“ bezeichnet hatte, zurückgezogen hat. Sie sagen kein Wort darüber, dass es im Nahen Osten nur eine einzige Atommacht gibt – Israel -, die keiner Form der Kontrolle unterworfen ist, weil sie sich nicht an den Atomwaffensperrvertrag hält, der jedoch vom Iran unterzeichnet ist.

Das durch einen dichten Mantel aus Geheimhaltung und Omertà abgeschirmte Arsenal Israels wird auf 80 bis 400 Atomsprengköpfe geschätzt, zuzüglich genügend Plutonium, um Hunderte von weiteren zu bauen. Israel produziert sicherlich auch Tritium, ein radioaktives Gas, mit dem es Atomwaffen der neuen Generation baut. Dazu gehören Minibomben und Neutronenbomben, die, da sie eine minimale radioaktive Verseuchung verursachen, besser für Ziele in der Nähe von Israel geeignet wären. Die israelischen Nuklearsprengköpfe sind bereit für den Abschuss durch ballistische Raketen, die mit der Jericho 3 eine Reichweite von 8.000 bis 9.000 Kilometern haben. Deutschland lieferte an Israel (als Geschenk oder zum Schleuderpreis) vier für den Start von Popeye Turbo Atomraketen modifizierte Dolphin-U-Boote mit einer Reichweite von etwa 1.500 Kilometern. Lautlos und mit der Fähigkeit, eine Woche lang unter Wasser zu bleiben, fahren die Dolphins im östlichen Mittelmeer, im Roten Meer und im Persischen Golf und sind rund um die Uhr für einen Atomangriff einsatzbereit.

Die Vereinigten Staaten, die Israel bereits mehr als 350 F-15 und F-16 Jagdbomber geliefert haben, liefern derzeit mindestens 75 F-35 Jäger aus, die ebenfalls sowohl über konventionelle als auch über nukleare Kapazitäten verfügen. Das erste Geschwader der israelischen F-35 wurde im Dezember 2017 einsatzbereit. Israel Aerospace Industries stellt Tragflächenkomponenten her, die die F-35 für den Radar unsichtbar machen. Mit dieser Technologie, die auch bei den italienischen F-35 angewendet wird, potenziert Israel die Angriffskapazitäten seiner Nuklearstreitkräfte.

Israel, mit 200 Atomwaffen, die permanent auf den Iran gerichtet sind, wie der ehemalige US-Außenminister Colin Powell 2015 [1] angedeutet hat, ist entschlossen, sein Monopol der Bombe im Nahen Osten aufrechtzuerhalten, indem es den Iran daran hindert, ein ziviles Atomprogramm zu entwickeln, das eines Tages den Bau von Atomwaffen ermöglichen könnte, eine Befugnis, die heute Dutzende von Ländern auf der ganzen Welt haben. Im Kreislauf der Urangewinnung gibt es keine klare Grenze zwischen der zivilen und militärischen Nutzung von spaltbarem Material. Um das iranische Nuklearprogramm zu blockieren, ist Israel entschlossen, alle Mittel einzusetzen, die ihm zur Verfügung stehen. Die Ermordung von vier iranischen Atomwissenschaftlern zwischen 2010 und 2012 war höchstwahrscheinlich das Werk des Mossad.

Die israelischen Nuklearstreitkräfte sind im Rahmen des „Individuellen Kooperationsprogramms“ mit Israel, einem Land, das nicht Mitglied des Bündnisses ist, aber eine ständige Mission im Hauptquartier des Bündnisses in Brüssel hat, in das elektronische System der NATO integriert. Nach dem Plan, der bei der Übung Juniper Cobra 2018getestet wurde, würden die amerikanischen Streitkräfte über Europa (vor allem von italienischen Stützpunkten aus) eintreffen, um Israel in einem Krieg gegen den Iran [2] zu unterstützen, ein Krieg, der mit einem israelischen Angriff auf iranische Nuklearanlagen beginnen könnte, wie er auf dem iranischen Gelände von Osiraq durchgeführt wurde. Die Jerusalem Post [3] bestätigt, dass Israel über nicht-nukleare Anti-Bunker-Bomben verfügt, die insbesondere mit den F-35, die den iranischen Nuklearstandort Fordow treffen können, eingesetzt werden können. Aber der Iran, obwohl er keine Atomwaffen besitzt, verfügt über eine militärische Abwehrkapazität, die Jugoslawien, Irak und Libyen zum Zeitpunkt der Angriffe der USA und der NATO nicht besaßen. In diesem Fall könnte Israel eine Atomwaffe einsetzen, indem er eine Kettenreaktion auslöst, die unvorhersehbare Folgen hat.

Manlio Dinucci

Qual è la vera minaccia nucleare in Medio Oriente

il manifesto, 07.Januari 2020

Übersetzung: K.R.

Mark Esper, the former US Secretary of Defense (it’s a matter of time now) said that his chief Donald Trump lied to the US citizens about the justification to carry out the most heinous murder crimes against two top commanders who fought ISIS and saved US and European lives, including the soldiers from the USA and Europe.

That’s how I read the ‘breaking news’ I received from The New York Times in my inbox. Other info about this is nothing but useless details, especially to those who are concerned.

Screenshot of The New York Times ‘breaking news’ email notification

This might be breaking news to ignorant people, but there was no planned attack against any US interest in the region or elsewhere by the murdered commanders Iranian IRGC’s top General Qasim Soleimani and Iraqi top security force commander and Deputy Head of the PMU Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis.

It was totally the contrary, the Iranian General Soleimani was on a PEACE Mission to defuse tensions between Iran and Saudi carrying a reply message from Iran to the Saudis through the Iraqi mediator Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, and what drove the Iranians and the Iraqi officials further mad at the US President Trump and the US Army is that Trump knew about the mission of General Soleimani and when he was arriving from the Iraqi PM by a phone call the same day.

This is what Mr. Abdul-Mahdi told the Iraqi Parliament during the historic session which voted to expel the US forces out of the country.

Everything else you heard of from the western mainstream media propagandists is full of their usual Pentagon propaganda, but wait, maybe the Pentagon itself is not happy about what happened like what its chief has come out to tell.

Mark Esper spilled out what could be his last statement as the Defense Secretary of the US, since his chief the absolute dictator of large Trump Inc., ie. the USA, doesn’t like other opinions than his and has a short but rich history of firing those who have any other opinions ‘You’re Fired’.

Don’t blame Trump or even his contenders at the US presidential race in 2016 especially crooked Hillary, it’s the USAians who look through the bottom of the degenerated society that thrives among them and pick the worse of it to lead them. They turned a Republic into a ‘Lobbycracy’ and called it ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ and they want to export the surplus of their invention by all means of force, terror, and intimidation to the rest of the world.

Side note: Why does the US ‘Vile‘ President Pence keep staring at his boss throughout all the conferences when they’re 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.

Featured image is from Syria News

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper told Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation” on Sunday that he didn’t see any specific evidence that Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was planning an imminent attack, which had been widely used by Trump as the justification of his assassination along with Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.  “What the president said was he believed that it probably and could’ve been attacks against additional embassies,” he said.

While Trump was apparently making Ouiji-board foreign policy decisions, Esper was worried about the US troops now in Iraq, and with more on their way, whether these troops had the support of the American people; however, the American people want to see proof of why those troops need to be there, otherwise there is a case for bringing them back home to safety.

Time to go home

Iraqis feel the US was first an invader in 2003, and then left Iraq with a sectarian constitution which has the country deeply divided.  “It is not true that we Iraqis are divided into either hating the US or loving Iran. We appreciated both for fighting ISIS, but that is over and we need to be independent,” said Nezar George, a welder in Baghdad.

More than 60% of Iraqis are Shiite, which is the state religion of their neighbor, Iran.  Post-war political parties, and their leaders, were formed with stances of either pro-US or pro-Iran. The US is secular and touts religious freedom.  All Americans live side by side, not in segregated ghettos, but diverse communities. The US imposed a constitution on Iraq which maintains divisions by religion and sect.  The Iraqi people identify with their sect, which is translated into sectarian political parties. Patriotism is a foreign concept, which could only be nurtured in Iraq by time spent under a secular government.  They pledge their allegiance to their family, their sect, and their party. Iraq is now referred to as either Sunni or Shiite, with the Christians having been virtually eliminated by the US invasion, and ISIS.

After seeing over 1 million Iraqis murdered by US troops, the Iraqi government invited them to return in 2014 to fight ISIS. However, after ISIS was defeated in 2017, Iraqi politicians are determined to oust the US troops. Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi telephoned Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday and asked him to “send delegates to Iraq regarding the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq,” and said American forces had entered Iraq and drones are flying in its airspace without permission from Iraqi authorities and this was a violation of the bilateral agreements.  He appeared to give the US time to plan for the withdrawal of about 5,200 US troops in Iraq. The US State Department acknowledged that Pompeo had spoken with Abdul-Mahdi, but neglected to mention withdrawal.

General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Mark Esper have said there were no plans for the US to leave Iraq. The Iraqi parliament passed a resolution to expel US troops after the Trump ordered the assassination of Soleimani and Muhandis at Baghdad’s airport.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani urged opposing factions to unite. The cleric was born in Iran but has lived most of his life in Iraq.

“The serious attacks and repeated violations of Iraqi sovereignty that occurred in recent days with the apparent weakness of the concerned authorities in protecting the country and its people … are part of the repercussions of the current crisis,” al-Sistani said.

Ammar al-Shibli, a member of the parliament, said

“There is no need for the presence of American forces after defeating Daesh (ISIS),” and added, “We have our own armed forces which are capable of protecting the country.”

“The guests arrive, and later the party is over, but they won’t go home. What do we do? We make their stay with us so unbearable; they will leave on their own,” said Abdul Khayat, a Baghdad pizza baker.

Trump Flip-Flops

Trump broke the Iran nuclear deal that the US had agreed to, along with other nations, in a head-spinning reversal. Without offering anything to take its place, he then slapped drastic sanctions of Iran which have devastated the economy, going so far as to prevent humanitarian medicines to be imported.

Trump threatened to freeze billions of Iraqi dollars in the New York Fed if Iraq insists the US troops must withdraw; however, in almost the next breath he suggest on Friday he would not oppose a troop withdrawal from Iraq, “I’m OK with it,” Trump said on a Fox News interview.

After the constant reversals by Trump, the Iranians might be waiting it out, hoping to deal with a future US president who they can trust to keep a deal.

Soleimani history

Soleimani arrived in Baghdad airport by invitation of the PM Abdul-Mahdi to attend a regional peace talk when he was assassinated by Trump. He was the head of Iran’s Quds Force and also the mastermind of the Iraqi militia networks, who are part of the Iraqi military structure. In 2014, when ISIS came into Iraq, a religious ruling was issued calling on all Iraqis to fight against ISIS; however, most Iraqis did not enlist in the Iraqi armed forces but instead joined militias supported by Iran.

The millions of people in Iraq and Iran who attended his funeral revered him. Lebanese and Syrian people remembered he helped to save them from ISIS. Noam Chomsky wrote, “They have not forgotten that when the huge, heavily armed US trained Iraqi Army quickly collapsed, and the Kurdish capital of Erbil, then Baghdad and all of Iraq were about to fall in the hands of ISIS, it was Soleimani and the Iraqi Shia militias he organized that saved the country.”

The mainstream media reporting the death of Soleimani have all chanted the same mantra: that he was responsible for hundreds of Americans’ deaths.  They refer to US forces killed by IEDs during the Iraq War; however, the Pentagon has provided no evidence that Iran made those IEDs.  That unproven claim was used by VP Dick Cheney in his plan to wage a US war on Iran.

Soleimani and his militiamen targeted US troops or contractors/mercenaries stationed in a country that the US illegally attacked and occupied.  Under Soleimani’s leadership, the Iraqi militias provided effective military resistance to foreign occupying forces. The US was not an innocent party getting accidentally trapped into going to war, rather it was actively pursuing it.  Michelle Goldberg explains, “To Iranians, after all, America is the aggressor.”

Even though the US might have viewed Iran, and Soleimani as an enemy, the US troops fought alongside the Iraqi militias under Soleimani’s command in the 2014-2017 fight against ISIS. Law scholar Karen Greenberg wrote that killing Soleimani was illegal and an “inevitable outcome of our dangerous ‘war on terror’ policy.”

The locals have a saying, “Saddam Hussein’s Hell was better than the Americans’ paradise.”

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a political commentator.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

The United States is relying more heavily on illegal unilateral coercive measures (also known as economic sanctions) in place of war or as part of its build-up to war. In fact, economic sanctions are an act of war that kills tens of thousands of people each year through financial strangulation. An economic blockade places a country under siege.

A recent example is the increase in economic measures being imposed against Iran, which many viewed as more acceptable than a military attack. In response to Iran retaliating for the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani and seven other people, Iran used ballistic missiles to strike two bases in Iraq that house US troops. President Trump responded by saying he would impose more sanctions on Iran. Then he ended his comments by urging peace negotiations with Iran. The United States needs to understand there will be no negotiations with Iran until the US lifts sanctions that seek to destroy the Iranian economy and turn the people against their government.

The sanctions on Iran have been in place since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which made that country independent of the United States. Iran is not the only country being sanctioned by the United States. Samuel Moncada, the Venezuelan ambassador to the United Nations, speaking to the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement of 120 nations on October 26, 2019, denounced the imposition of sanctions by the US, as “economic terrorism which affects a third of humanity with more than 8,000 measures in 39 countries.”

It is time to end US economic warfare and repeal these unilateral coercive measures, which violate international law.

Take Action: Join The International Days Of Action Against  Sanctions And Economic War, March 13 – 15, 2020

Sanctions are war. From havaar.org.

Sanctions Are A Weapon of War

The United States uses sanctions against countries that resist the US’ agenda. US sanctions are designed to kill by destroying an economy through denial of access to finance, causing hyperinflation and shortages and blocking basic necessities such as food and medicine. For example, sanctions are expected to cause the death of tens of thousands of Iranians by creating a severe shortage of critical medicines and medical equipment everywhere in Iran.

Muhammad Sahimi writes that in a “letter published by The Lancet, the prestigious medical journal, three doctors working in Tehran’s MAHAK Pediatric Cancer Treatment and Research Center warned that, ‘Re-establishment of sanctions, scarcity of drugs due to the reluctance of pharmaceutical companies to deal with Iran, and a tremendous increase in oncology drug prices [due to the plummeting value of the Iranian rial by 50–70%], will inevitably lead to a decrease in survival of children with cancer.’”

Diabetes, multiple sclerosis, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and asthma affect over ten million Iranians who will find essential medicines impossible to get or available only at high prices. The US claims that food and medicines are excluded from sanctions but in practice, they are not because pharmaceutical companies fear sanctions being applied to them over some technical violation and Iran cannot pay for essentials when banks can’t do business with it. European nations failed to persuade the Trump administration to ensure that essential medicine and food were available to Iranians.

In Venezuela, due to the sanctions, 180,000 medical operations have been canceled and 823,000 chronically ill patients are awaiting medicines. The Center for Economic and Policy Research found sanctions have deprived Venezuela of “billions of dollars of foreign exchange needed to pay for essential and life-saving imports,” contributing to 40,000 total deaths in 2017 and 2018. More than 300,000 Venezuelans are at risk due to a lack of access to medicine or treatment. Economists warn US sanctions could cause famine in Venezuela. Sanctions also cause shortages of parts and equipment needed for electricity generation, water systems, and transportation as well as preventing participation in the global financial market. Sanctions, which are illegal under the UN, OAS and US law, have caused mass protests in Venezuela against the US.

Sanctions against Iran and Venezuela could be a prelude to military attack, i.e. the US weakening a nation economically before attacking it. This is what happened in Iraq. Under pressure from the United States, on Aug. 2, 1990, the UN Security Council passed sanctions that required countries to stop trading or carrying out financial transactions with Iraq. President George H.W. Bush said the UN sanctions would not be lifted “as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.” The US continued to pressure the increasingly skeptical Security Council members into compliance even though hundreds of thousands of children were dying. In 1996, then-U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright was asked about the death of as many as 500,000 children due to lack of medicine and malnutrition exacerbated by the sanctions, and she brutally replied, “[The] price is worth it.” Sanctions were also used against Libya and Syria before the US attacked them.

This is consistent with the US ‘way of war’ described by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz in “An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States,” which describes frontier counterinsurgency premised on annihilation including the destruction of food, housing, and resources as well as ruthless militarism. The US has waged a long-term economic war against Cuba (sanctions in place since 1960), North Korea (first sanctions in the 1950s, tightened in the 1980s), Zimbabwe (2003) and Iran (1979)

Sanctions hurt civilians, especially the most vulnerable – babies, children, the elderly and chronically ill – not governments. Their intent is to shrink the economy and cause chronic shortages and hyperinflation while ensuring a lack of access to finance to pay for essentials. The US then blames the targeted government claiming that corruption or socialism is the problem in an effort to turn the people against their government. This often backfires as people instead rally around the government, quiet their calls for democracy and work to develop a resistance economy.

Stop Sanctions destroying lives from BrightonAndHoveNews.org.

The Movement to End Sanctions

In recent years, a movement has been building to end the use of illegal economic coercive measures. The movement includes governments coming together in forums like the Non-Aligned Movement, made up of countries that represent 55 percent of the global population, as well as UN member-states calling for international law and the UN Charter to be upheld and social movements organizing to educate about the impact of sanctions and demand an end to their use. This June, the Non-Aligned Movement called for the end of sanctions against Venezuela.

Popular Resistance is working with groups around the world on the Global Appeal for Peace, an initiative to create a worldwide network of people and organizations that will work together to oppose the lawless actions of the United States, and any country that acts similarly. A high priority is opposing the imposition of unilateral coercive economic measures that violate the charter of the United Nations. The UN and its International Court of Justice have been ineffective in holding the US accountable for its actions. No one country or one movement has the power alone to hold the United States accountable, but together we can make a difference. Join this campaign here.

With 39 countries targeted with sanctions, and other countries impacted because they cannot trade with those countries, nations are challenging the US’ dollar domination. Countries are seeking to conduct trade without the dollar and are no longer treating the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency while also avoiding Wall Street. The de-dollarization of the global economy is a boomerang effect that is hastening due to the abuse of sanctions and will seriously weaken the US economy.

Foreign Minister Zarif, who describes sanctions as “economic terrorism,” warned that “the excessive use of economic power by the United States, and the excessive use of the dollar as a weapon in US economic terrorism against other countries, will backfire.”  As the blowback continues to grow, the negative impact on the US economy may force the US to stop using sanctions. The end of dollar domination will add to the demise of the failing US empire.

Take Action: Join The International Days Of Action Against  Sanctions And Economic War, March 13 – 15, 2020

End the Deadly Sanctions banner on the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington, DC. From the Embassy Defense Collective.

Time to End the Use of Illegal Economic Sanctions

The combination of countries acting against US sanctions, and people’s movements pressuring the US government has the potential to end the abuse of sanctions. The EU has moved to blunt the impact of the sanctions against Iran by creating an alternative to the US-controlled SWIFT system for trade. This is spurring the end of the dollar as the reserve currency. Some officials in the EU have called for retaliatory sanctions against the US.

Trump left a small opening for potential diplomacy with Iran that could lead to the end of sanctions against that country. Trump bragged about the US being the number one oil and gas producer, taking credit for an Obama climate crime, and therefore no longer needing to spend hundreds of millions a year to have troops in the Middle East. He concluded with a message to the “people and leaders of Iran” that the US was “ready to have peace with all those who seek it.” He said the US wanted Iran to have a “great and prosperous future with other countries of the world.”

That future is only possible if the US moves to end the sanctions against Iran. Iranians have learned the US cannot be trusted. Iran lived up to the requirements of the Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, but Trump did not when he withdrew from it and re-instated draconian sanctionslifted by Obama. Trump added even move sanctions. This also angered European allies who had negotiated the agreement and were put in the positionof being subservient to the US or going against it. To regain Iran’s trust, the US needs to make a good-faith gesture of ending punitive economic measures.

North Korea, which has been sanctioned by the US longer than any other country, had a similar experience after they reached an agreement with the United States in 1994 under the Clinton administration.  The George W. Bush administration wanted to put in place a national missile defense system but the agreement with North Korea blocked that. John Bolton and Dick Cheney falsely accused North Korea of violating the agreement, increased sanctions against it and claimed it was part of the Axis of Evil, along with Iran, and Iraq. North Korea, like Iran, learned they cannot trust the United States. Sanctions are causing thousands of deaths in North Korea. Now, China and Russia are allied with North Korea and are urging relief from the US sanctions. Russia and China have also ignored US sanctions against Venezuela and continue to do business with it.

On December 17, the Senate passed a Sanctions Bill that put in place sanctions against corporations working with Russia to develop gas pipelines to Europe. The action is naked US imperialism seeking to prevent Russia from being the main natural gas exporter to the EU market and to replace it with more expensive US-produced gas, a move to save the financially-underwater US fracking industry. Russia, Germany, and others have defiantly told Washington its weaponizing of economic sanctions will not halt the gas pipeline construction.

The indiscriminate, illegal and immoral use of sanctions is an act of war. Unless they are authorized by the United Nations, unilateral coercive measures are illegal. A critical objective of the peace and justice movement in the United States, working with allies around the world, must be to end this terrorist economic warfare. The US economy currently depends on financial hegemony and war. The slow, steady collapse of the dollarized economy means the 2020s will be the decade US domination comes to an end. The US must learn to be a cooperative member of the global community or risk this isolation and retaliation.

*

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

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published. 

Let us remember that when Macri started his mandate in December 2015 he accepted all the injunctions formulated by a New York magistrate, who had ruled in the favor of vulture funds against Argentina. This has made it possible for those investment funds specializing in repurchasing sovereign securities at cut prices to garner $4.6 billion, a 300% profit (see this). To compensate these vulture funds, Mauricio Macri borrowed on the financial markets. He claimed that everything would be fine since implementing neoliberal policies would make Argentina more attractive to foreign investors and lenders. International mainstream media supported him. When invited to comment experts in economics presented Macri’s Argentina as a success story. Issuing in 2017 bonds that would come to maturity one hundred years later, (2117) was hailed as the ultimate proof of Macri’s pro-market neoliberal success.

In fact, the success of those bonds had a completely different explanation: the interest rate every year for one hundred years is 7.25% (with an actual return on the initial purchase price of 7.917% for the bonds were sold at a cut price to attract investors). At the same time in early June 2017, bankers could borrow at 0% from the ECB, the Bank of Japan and the Swiss National Bank, at 0.25% from the Bank of England and at 1.00% from the Federal Reserve in the US, while investment funds had huge amounts of cash and return on public debt securities in the North was very low or even negative, Argentine bonds at 7.25% over one hundred years was a godsend. Their success was thus in no way evidence of the Argentine economy’s good health. There is such a huge amount of capital intended for speculation (and not for productive investment) that any State that issues sovereign securities with a return that is higher than average is likely to find takers.

Here is an example of comments to be found in the press heralding the 100 year bonds:

Argentina sold $2.75 billion of a hotly demanded 100-year bond in U.S. dollars on Monday, just over a year after emerging from its latest default, according to the government. The South American country received $9.75 billion in orders for the bond, as investors eyed a yield of 7.9 percent in an otherwise low yielding fixed income market where pension funds need to lock in long-term returns. This Reuters report clearly celebrates the country’s achievement (see this).

One year earlier, in April 2016, Reuters reported:

Marking a rare bright spot among gloomy emerging markets, Argentina sold $16.5 billion of sovereign debt on Tuesday in its first international bond issue since its record 2002 default… Investors seemed convinced of [new President Mauricio Macri’s] strategy… Argentina received offers worth $68.6 billion from investors around the world.

Anybody will understand from such hyperbolic comments that major capitalist corporations all over the world were on the lookout for opportunities to obtain high yield by purchasing high risk securities. It does not tell anything about Argentina’s economic health.

Potential lenders such as investment funds or major banks thought that Argentine securities would be guaranteed by the State of Argentina and that if necessary they could seek favorable adjudication in the jurisdiction of New York. They were right since the loan agreements were made in accordance with the law of the State of New York. Anyway, they were also convinced that in case of necessity the IMF would bail-out the government of Argentina so that it may repay its debt to private funds as it had always done. Another argument was the following: Argentina’s underground resources are significant and if hard pressed Argentina could increase production in order to meet lenders’ expectations.

In short, in 2016-2017, while Argentina’s real economy was collapsing, the government managed to find lenders and its right-wing government was praised in international media as well as by the IMF and by other governments in the hold of big capital.

But the situation took a turn for the worse in 2018 as a consequence of several negative factors resulting from Macri’s policies such as a steep rise in the amount of interests to be paid (which had to be financed by ever new loans), massive flight of capital that was made possible by a most lax policy of complete freedom for capital to leave the country. It showed that Argentine capitalists had limited confidence in Macri’s future and preferred shopping elsewhere including buying Argentine external debt securities in US dollars on Wall Street. Currency reserves sharply dropped. Production started to decline and Argentina slipped into recession. Employment plummeted. Most people’s purchasing power dropped as a consequence of the government’s and bosses’ attacks. As a result, domestic consumption, that accounted for 70% of Argentina’s GDP, also dropped. The Argentine peso gradually sunk: while 22 pesos bought one euro on 1^st January 2018, 32 pesos were needed on 16 June 2018. [1]

In this context, in June 2018, Macri called on the IMF as foreign investors and Argentine capitalists had anticipated (see this). The total credit promised by the IMF rose to $57 billion (with $44.1 billion actually paid up to now). As a first step, in June 2018, the amount of $50 billion had been announced and a few months later, as the situation had not improved, $7 more billion were added. This is the highest ever loan granted by the IMF (the IMF’s loan to Greece in 2010 was €30 billion). As usual the IMF demanded even stricter austerity policies that were even more unpopular than those already introduced by Macri (see this).

In October 2019, the Argentine people turned away from Macri and elected the Peron political movement back into office after an intermission of four years. Alberto Fernandez became President and Cristina Fernandez, who was President from 2007 to 2015, Vice-President (Alberto and Cristina are not related).

The CADTM’s Latin American and Caribbean network, CADTM AYNA, held its 8^th annual assembly in preparation of Alberto Fernandez succeeding Mauricio Macri as President (10 December 2019). I participated in the meeting as well as in several talks and debates including one at the parliament of Argentina. I also gave four interviews: fifteen minutes live on a popular private and anti-Macri TV channel (see this); a video for an information website (see this) connected with the main civil service trade union, Canal Abierto (see this); one on the main website of the revolutionary left laizquierdadiario (the daily paper of the Left) which has an average of two million visits per month; and one to the main center left newspaper, Pagina 12.

The rate of poverty strongly increased over the four years of Macri’s mandate, going from 27 to 40% of the population. In the days before Macri left the Presidency to the two Fernandezs debt repayment was the most debated issue.

On the other hand, we should emphasize that social and political movements in Argentina are massive and well organized: trade unions are still powerful, the feminist movement is still able to mobilize on a large scale, the unemployed too are well organized, the cooperative movement is strong. The various neoliberal experiments that started with the dictatorship (1976-1983) and that had their latest attempt under Macri have not been able to fracture the Argentine society and, contrary to what is the case in neighboring Chile, education is free including at university level, as indeed is health care.

The questions most often raised in Argentine media during the November-December 2019 period

• While the previous government had suspended repayment of part of the internal debt, will the new government repay the accumulated debt and implement policies that have been rejected by a majority of the people?
• What should be done with the IMF agreements?
• Since the IMF is expected to pay Argentina $11 to 13 billion, must the new government demand those payments or withdraw from them?
• Shouldn’t Argentina suspend debt repayment for two years so as to make sure that economic activity resumes properly and make later debt repayment sustainable? This is a suggestion by Martin Guzman, an Argentine economist who teaches in New York and works with Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate for economy. Guzman has just been appointed minister for economy and finance in Alberto Fernandez’ new government (see this and this)

A majority of the people clearly reject the IMF, whose deleterious impact on Argentina is obvious to all and sundry. It has to be remembered that after the second world war, president Juan Domingo Perón had turned down his country’s adhesion to the IMF, an institution he exposed as an instrument of imperialism. [2] Argentina only joined the IMF in 1956 during the military dictatorship of General Pedro Eugenio Aramburu Silveti, who overthrew the constitutional president Juan Domingo Perón in 1955. Twenty years later, the IMF actively supported the bloody dictatorship of General Jorge Rafael Videla, who was responsible for the assassination of over 30,000 left-wing opponents. In the 1990s, the IMF put Argentina under pressure to turn it into one of the most active countries in terms of privatizations and structural adjustment. This eventually resulted in the massive upheaval of December 2001, which led to the fall of President Fernando de la Rúa.

During the public lectures organized by ATTAC- CADTM in collaboration with some ten other associations in Buenos Aires from 27 to 29 November 2019, I had the opportunity as international spokesperson for the CADTM to put forward a number of proposals to face the Argentine debt crisis. Those proposals are the result of wide ranging debates within the CADTM network. This was also the case at a hearing held in the Parliament of Argentina on 27 November at the initiative of economist Fernanda Vallejos, an MP in the new presidential majority (see my contribution in Spanish).

The following is a summary of my points and proposals.

There should be no hesitation in arguing the doctrine of odious debt because it is particularly applicable to the situation in which Argentina finds itself.

According to this doctrine a debt is deemed odious and nullified if it fulfils two conditions:

1. it was taken on against the interests of the Nation, the People or the State.
2. the creditors are unable to prove that they were unaware that the debt was contrary to the interests of the Nation. It is to be pointed out that the nature of the political regime or the government is not taken into consideration in the doctrine.

The deciding factor is the use that is made of the debt. If a democratically elected government puts its population into debt against their best interest this debt may be deemed odious. It is erroneous to say that only debts taken on by dictatorial regimes may be deemed odious (see this). [3]

It is fundamental that Argentina unilaterally takes sovereign measures to improve its debt situation.

Five principal examples:

1. pass laws prohibiting vulture funds
2. suspend debt repayments
3. bond holders must be registered with the Buenos Aires authorities
4. setting up a citizens’ debt audit
5. repudiation of current agreements with the IMF

1 – Pass laws prohibiting vulture funds

As Belgium showed in 2008 and again in 2015, it is possible to pass laws restricting vulture funds (see Renaud Vivien, « Analyse de la loi belge du 12 juillet 2015 contre les fonds vautours et de sa conformité au droit de l’UE »,  (see this in French)). The act of law is quite simple – an investment fund cannot reclaim sums superior to what it paid to acquire treasury bills. In fact, vulture funds purchase the sovereign debts of countries with repayment difficulties at junk prices and then apply legal pressure on the government concerned to pay in full and so make profits sometimes amounting to several hundred per cent of their initial layout. If Argentina passed a similar law it would have some protection against vulture funds. If many countries did the same vulture funds would be neutralized. The practice of designating foreign jurisdictions (such as New York or London with laws that are favourable to creditors) as competent in the case of sovereign debt litigations must end.

2 – Suspend debt repayments

Suspending debt repayments is one of the possibilities that permit governments to deal with financial and/or humanitarian crises. The country may declare suspension unilaterally, many have done so. It was the case of Argentina between 2001 and 2005 for a total of €80 billion and the benefits followed.

In a collective book published by OUP in 2010, [4] Stiglitz claims that Russia in 1998 and Argentina in the 2000s are proof that a unilateral suspension of debt repayment can be beneficial for countries that make this decision: “Both theory and evidence suggest that the threat of a cut-off of credit has probably been exaggerated.” (p.48)

When a country succeeds in enforcing debt relief on its creditors and uses funds that were formerly meant for repayment in order to finance an expansionist tax policy, this yields positive results: “Under this scenario the number of the firms that are forced into bankruptcy is lowered, both because of the lower interest rates [5] and because of the improved overall economic performance of the economy that follows. As the economy strengthens, government tax revenues increase – again improving the fiscal position of the government. […] All this means that the government’s fiscal position is stronger going forward, making it more (not less) likely that creditors will be willing to again provide finance.” (p.48) In an article published in Journal of Development Economics [6] under the title ‘The Elusive Costs of Sovereign Defaults,’ Eduardo Levy Yeyati and Ugo Panizza, two economists who worked for the Inter-American Development Bank, set out the findings of their thorough inquiry into defaulting in some forty countries. One of their main conclusions is that ‘Default episodes mark the beginning of the economic recovery.’ It couldn’t be better put.

As was already done in 2001 Argentina should not hesitate to declare a new unlimited suspension of payments. The recuperated amounts could be used to stimulate consumer spending and economic activities favouring the population. Two years would appear to be a minimum period to achieve lasting results with the possibility of prolonging the period.

It is recommended to suspend selectively – small savers and shareholders as well as public pension schemes should be exempted from suspension on the domestic debt. This means that they would continue to be paid. It is quite right to make this discrimination in order to protect the weaker investors and public institutions. It is the big private investors and the IMF who are to be defaulted.

3 – Bond holders must be registered with the Buenos Aires authorities

Argentine authorities should revive the practice of the first half of the 20^th century that established lists of bond holders. In the litigation between Mexico and its creditors in the 1940s the creditors were obliged to make themselves known and have their certificates rubber stamped or be excluded from settlement. This permitted the cancellation of 90% of the Mexican debt (see this). Registering bond holders makes it possible to sort big and small, private and public bond holders in order to favour small and public holders.

4 – Setting up a citizens’ debt audit

To have a clear idea of the stakes and sums involved and a solid legal arsenal it is essential to conduct an audit of the debt under citizens’ control. An audit would show how much of the debt (possibly an overwhelming part) may be deemed illegal or odious and could be the way forward towards debt repudiation and/or a unilateral restructuring.

5 – Repudiation of current agreements with the IMF

As has been shown by many observers and Argentine jurists the agreements made with the IMF by Mauricio Macri are contrary to the country’s and the people’s interests. When the IMF granted a loan of $57 billion to the Macri government it transgressed its own rules that state that the IMF can only grant loans if as a consequence the borrowing country’s debt becomes sustainable, which is not at all the case as evidenced less than a year later. Macri also transgressed the Argentine constitution that requires that the signature of such an agreement that has the value of an international treaty must be debated in Parliament and then be ratified by Parliament. The real reason the loan was granted was because the US President Donald Trump wanted to help Macri remain in power in spite of the crisis and win the 2019 elections, to implement policies that favoured the US in political, military and economic terms. As the Argentine electors have disavowed Macri’s policies and Macri had transgressed the Argentine constitution, the new government would have the right to refuse to validate the agreement. This is a text-book case of odious debt: when a country sees regime change the new government is not held to respect the debts of its predecessors if they were taken on against the interest of the Nation or the People and in the former regime’s own advantage (in this case to remain in power) and it is clear that the IMF directors were aware of the context.

It is important that Argentina does not make the same errors of debt negotiation as in the 2002-2010 period (see the analysis by Maud Bailly and Eric Toussaint, “The mixed fortunes of Argentina’s 2005 and 2010 debt restructuring”).

The above measures should be part and parcel of a larger programme that would include; capital controls, socialization of the banking sector, tax reforms, measures against the extractivist/exportation market model and ecological policies among others.

In conclusion: a new situation will arise in Argentina as from December 2019, a new government must face up to a serious debt crisis. It is fundamental that a large popular social and political front be created in order, by all necessary means, to promote the solutions that will liberate the Argentine people from the burden of illegitimate and odious debt.

*

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.

Translated by Mike Krolikowski and Christine Pagnoulle

Eric Toussaint is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège, is the spokesperson of the CADTM International, and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France.

Notes

SELECTED ARTICLES FROM GLOBAL RESEARCH 

.

India’s Kashmiri Detainee Self-Censorship Demand Is Undemocratic

By Andrew Korybko, January 14, 2020

India’s demand that thousands of Kashmiri detainees sign a bond that commits them to not to make any comments on “recent events” as a condition for their release after they were previously apprehended without charge for five months already is the definition of an undemocratic practice which exposes the fundamental hypocrisy behind the self-professed “world’s largest democracy”.

Iran to Sue the US and Trump for Killing General Soleimani

By Stephen Lendman, January 14, 2020

According to Iran’s Judiciary Spokesman Gholamhossein Esmayeeli, the country’s ruling authorities will sue the US in international courts for Soleimani’s assassination. “This brutal act was a violation of human rights and all international rules,” Esmayeeli stressed.

The Cost of Brexit – £200 bn in ‘Collateral Damage’ and Counting

By True Publica, January 14, 2020

Brexit has now cost the UK £130bn in what is termed as “collateral damage” since the referendum, a new study suggests. And this number is set to rise another £70bn by the end of 2020.

Bloomberg Economics said Britain’s economy had been “lacklustre” over the three-and-a-half years since a majority of voters backed Leave in the EU referendum in 2016.

Trump and Congress Double Down on Demonizing Iran

By Philip Giraldi, January 14, 2020

If one seriously seeks to understand how delusional policymakers in Washington are it is only necessary to examine the responses by the president and Congress to the assassination of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani. The first response came in the form of a Donald Trump largely incoherent nine-minute self-applauding speech explaining what he had done and why. It was followed by a House of Representatives War Powers non-binding resolution that was all theater and did nothing to limit the president’s unilateral ability to go to war with the Islamic Republic.

Trump Sends a “Death Threat” to Iraq’s Prime Minister.

By Renee Parsons, January 13, 2020

The assassination of Major General Qaseem Soleimani, who was already a national hero in Iran, has now achieved the stature of a world class martyr. Carrying a diplomatic passport on his flight into Baghdad, Soleimani was also carrying the Iranian response  to a Saudi initiative for peace.

In contrast, President Donald Trump has revealed more about his own inner angst than he ever intended – or perhaps, being a non-introspective type, what has been revealed may be more than he himself has ever acknowledged.

“This Plane Was Designed by Clowns, Who Are Supervised by Monkeys” – Shocking Boeing Emails Reveal Contempt for Management, FAA

By Zero Hedge, January 13, 2020

In recent weeks, a series of reports claiming Boeing neglected to turn over critical information to the FAA regarding the development of the 737 MAX 8, Boeing’s new “workhorse” model that has been grounded around the world for the last 10 months, after a pair of suspicious crashes raised suspicions of possible flaws in the plane’s anti-stall software.

According to more than 100 pages of internal company communications (which were apparently withheld from the FAA during the certification process for the jet) Boeing employees could be heard mocking federal rules, openly discussing their deception of regulators, and joking about the MAX’s potential flaws.

The Federal Reserve Protects Gamblers at the Expense of the Real Economy. “Helicopter Money” – The Only Way Out?

By Ellen Brown, January 13, 2020

Although the repo market is little known to most people, it is a $1-trillion-a-day credit machine, in which not just banks but hedge funds and other “shadow banks” borrow to finance their trades. Under the Federal Reserve Act, the central bank’s lending window is open only to licensed depository banks; but the Fed is now pouring billions of dollars into the repo (repurchase agreements) market, in effect making risk-free loans to speculators at less than 2%.

*

Lying is a money making activity and lies are commodities. There is a profitable global market for media and public figures committed to spreading disinformation.

Needless to say, “Telling the Truth”, on the other hand, Is Not a Money-Making Proposition. The monthly deficit we have been faced with over the past year is proof of this concept.

With this in mind, can you spare a dollar a day to keep disinformation away? Your support could make the difference and ensure that GlobalResearch.ca is here for a long time to come!

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

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.

NATOME: Assim, o Presidente Trump, que se orgulha do seu talento para criar siglas, já baptizou o destacamento da NATO no Médio Oriente, por ele solicitado por telefone, ao Secretário Geral da Aliança, Stoltenberg. Este concordou imediatamente, que a NATO deveria ter “um papel cada vez maior no Médio Oriente, particularmente, nas missões de treino”. Ele participou, em seguida, na reunião dos Ministros dos Negócios Estrangeiros da UE, salientando que a União Europeia deve permanecer ao lado dos Estados Unidos e da NATO, porque “embora tenhamos feito progressos enormes, o Daesh pode regressar”. Os Estados Unidos procuram, deste modo, envolver os aliados europeus na situação caótica provocada pelo assassínio, autorizado pelo próprio Trump, do General iraniano Soleimani, logo que desembarcou no aeroporto de Bagdad.

Depois do Parlamento iraquiano ter deliberado a expulsão de mais de 5.000 soldados americanos presentes no país, juntamente com milhares de pessoal militar de empresas privadas, contratados pelo Pentágono, o Primeiro Ministro Abdul-Mahdi, pediu ao Departamento do Estado para enviar uma delegação a fim de estabelecer o procedimento da retirada. Os EUA – respondeu o Departamento – irão enviar uma delegação “não para discutir a retirada de tropas, mas o dispositivo adequado de forças  no Médio Oriente”, acrescentando que em Washington se está  a ajustar “o reforço do papel da NATO no Iraque, alinhado com o desejo do Presidente de que os Aliados partilhem o fardo de todos os esforços para a nossa defesa colectiva”.

O plano é claro: substituir, totalmente ou em parte, as tropas USA no Iraque pelas dos aliados europeus, que se encontrariam nas situações mais arriscadas, como demonstra o facto de que a própria NATO, depois do assassínio de Soleimani, suspendeu as missões de treino no Iraque. Além da frente meridional, a NATO está a ser mobilizada na frente oriental. Para “defender a Europa da ameaça russa”, está a preparar-se o exercício Defender Europe 20 que, em Abril e Maio, terá o maior destacamento de forças USA na Europa, dos últimos 25 anos.

Chegarão dos Estados Unidos 20.000 soldados, incluindo vários milhares de militares da Guarda Nacional dos 12 estados USA, que se juntarão aos 9.000 já presentes na Europa, elevando o total para cerca de 30.000 militares. A eles juntar-se-ão 7.000 soldados de 13 países europeus da NATO, entre os quais a Itália e 2 parceiros, a Geórgia e a Finlândia. Além dos armamentos que virão do outro lado do Atlântico, as tropas americanas empregarão 13.000 tanques, canhões auto-propulsores, veículos blindados e outros meios militares dos “depósitos pré-posicionados” dos USA na Europa. Comboios militares com veículos blindados percorrerão 4.000 km por 12 artérias, operando em conjunto com aviões, helicópteros, drones e unidades navais. Páraquedistas USA da 173ª Brigada e italianos da Brigada Folgore serão lançados em conjunto, na Letónia.

O exercício Defender Europe 20 assume maior relevo, na estratégia USA/NATO, após o agravamento da crise no Médio Oriente. O Pentágono que, no ano passado enviou 14.000 soldados para o Médio Oriente, está a desviar na mesma região, algumas forças que se estavam a preparar para os exercícios de guerra na Europa: 4.000 paraquedistas da 82ª Divisão Aerotransportada (incluindo algumas centenas de Vicenza) e 4.500 marinheiros e fuzileiros navais do navio de ataque anfíbio USS Bataan. Outras forças, antes ou depois do exercício na Europa, poderiam ser enviadas para o Médio Oriente. No entanto, o planeamento do Defender Europe 20, observa o Pentágono, permanece inalterado.

Por outras palavras, 30.000 soldados dos EUA exercitar-se-ão a defender a Europa de uma agressão russa, um cenário que nunca poderia verificar-se porque no combate, usar-se-iam não tanques, mas mísseis nucleares. No entanto, é um cenário útil para semear tensões e alimentar a ideia do inimigo.

Manlio Dinucci

NATOME: così il presidente Trump, che si vanta del proprio talento nel creare acronimi, ha già battezzato lo spiegamento della Nato in Medio Oriente, da lui richiesto per telefono al segretario generale dell’Alleanza Stoltenberg. Questi ha immediatamente acconsentito che la Nato debba avere «un accresciuto ruolo in Medio Oriente, in particolare nelle missioni di addestramento». Ha quindi partecipato alla riunione dei ministri degli esteri della Ue, sottolineando che l’Unione europea deve restare a fianco degli Stati uniti e della Nato poiché, «anche se abbiamo fatto enormi progressi, Daesh può ritornare». Gli Stati uniti cercano in tal modo di coinvolgere gli alleati europei nella caotica situazione provocata dall’assassinio, autorizzato dallo stesso Trump, del generale iraniano Soleimani appena sbarcato all’aeroporto di Baghdad. Dopo che il parlamento iracheno ha deliberato l’espulsione degli oltre 5.000 soldati Usa, presenti nel paese insieme a migliaia di contractor del Pentagono, il primo ministro Abdul-Mahdi ha chiesto al Dipartimento di Stato di inviare una delegazione per stabilire la procedura del ritiro. Gli Usa – ha risposto il Dipartimento – invieranno una delegazione «non per discutere il ritiro di truppe, ma l’adeguato dispositivo di forze in Medio Oriente», aggiungendo che a Washington si sta concordando «il rafforzamento del ruolo della Nato in Iraq in linea con il desiderio del Presidente che gli Alleati condividano l’onere in tutti gli sforzi per la nostra difesa collettiva».

Il piano è chiaro: sostituire, totalmente o in parte, le truppe Usa in Iraq con quelle degli alleati europei, che verrebbero a trovarsi nelle situazioni più rischiose, come dimostra il fatto che la stessa Nato, dopo l’assassinio di Soleimani, ha sospeso le missioni di addestramento in Iraq. Oltre che sul fronte meridionale, la Nato viene mobilitata su quello orientale. Per «difendere l’Europa dalla minaccia russa», si sta preparando l’esercitazione Defender Europe 20, che vedrà in aprile e maggio il più grande spiegamento di forze Usa in Europa degli ultimi 25 anni. Arriveranno dagli Stati uniti 20.000 soldati, tra cui alcune migliaia della Guardia Nazionale provenienti da 12 Stati Usa, che si uniranno a 9.000 già presenti in Europa portando il totale a circa 30.000. Essi saranno affiancati da 7.000 soldati di 13 paesi europei della Nato, tra cui l’Italia, e 2 partner, Georgia e Finlandia. Oltre agli armamenti che arriveranno da oltreatlantico, le truppe Usa impiegheranno 13.000 carri armati, cannoni semoventi, blindati e altri mezzi militari provenienti da «depositi preposizionati» Usa in Europa. Convogli militari con mezzi corazzati percorreranno 4.000 km attraverso 12 arterie, operando insieme ad aerei, elicotteri, droni e unità navali. Paracadustisti Usa della 173a Brigata e italiani delle Brigata Folgore si lanceranno insieme in Lettonia.

L’esercitazione Defender Europe 20 assume ulteriore rilievo, nella strategia Usa/Nato, in seguito all’acuirsi della crisi mediorientale. Il Pentagono, che l’anno scorso ha inviato altri 14.000 soldati in Medio Oriente, sta dirottando nella stessa regione alcune forze che si stavano preparando all’esercitazione di guerra in Europa: 4.000 paracadutisti della 82a Divisione aviotrasportata (comprese alcune centinaia da Vicenza) e 4.500 marinai e marines della nave da assalto anfibio USS Bataan. Altre forze, prima o dopo l’esercitazione in Europa, potrebbero essere inviate in Medio Oriente. La pianificazione della Defender Europe 20, precisa il Pentagono, resta però immutata. In altre parole, 30.000 soldati Usa si eserciteranno a difendere l’Europa da una aggressione russa, scenario che mai potrebbe verificarsi anche perché nello scontro si userebbero non carri armati ma missili nucleari. Scenario comunque utile per seminare tensione e alimentare l’idea del nemico.

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 14 gennaio 2020

According to Iran’s Judiciary Spokesman Gholamhossein Esmayeeli, the country’s ruling authorities will sue the US in international courts for Soleimani’s assassination.

“This brutal act was a violation of human rights and all international rules,” Esmayeeli stressed, adding:

“Martyr Soleimani was the official guest of the Iraqi government officials as a high-ranking (Iranian) official, and a foreign state has committed this crime in Iraq.”

“The criminal US government’s measure to martyr General Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and their entourage is a terrorist act from the legal view of point and a clear instance of state terrorism.”

Iran’s Chief Justice Seyed Ebrahim Raisi said “(t)hose who commit offenses will be prosecuted,” adding:

“We need to name the US president as the main defendant. We won’t let it slide. He must be convicted at the international level.”

The International Criminal Court (ICC), not the ICJ, is the proper tribunal for prosecuting individuals for crimes of war, against humanity, genocide, and aggression.

Since established by the Rome Statute in 2002, the ICC never held the US, other Western nations, or Israel accountable for  indisputable high crimes — just their victims.

Time and again, the court breached its mandate to “end  impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern.”

Clearly it won’t lay a glove on Trump or any other US official involved in Soleimani’s assassination.

Even if it agrees to hear the case, justice will not follow, how it operated since established — prosecuting victims of imperial crimes, not their perpetrators.

Iran will likely seek redress against the US in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), mandated to settle international legal disputes, along with issuing advisory opinions on international legal issues referred to the court by the UN.

In July 2018, Iran filed suit against the Trump regime in the ICJ for violating provisions of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between both countries.

At the time, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted:

“Iran is committed to the rule of law in the face of US contempt for diplomacy and legal obligations.”

The Trump regime “violated and continues to violate multiple provisions” of the 1955 treaty – along with unlawfully pulling out of the JCPOA, an international treaty, unanimously affirmed by Security Council members, making it binding international law.

In October 2018, the ICJ ruled for Iran, in response its Foreign Ministry said the following:

“The Islamic Republic of Iran welcomes the decision made by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as the only major judicial body of the UN and the tribunal’s issuing of an injunction against the US administration’s illegal move to restore unilateral sanctions which came upon the country’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal,” adding:

“(T)he court’s unanimous decision (is a) clear testament to the truthfulness of Iran and the illegitimacy and unfairness of the United States’ sanctions against our country’s people and citizens.”

Though the rulings by the ICJ and ICC are binding, Washington notoriously flouts what conflicts with its interests.

The Trump regime ignored the ICJ’s earlier ruling for Iran, imposing multiple new rounds of sanctions after it was issued.

However the ICJ, ICC, or another international tribunal rules on Soleimani’s assassination, hardwired anti-Iran Trump regime policy won’t change.

Hegemons operate by their own rules, flouting the rule of law with impunity, ignoring judicial rulings against their interests.

Suing the US and Trump in international tribunals is the right thing to do.

The case for Iran is open and shut — even though redress for unlawful US actions in international tribunals is unattainable.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from the American Herald Tribune

Royal gossip is worth its weight in gold on the British media circuit.  Buckingham Palace knows that, and seeks to control, as much as it can, the way that gold is distributed.  

The recent fuss over the premature retirement, or redirection, of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex Prince Harry and Meghan Markle has stirred the hornet’s nest amongst self-harming Royal watchers.  Sky News suggested with profound exaggeration that the announcement that the couple would move to Canada “shocked the UK and the world.”  Disgraceful and unacceptable, went such papers as The Sun.  The Evening Standard ran with the headline, “Harry arrives to face the royal music”, going on to say that he was facing “showdown talks with the Queen, his father Prince Charles and his brother Prince William over his plans to stand down as a senior royal.” 

Harry had effectively resigned from public duties, intent on becoming “financially independent” (such terms are obscene in Palace land) and spending more time in North America.  “We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the royal family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.”    

The intention of spending time between the UK and North America will enable the couple to raise their son “with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.” 

Something of a war has broken out between the couple and the press, leading to an information tussle.  The couple have adopted a new communications strategy that involves providing “access to credible media outlets focused on objective news reporting to cover key moments and events.”  On the legal front, the duchess has initiated proceedings against the Daily Mail for breach of privacy; the duke sued two papers in October claiming phone hacking.  The National Union of Journalists has expressed concern that the couple’s removal from the “royal rota” of coverage will lead to greater control exercised over coverage of their affairs.

The palace machine has been icy in response to the decision to withdraw, taking a harsh lecturing tone to the couple.  Discussions were, went a statement from the Palace, “at an early stage”.  “We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.”

The palace stooges are out aplenty, helped along by the Daily Mail’s enthusiastic antipathy against the duchess, never seen as a worthy fit.  The treatment afforded Markle has been strikingly different to that of Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge, who is, in the true royal tradition, a functionary and incubator for heirs.  An apt illustration of this can be gathered from the Mail’s respective descriptions of the pregnancies of both Middleton and Markle, the former “tenderly” cradling “her bump while wrapping up her royal duties ahead of maternity leave”, the latter incapable of keeping “her hands of her bump”.  Was it “pride, vanity, acting – or a new age bonding technique?” 

Middleton does not question; she adjusts, amends her positions, adapts her being.  When novelist Hilary Mantel made the astute observation that Middleton was really a “show-window mannequin” of machine like quality, “without the risk of the emergence of character”, shrieks and howls followed. This ignored the obvious point that higher aristocracy have always been pieces of strategy and durability rather than people, always the behest of a higher command and duty to procreate.  Real estate, babies and legacies – that’s the show.   

Markle is no such product.  Her US birth, with an African-American mother, and her self-made standing as an actor (leaving aside the quality of that acting), were already awkward jabs at the pattern of royal propriety.  Last June, the sense of independence (the British press prefer the term “divergence”) became evident when the couple decided to go into the charitable pursuit separate from the royal family.  This has led to Markle being subject to what royal historian Marlene Koenig claims is “a pile-on”. 

Markle has been attacked for her luxuriant baby shower last February, dubbed Showergate, accused by Prince Diana’s former private secretary Patrick Jephson for being indiscreet and vulgar.  Despite dealing with it with her own funds, “Favours must be returned, obligations quickly multiply and pretty soon royal free-riders are handing over their most precious assets: credibility and dignity, if not, please God, their lives.” 

Markle has also been said to be a handful for her staff, the Duchess Difficult of the royal set.  The signs of Palace sabotage and disruption are suggested; Markle seems to be rather well-liked, and depending on which royal source you tap, you are bound to find the appropriate slant.

Added to this the less than becoming aspect of the duke’s brother, Prince William, and we are left with a true plate of grist.  One flavoured morsel doing the rounds is the suggestion that the exit of the Sussexes has much to do with the extra-marital conduct of the Duke of Cambridge as with anything else.  The Sun, doing its bit to go through the trash cans, suggests that William is “incandescent with rage” at the suggestion. The Times, not wanting to be left out in the cold, fronts its own royal source alleging that William is prone to bullying and has estranged is brother. 

Enough has been floating around that Wills can barely contain himself and is keeping up the royal front of bed hopping, notably with Rose Hanbury, the Marchioness of Cholmondeley.  The palace eagles are duly floating around to ensure that no press outlet will publish such speculation without threatened sanction, and royal watchers such as Phil Dampier are already dousing the flames.  “Whatever the truth of William’s closeness to Rose, who is a mum of three, Kate has obviously decided she doesn’t want any lasting bitterness or tension.” 

For republicans, none of the above should matter, except that the royals remain some of the most privileged spongers of Britain and the Commonwealth.  Their extra-marital trysts are subsidised; their efforts to be celebrity puffs are also greased by the tax payer.  In Canada, the security tab will be picked up by local security.  Though the Sussexes have made it clear they do not intend to rely on the British public purse, the question remains unresolved.  What remains striking, however, is the way the palace machinery has strutted its plumage, giving the impression that the Sussex situation was a scandal unique and deserving of attention.

In the end, it was left to the Queen to exert some authority via a statement.  “My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family.  Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.”  In what must count as a polished way of saying “bugger”, the Queen promises “a period of transition which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.”

*

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]

The lobbyist is part of CAA, one of the most active right-wing Zionist groups promoting the false notion that Britain’s Labour Party became an anti-Semitic party after Jeremy Corbyn won the leadership in 2015.

***

A prominent Israel lobbyist in the UK has claimed credit for last month’s electoral defeat of the British Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn.

“The beast is slain,” Joe Glasman delighted – Corbyn has been “slaughtered.”

He rejoiced that “we defeated him” in the election. “They tried to kill us,” he ranted, but “we won.”

Glasman leads the “political investigations team” at the Campaign Against Antisemitism, or CAA – an influential anti-Palestinian lobby group.

He made his comments in a bizarre video rant addressed to his team of supporters that he posted online during the holiday break.

The video was soon set to private.

But left-wing Labour activists managed to download a copy and posted it on the Barnet Momentum Facebook page.

In the video Glasman claimed he and his supporters beat Corbyn through a coordinated campaign using methods including “our spies and intel.”

But he said his group were “not secret Mossad spies, they’re just ordinary people.”

The video swiftly became an embarrassment. Other copies posted online have been taken down following copyright claims by Glasman.

The Electronic Intifada is reposting the full video to YouTube channel for news reporting purposes.

Partisan “charity”

After he was subjected to a four-year witch hunt targeting the left and Palestine solidarity activists over alleged “Labour anti-Semitism,” Corbyn lost last month’s general election.

The Campaign Against Antisemitism was founded in 2014 during Israel’s war against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip, to counter rising criticism of Israel. It did so primarily by smearing critics as anti-Semitic.

It has been one of the most active right-wing Zionist groups promoting the false notion that Labour became an anti-Semitic party after Jeremy Corbyn won the leadership in 2015.

But as anti-Zionist Palestine solidarity campaigner Tony Greenstein recently put it, “The one thing that the Campaign Against Antisemitism doesn’t do is to campaign against anti-Semitism.”

In fact, Greenstein argued on his blog, “anti-Semitism of the traditional kind is all but ignored by it, but [fake] ‘anti-Semitism’ of the anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian variety is very much its concern.”

Despite being a registered charity, and thus supposedly non-partisan, the CAA openly campaigned against Labour and against Corbyn.

It organised demonstrations against Labour, including one day before last month’s general election. Greenstein has complained to the Charity Commission, calling for the regulator to remove the group’s tax-exempt status.

Anti-Palestinian agenda

The Campaign Against Antisemitism habitually smears Palestinians and their supporters.

In 2017, it attacked Malaka Shwaikh, a Palestinian from Gaza then running in student elections in Exeter. The attacks sparked a barrage of threats and harassment against her.

Now a lecturer at the University of Leeds, Shwaikh told The Electronic Intifada at the time, “The right of free speech on campus has been threatened.”

*

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.

Il sito militare russo Avia.pro ha affrontato il problema dell’incidente a causa di un errore umano del Boing ucraino 737 in Iran, l’8 gennaio, pochi minuti dopo il decollo, che ha causato la morte di 179 passeggeri e membri dell’equipaggio.

Facendo affidamento su esperti militari, riferisce che l’incidente assomiglia punto per punto alla distruzione a Latakia, in Siria, nel settembre 2018, di un IL-20 russo. I combattenti israeliani, seguiti dai missili siriani, hanno usato l’aereo come scudo, anche se ciò significava la sua distruzione e la morte di 15 passeggeri.

Il sito web militare russo fa riferimento a un’indagine indipendente che ha concluso “almeno una parziale responsabilità degli Stati Uniti” nella tragedia dell’8 gennaio:

“Secondo gli esperti, l’esercito americano ha deliberatamente modificato le informazioni sul volo del Boeing ucraino 737, rendendolo un vero bersaglio per i sistemi di difesa aerea iraniani”. Secondo i dati provenienti da fonti relative al Pentagono, diversi aerei militari statunitensi sono stati osservati nel cielo vicino allo spazio aereo iraniano, proprio al momento del volo Boeing, e sono state osservate anomalie nei radar iraniani, probabilmente a causa di un attacco informatico. L’aereo civile fu quindi confuso con un aereo da caccia diretto direttamente verso un obiettivo militare. ”

“Da quando il pilota ha fatto un’inversione a U, è molto probabile che l’attacco informatico statunitense abbia anche puntato sul sistema di navigazione del Boeing ucraino. Questa non è la prima volta che gli americani fanno questo tipo di azione “, ha detto il sito.

Inoltre, un membro del Comitato di sicurezza e difesa della Duma russa ha accusato le provocatorie misure statunitensi contro l’Iran di essere state la causa dell’incidente aereo ucraino.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art is currently presenting the work of Félix Vallotton, an artist who has been largely neglected relative to his contemporaries, such as Pierre Bonnard and Édouard Vuillard. This makes the present exhibition all the more welcome, and fascinating. Vallotton’s work unquestionably merits the renewed attention — his paintings possess a mysterious quality, narrative appeal, and attention to detail, as well as invoke a delicious sense of irony and wit.

Born in the Swiss town of Lausanne on the shores of Lake Geneva in 1865, Vallotton displayed early an ability to draw from life; and at sixteen he arrived in Paris to study painting at the Académie Julian. A self-portrait at the age of twenty reveals a virtuosic, confident brush and much more — Vallotton is not interested in merely demonstrating his facility as a realist painter: he has a penetrating eye, a psychological depth, and a naturalism that owes much to northern Renaissance masters, especially Albrecht Dürer and Hans Holbein.

It is not entirely clear when Vallotton’s friendship with Les Nabis began – from the Hebrew word for prophet, the Nabis were an avant-garde group of Parisian artists, which included Bonnard, Vuillard, Charles Cottet, and Ker-Xavier Roussel, among others. Valloton’s nickname within the group may be revealing – he was the ‘foreigner Nabi’. Perhaps this name reflected his Swiss origin, but the Nabis were an international group anyhow. It could also reflect in some measure that Vallotton was something of a loner; but it may allude to the fact that while for a time he adopted the Nabi’s dismissal of naturalism in favor of flat forms and the expressivist use of color, Vallotton was and fundamentally remained a realist painter.

Recognition arrived early in Vallotton’s career for reviving the art of woodcut prints which had largely been forgotten since the Renaissance. Indeed, by the age of 25, Vallotton had single-handedly brought about a kind of revolution in xylography. Inspired by Japanese woodcuts that were popular in Paris at the time, Vallotton produced images with sharp contrasts of jet black and pristine white. His woodcuts are remarkable for their commentary on the French bourgeoisie, their stinging rebuke of societal decadence in fin-de-siècle Paris, their critical orientation to the police. Vallotton has an eye for violence — be it in the form of murder, or the sudden carriage accident, the political execution or the suicide. Vallotton combines a dark realism with sophisticated satire, wry humor, and a keen acerbic wit. He has an eye for the ambiguous and the enigmatic — a deft and subtle touch that defies finalization. The Demonstration from 1893 renders the political chaos of the day with humor — from the old man who has lost hold of his hat to the sole figure in white, a woman racing along the left hand side.

L’Eclat (recto), L’Exécution (verso) 1894–97

Vallotton would return in both woodcuts and paintings to the scene of the bourgeoisie shopping for the latest luxury goods at the Bon Marche Department Store — the first such store of its kind in the world. The 1898 triptych is not without a certain irony — given that the format Vallotton chose was traditionally associated with altarpieces such as would be found in church. Which is just to underscore the Vallotton is a close observer of modernity, fascinated by the new world he sees emerging around him — with its rampant consumerism, and its technological novelties (such as a moving conveyor belt along a footbridge, which he includes in his woodcut series devoted to the World’s Fair of 1900.)

A series of ten woodcuts entitled Intimités is a sustained and biting critique, and among Vallotton’s greatest achievements as a graphic artist. As an unsettling and disquieting series which lays bare the hypocrisies of bourgeois society, Vallotton deftly exposes a decadent class through scenes of adultery, deceit, romantic quarrels and indecent proposals.

In 1899, Vallotton married Gabrielle Rodrigues-Henriques and the union was to have a significant effect on the remainder of his career. His wife was a wealthy widow and the daughter of a Paris art merchant, which meant that he now enjoyed a certain financial security and could turn exclusively to painting. While Vallotton’s work generally lost its satirical wit and subversive edge — there is also a certain psychological insight and marked turn towards the inwardness of his subjects that constitutes much of the power of this later period.

The acquisition of a Kodak camera in 1899 led to changes in the way the artist worked. Now, he would typically take snapshots of imagery that appealed to him – and then used those photographs to craft his painting in the studio. It appears that often he would retain the sharply contrasting patterns of light and shadow revealed in the small photograph. However, the painter however was by no means subservient to the photographic image, as The Red Room, Etretat (1899), demonstrates. It is a remarkable painting for its unity of composition and psychological structure. All lines in the painting essentially point to (and up to) the seated figure of Gabrielle Vallotton – even the viewer is made to feel they’re looking up to this woman, who meanwhile looks down at the small child in the foreground. This child, so crucial to the psychological depth of the painting is entirely absent, however, from the photograph.

Vallotton was also a master of ambiguity. There is always something more to the story he is telling that must ever remain just beyond our reach. Consider, for example, one of this exhibition’s finest offerings, The White and the Black (1913), a provocative work depicting a young white woman, nude and reclining; and a black woman, seated and coolly smoking a cigarette. The painting may be a response to Édouard Manet’s Olympia (1863) in which a white model, a prostitute likely, lies on a bed attended by a black servant bringing her flowers (probably from a client). But Vallotton may also be in dialogue with Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres’ Grande Odalisque (1814) and Odalisque with a Slave (1839). All of his friend’s attest to Vallotton’s love and admiration for Ingres, by whom he was “conquered without offering any resistance” – as one contemporary put it. Vallotton was clearly a close observer of Manet as well, and many of his paintings – for example, Misia at Her Dressing Table (1898) – emphasize the harsh light, the large color surfaces and shallow depth that was characteristic of Manet’s work, including Olympia (1863). But at the same time Vallotton subverts the traditional roles of mistress and servant by making the relationship between these two women utterly ambiguous.

The White and the Black (La Blanche et la Noire) 1913

The Provincial (1909) is notable for its exploration of one of Vallotton’s recurring themes – namely, the complex, uneven relationship between men and women. In this painting, and others such as Chaste Suzanne (1922), a powerful female figure holds sway over her subservient male counterpart. The white lace of her blouse protrudes in a witty but subtle reminder of her breasts, which only underscores her sexual dominance over the docile man who sits beside her with eyes deferentially lowered.

Moonlight (1895) is a standout work that reveals the influence of the Symbolists, in Vallotton’s attention to emotional force over actual topographical representation – water, earth and sky have become interfused in what is almost an abstraction. The picture also anticipates the latter part of his career, when Vallotton increasingly turned to landscape painting – often beginning with a photographic image or an on-site sketch, which was then imaginatively reconstructed on the canvas. The painter referred to his later landscapes as paysages composes (composed landscapes) – and remarked in 1906, “I dream of a painting free from any literal respect for nature.” Valloton said he wanted to “be able to recreate landscapes only with the help of the emotion they have provoked in me.” His method allows him to simplify the compositional structure, to intensify the mood and emphasize the emotional impact of color – as, for example, in Last Rays (1911) where we find the silhouettes of umbrella pines as they receive the last light of the evening sun.

Félix Vallotton more than deserves the attention that this exhibition brings. His work – from the groundbreaking forays into xylography, to his portraits and scenes of bourgeois society, to his hauntingly mesmerizing landscapes – defies identification with any artistic school. Like all truly great artists, Vallotton is inimitable; while he experiments with various artistic programs, he ultimately remains aloof from them, determined to paint pictures purged of all sentimentality, beholden only to the emotional, psychological or social reality with which he is concerned. Such a body of work remains ever fresh and vital, and rewards close attention with a glimpse of truth.

*

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.

Sam Ben-Meir is a professor of philosophy and world religions at Mercy College in New York City. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from The MET

Brexit has now cost the UK £130bn in what is termed as “collateral damage” since the referendum, a new study suggests. And this number is set to rise another £70bn by the end of 2020.

Bloomberg Economics said Britain’s economy had been “lacklustre” over the three-and-a-half years since a majority of voters backed Leave in the EU referendum in 2016.

Its analysis shows British companies performed poorly, even accounting for the weaker global economy by international standards

It predicted Brexit would continue to hold back national output, forecasting a further £70bn hit in lost opportunities for growth this year.

“Even the boost BE expects from prime minister Boris Johnson’s decisive election victory in December won’t stop a further £70bn being added this year,” wrote its chief UK economist and former Treasury official Dan Hanson.

The Conservatives’ landslide victory in December broke the long-running political deadlock at Westminster, paving the way for Britain’s departure on 31 January.

But while Johnson’s Brexit withdrawal bill attempts to tackle key issues linked to Britain’s departure, official talks over the future of EU-UK trade and wider relations have not even begun. Although the British government have stated that the EU deal will be done by 31st December 2020, EU officials do not agree stating that it could take years.

Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, warned in a speech on Thursday of the risk “uncertainties over future trading relationships could remain entrenched.”

He said such uncertainty had already proved a “persistent drag” already on the UK economy, slowing growth below its potential, particularly through reduced business investment. Inward investment into Britain has all but collapsed since 2016.

Carney, who leaves his role in March, said growth had “significantly underperformed” the central bank’s predictions prior to the referendum.

He said GDP was 3% lower than might have been expected if Britain had voted to stay, taking into account how the rest of the world’s economies had performed since June 2016.

Uncertainty has dented business investment and innovation, hitting firms’ capacity to grow, according to Carney.

Many firms and investors fear Brexit will mean new barriers to trade with EU partners. Contingency planning has also drained firms of “considerable time and resources,” Carney said.

Investment has significantly fallen in four of the past seven quarters, with growth more than 20% less than forecast by the bank before the referendum in May 2016. Household spending has also fallen in the past year adding to economic woes.

He added: “Brexit-related uncertainties may have dissuaded companies from expanding supply capacity or entering new markets.”

But the survey of business leaders, conducted by accountancy giant Deloitte, saw 38% say they planned to increase investment in 2020. That marked the highest proportion in four years, while Brexit also dropped from the top to third on a list of their greatest concerns.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

President Trump’s decision earlier this month to assassinate Iran’s top military general on Iraqi soil – over the objection of the Iraqi government – has damaged the US relationship with its “ally” Iraq and set the region on the brink of war. Iran’s measured response – a few missiles fired on an Iraqi base after advance warning was given – is the only reason the US is not mired in another Middle East war.

Trump said his decision to assassinate Gen. Qassim Soleimani was intended to prevent a war, not start a war. But no one in his right mind would think that killing another country’s top military leader would not leave that country annoyed, to say the least. Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) said the Trump Administration’s briefing to Congress on its evidence to back up claims that Soleimani was about to launch attacks against the US was among the worst briefings they’d ever attended.

After initially claiming that Soleimani had to be taken out immediately because of “imminent” attacks he was launching against the US, Trump Administration officials including Secretary of State Pompeo and Defense Secretary Esper have been busy walking back those claims. Esper claimed over the weekend that he had not seen the intelligence suggesting an attack on US embassies was in the works. If the Secretary of Defense did not seen the intelligence, then who did?

No doubt the Iraqi leadership recognized these kinds of deceptions: the same kinds of lies were used to push the US into attacking their own country in 2003. So it should not have come as a big surprise that the Iraqi government met last week and voted that all foreign military personnel should leave Iraqi soil.

Then a funny thing happened when the Iraqi prime minister attempted to communicate to the US government the will of the Iraqi people through their democratically-elected officials. On Thursday Iraqi Prime Minister Mahdi phoned Pompeo to urgently request that Washington enact a US troop “withdrawal mechanism” in Iraq. American troops are in Iraq by invitation of the Iraqi government and the Iraqi government had just voted to revoke that invitation.

The State Department responded with a statement titled “The US Continued Partnership with Iraq,” in which it essentially said that the US would not abide by the request of its Iraqi partners because the US military is a “force for good” in the Middle East and that as such it is “our right” to maintain “appropriate force posture” in the region.

The US invaded Iraq based on Bush Administration lies and a million Iraqis died as a result. Later, President Obama ramped up the drone program and also backed al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists to overthrow the secular Syrian government. Obama also attacked Libya based on lies, leaving the country totally destroyed. Trump is assassinating foreign officials and threatening destruction of Iran.

And the State Department calls that a “force for good”?

The United States can be a true force for good, however. End the military occupation of the Middle East, end foreign military aid, stop using the CIA to overthrow governments. Allow Americans to travel and do business in any country they wish. Lead by example and demonstrate how free markets and peace benefit all. A “force for good” means not forcing others to bow to your will.

*

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 Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

If one seriously seeks to understand how delusional policymakers in Washington are it is only necessary to examine the responses by the president and Congress to the assassination of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani. The first response came in the form of a Donald Trump largely incoherent nine-minute self-applauding speech explaining what he had done and why. It was followed by a House of Representatives War Powers non-binding resolution that was all theater and did nothing to limit the president’s unilateral ability to go to war with the Islamic Republic.

It was reported that the Trump speech had been hurriedly written by aides the night before it was given and that it existed in several competing drafts. It was full of out-and-out lies and half truths and intended to reassure the American people that the president was keeping them safe. The opening line might well be regarded as some kind of joke: “As long as I am President of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.” Trump has in fact done more to ensure that Iran will have a nuclear weapon than any other president through his abrupt withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) and his assassination of Soleimani, which together have convinced the Iranian leadership that there is no possibility of a reasonable negotiated solution when dealing with the American president, even when he claims he wants to “talk.”

Trump then went on characteristically to eulogize our brave soldiers on far flung battlefields before lying again, saying “For far too long — all the way back to 1979, to be exact — nations have tolerated Iran’s destructive and destabilizing behavior in the Middle East and beyond. Those days are over. Iran has been the leading sponsor of terrorism, and their pursuit of nuclear weapons threatens the civilized world. We will never let that happen.” Lie one is that the “destructive and destabilizing behavior” actually has Made in U.S.A. stamped all over it. Lie two is “leading sponsor of terrorism,” an honor that belongs to Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United States, in that order. And lie three is that Iran “pursued” nuclear weapons. It has never done so.

Trump them boasted that “Last week, we took decisive action to stop a ruthless terrorist from threatening American lives. At my direction, the United States military eliminated the world’s top terrorist, Qasem Soleimani. As the head of the Quds Force, Soleimani was personally responsible for some of the absolutely worst atrocities.” Trump’s preening was again wrong on every count: Soleimani is no terrorist by any reasonable definition, nor is there any evidence that he threatened American lives. And Trump and his chorus of neocons cannot name a single “atrocity” committed by the man

The president claimed that Soleimani “…viciously wounded and murdered thousands of U.S. troops, including the planting of roadside bombs that maim and dismember their victims,” a particularly absurd charge suggesting that Trump believes that any American soldier who died in Iraq or Afghanistan did so at the hands of the Iranian Major General. By the same logic, the musical chairs series of American generals that have served in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have murdered hundreds of thousands of people. If Trump wants to start counting fatalities he should perhaps start with David Petraeus.

Piling Ossa on Pelion, Trump declared that Soleimani “…orchestrated the violent assault on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. In recent days, he was planning new attacks on American targets, but we stopped him.” There is no evidence whatsoever to support either assertion and Trump then goes on to ascribe all the problems of the Middle East to Iran, ignoring the roles played by others, most notably Washington, Israel and the Saudis. He also roundly condemned the JCPOA before asserting falsely that “Three months ago, after destroying 100 percent of ISIS and its territorial caliphate, we killed the savage leader of ISIS, al-Baghdadi…” In reality, ISIS was defeated by the Syrian Army and its allies Russia and Iran, the very countries that Trump has continued to vilify even as he struts his anti-terrorist credentials. Qassem Soleimani played a major role in the destruction of ISIS.

The only good things in the Trump speech were that it was short and the president did not find it necessary to say a whole lot of good things about Israel. Interestingly, no one in the mainstream media or in the political chattering class made much effort to challenged Trump on the “facts” he cited, though there was some pushback from mostly Democratic congressmen who stated that they could not see any “imminent threat” in the evidence that the Administration produced during a classified briefing. The actual war powers concurrent resolution that passed in the House last Thursday was symptomatic of the unwillingness of the political opposition to take on the illegal and immoral wars in the Middle East themselves – it had no teeth and will not change anything.

The resolution’s subject line “Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran” actually is misleading. And the first thing the text does do is slam Iran with the same dubious “facts” employed by Trump, including that “The Government of Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism and engages in a range of destabilizing activities across the Middle East. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was the lead architect of much of Iran’s destabilizing activities throughout the world.”

The resolution includes “In matters of imminent armed attacks, the executive branch should indicate to Congress why military action was necessary within a certain window of opportunity, the possible harm that missing the window would cause, and why the action was likely to prevent future disastrous attacks against the United States.” It then goes on to explain that “When the United States uses military force, the American people and members of the United States Armed Forces deserve a credible explanation regarding such use of military force…” because “The War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.) requires the President to consult with Congress ‘in every possible instance’ before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.” It concludes with “Congress has not authorized the President to use military force against Iran.”

It would seem to be a devastating critique of the Trump Art of War but then comes the wiggle room “…Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military, unless Congress has declared war or enacted specific statutory authorization for such use of the Armed Forces; or such use of the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces, consistent with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. Nothing in this section may be construed to prevent the President from using military force against al Qaeda or associated forces…” In other words, all Trump has to do is claim “imminent threat” or that he is attacking “terrorist associated forces” and he is home free no matter what he does, particularly as the resolution itself is non-binding.

The sheer ignorance and arrogance of elites in Washington combined with a colonialist mentality that dismisses Asians and Africans as unthinking “wogs” who will do one’s bidding if they are confronted with punishment is currently on display. It was inevitable that Iraq would demand the departure of U.S. troops after thirty-four Iraqi militiamen were killed by American drone and air strikes, but many in Washington just didn’t get it. Trump threatened, in characteristic fashion, to respond with sanctions, but now Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi has made it official in a phone call to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, demanding a plan and timetable for the removal of the American soldiers. The State Department has indicated that it is not prepared to discuss the matter.

Some pundits who should know better have predicted that the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers will not take place because Iraq somehow “needs” the United States. And besides, there will be economic consequences if Iraq does go ahead to insist on an American withdrawal. But sometimes abstractions prove to be more powerful than material incentives. The United States violated Iraqi sovereignty not once but twice and murdered 34 Iraqis in the process. Pompeo can huff and puff all he wants and Trump can mouth his illiteracies, but nothing changes the fact that the United States did things it did not have to do based on a delusional view of the Middle East and will have to pay a price. Minus a presence in Iraq, Syria will be untenable and one might hope that once the U.S. loses its ability to directly confront Iran on the ground the whole house of cards just might collapse, leading to Washington’s gradual departure from the region. That would be good for the region and also for the United States even if Israel and the Saudis, who prefer to have Americans fight and die in their wars, might object.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

Featured image is from Syria News

Once again the French have shown the world now to protest, and that protesting works. President Emmanuel Macron was forced to roll back his plans for pensions reform over the weekend as demonstrators took to the streets on Saturday in what was entering a second month of social unrest. Paris had come to a standstill over the festive season; trains, including the metro had ground to a halt, save a couple of main lines during peak times, as commuters and shoppers stayed at home.

It has been agreed to scrap for the time being, a plan to raise the full-benefits retirement age from 62 to 64. France currently has a pensions deficit of around $19 billion, and although Macron’s proposals would have gone some way to fixing it, the President is going to have to rethink his approach. The idea is to wait until at least April, by which a report into the pensions deficit should be ready.

Macron has seen unprecedented protests during his tenure so far. Indeed this latest one is the longest in modern French history. Although it has been given minimal coverage in the corporate media, Yellow Vest demonstrations for economic and social justice have been a weekly feature of the Macron presidency since as far back as October 2018. But this hasn’t stopped ‘Manu’ -as some call him – from trying to implement a range of reforms which workers feel undermine their rights. Forced to abandon his fuel tax rise back in 2018 as a result of protests, he then embarked on a series of other reforms, the latest of which has been to pensions. And despite being reported in mainstream media as being merely a retirement age increase from 62 to 64 for certain professions, what Macron proposed was not quite as harmless as is being portrayed.

Referred to by France’s CGT union as a ‘smokescreen’, the pension reforms were to replace France’s 42 separate pension regimes with a points system. But opponents say by doing that, people would be required to work for longer or be left with less money when they retire.  It would also abolish benefits like early retirement for certain groups of workers. And far from women being ‘big winners’ from the reforms as the government maintains, it seems the opposite could be true, with widows, divorced women and mothers who take career breaks to raise their families, being particularly penalised. As a result, the majority of French support the strikes – around 62% according to an RTL poll.

One might think that Macron would have learnt some lessons from his predecessors. Alain Juppe, Prime Minister under Jacques Chirac, tried to overhaul pensions in 1995, leading to three weeks of strikes which equally resulted in a government U-turn. But Macron has had a ruthless, defiant approach towards the protestors since the outset; determined not to give in to their demands. Even before he became President, he proclaimed in response to a question about pushing through economic reforms ‘if we get a few protests, it won’t be a show-stopper’. And this attitude is what is at the heart of the demonstrations against the government. For it is Macron’s lofty, high-handed approach which has irked people from the very beginning.

The idea that people’s feelings towards the reforms are somehow irrelevant – the very people who are powering the machine that is the city of Paris – is gravely wrong, and will only inspire more French to take to the streets. These people are no different from those who led the revolution of the 18th century, and it would be a mistake to think that they will accept to be dictated to by a powerful elite any more than their ancestors did.  The mood in the streets has been militant of late; emotions are running high.

The French people have proved that they are a force to be reckoned with. It is to Emmanuel Macron’s detriment if he underestimates them. Currently he is presiding over one of the most socially turbulent periods in France’s modern history. If he is to save his legacy at all, he must begin by respecting the citizens he presides over, and ultimately, by respecting the key message of the republic: freedom, equality and fraternity.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

New reporting out Monday further erodes the White House narrative that President Donald Trump was justified in ordering the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani earlier this month because Soleimani posed an “imminent” threat to American targets. 

According to NBC News, Trump authorized Soleimani’s killing in June—seven months ago—on the condition that Iranian actions resulted in the death of an American. The assassination was pushed by Iran war hawks John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, who wanted the U.S. to carry out the killing in retaliation for Iran shooting down a US. drone in June. Trump responded to the push by responding “that’s only on the table if they hit Americans,” according to a person briefed on the discussion.

Discussions on targeting Soleimani began even earlier. From NBC:

The idea of killing Soleimani came up in discussions in 2017 that Trump’s national security adviser at the time, retired Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, was having with other administration officials about the president’s broader national security strategy, officials said. But it was just one of a host of possible elements of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran and “was not something that was thought of as a first move,” said a former senior administration official involved in the discussions.

Middle East analyst Juan Cole added to the mounting scrutiny over Trump’s “imminent” threat narrative on Monday. Writing at his Informed Comment blog, Cole noted:

[Soleimani] does not appear to have killed or had killed any Americans at all in the past decade, and from 2015 because of the U.N. Security Council nuclear deal with Iran, Soleimani was not an adversary of the US in recent years. In fact, he was often a de facto ally and the U.S. Air Force gave him air support at Tikrit and elsewhere in the campaign against ISIL (ISIS, Daesh). In fact, for a while there Soleimani was fighting ISIL and al-Qaeda-linked militias in Syria in tacit alliance with the Kurds supported by the United States at a time when Israel allied with an al-Qaeda affiliate in the Golan Heights.

Moreover, the entire narrative of the Trump administration was undermined by Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdelmahdi, who told Parliament on Jan. 5when he asked its members to kick out the U.S. military, that he had personally invited Soleimani to Baghdad as part of a back-channel set of negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Iran aimed at cooling down tensions between the two. Soleimani did not sneak into Iraq on a covert mission. He flew on a commercial jet and went through passport control with his diplomatic passport.

While an attempt was made to invade the U.S. embassy on the Wednesday before Soleimani’s arrival, that was done by members of the Iraqi militia, the Kata’ib Hizbullah, who were angry that on December 30, the Trump administration bombed its bases in northern Iraq and killed some two dozen of its fighters.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have also found evidence presented to them by administration officials to be unconvincing.

Among that group is Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.),  who pointed to Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s comments to CBS Sunday that he “didn’t see” any specific evidence about four U.S. embassies being targeted by Soleimani.

Speaking on MSNBC‘s Kasie DC show Sunday, Merkley said, “the whole imminent argument is basically made up and they’re trying to backfill and give that some substance.”

“But it wasn’t there,” Merkley said. “It wasn’t in the [Senate] brieifing. It wasn’t detailed… and there’s Secretary Esper trying to square the circle and having a hard time doing it.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has also contributed to the doubt over the administration’s stated justification, telling Fox News last week that the administration actually didn’t know when or where the purported “imminent” attacks were going to take place.

Soleimani’s killing has sparked Agnes Callamard, United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, to call this month for an impartial probe.

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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 OneWorld

Russia’s Libyan peace summit in Moscow didn’t succeed with its stated objective of getting the warring parties to agree to a ceasefire agreement after they failed to find any common ground with one another, but it was nevertheless a good start which showed just how influential the trans-regional Russian-Turkish Strategic Partnership has become, especially since it paved the way for this weekend’s upcoming peace talks in Berlin.

This article first published on November 13th 2020 points to a potential “conflict of interest” of Britain’s Prime Minister who meets up with Bill Gates and the representatives of Big Pharma.

Is Boris serving the interests of the British people? Or is he acting on behalf of the pharmaceutical conglomerates?

“We’re fortunate that Prime Minister Johnson has come up with a smart plan”, says Bill Gates. 

GR Editor, M. Ch.

***

The British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, currently being criticised for imposing another lockdown based on questionable data, has met with Bill Gates to discuss implementing a global “health security” program using Britain’s G7 presidency to speed up the process.

Johnson met with Gates along with the CEOs of ten of the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies to foment plans to roll out the vaccine for coronavirus.

Every CEO agreed to commit to providing “fair” access across the globe to the vaccine when it is ready.

Johnson said that the opportunity the G7 presidency in 2021 affords Britain will allow the nation to spearhead a global health plan developed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in partnership with the Wellcome Trust.

The plan was unveiled by Gates at the UN in September, where he called for  overhauling big pharma’s capacity to manufacture “vaccines and treatments.”

Johnson hailed the effort as a “new era of collaboration for problem solving,” and “pandemic preparedness,” adding that it will be a “truly global endeavor”.

The Prime Minister said that world leaders should have heeded Gates’ warnings years ago, and must now work with his Foundation to prevent “something like [Covid-19] ever happening again.”

Gates noted that “the world needs a comprehensive strategy; a coherent approach to financing and manufacturing billions of doses of vaccines, tests and drugs; and a network to monitor for new threats.”

“We’re fortunate that Prime Minister Johnson has come up with a smart plan to do just that in the UK, and our foundation will continue to work with his government and others to make it a reality,” Gates added.

The British government is preparing to roll out the coronavirus vaccine on a level never before seen, drafting in the army to man vaccination centres at arenas, sports halls, and shopping malls.

It has been described as “the biggest logistical effort since the Second World War.”

Gates has previously declared that the world won’t return to normal until “a lot of people” take a second “super-effective” coronavirus vaccine that could be years away.

Last week, we Gates has forcast that a “best case scenario” for a return to normal would be the end of 2021, a date that was qualified with the proviso, “We still don’t know whether these vaccines will succeed.”

The billionaire has also suggested that governments need to ‘brainstorm’ ways of “reducing vaccine hesitancy,” in the face of anti-vaccine “conspiracy theories”.

*

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 assassination of Major General Qaseem Soleimani, who was already a national hero in Iran, has now achieved the stature of a world class martyr. Carrying a diplomatic passport on his flight into Baghdad, Soleimani was also carrying the Iranian response  to a Saudi initiative for peace.

In contrast, President Donald Trump has revealed more about his own inner angst than he ever intended – or perhaps, being a non-introspective type, what has been revealed may be more than he himself has ever acknowledged.

As events and more of the back story unfold, Trump’s frequently problematic sense of reality may be questioned in view of his astonishing suggestion that he is ‘ready to makea new nuclear deal with Iran, even as he ordered additional sanction against the country.  Prior to Soleimani’s assassination, Trump threatened to kill Iraq Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi.

There is no denying that the nature of the act is right out of the Israel play book of quick and dirty overkill and extermination of humanity as seen in Gaza and Jerusalem on a daily basis.

During a session of the Iraq legislature immediately after the assassination, Mahdi reported that the Americans had “ruined his country” and were now unwilling to repair Iraq’s electric grid and other infrastructure needs. Mahdi did what any self respecting leader would do; he signed a contract with Trump’s favorite trading partner to make the repairs.   China already had an international reputation for providing necessary community infrastructure in Africa and elsewhere – wonder if they might visit Detroit and solve their water quality crisis.

Trump has vehemently opposed Iraq’s deal with China unless Mahdi would guarantee that 50% of Iraq’s oil revenue would go to the US.  Mahdi refused and when he refused to reject the contract, he said that Trump “threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my premiership.”

Mahdi continued

“Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine sniperson tall buildings target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me.  I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us rescinding our deal with the Chinese.”

Mahdi says he was also “threatened with false-flag sniper shootings of both protesters and security personnel in order to inflame the situation” like what took place  in Cairo in 2009, Libya in 2011, and the Maidan in 2014.

“After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting both protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened he would do), I received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we kept on talking about this “third party”.

Does any precedent exist, outside of a formally declared war, where the leader of one country personally threatens the life of the leader of another country? This sounds more serious than just a “bad hair” day but rather that someone was off their meds. As Trump frequently demonstrates a bombastic nature with a non-functioning filter to refine his every whim and thought, he has more recently exhibited a deep dark side that has emerged for many Americans to witness.

The nature of the Act itself, the sheer violence of obliterating another human being beyond recognition, appeared to not be enough to satisfy the President’s inner lustful rage.  He continued over the weekend to issue a score of irrational threats to Iran and unfounded accusations about Soleimani who is now acknowledged as architect of the successful campaign to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria.  Despite the false bravado, Trump’s media blast was less a show of strength and courage than a horrifying display of one soul’s malevolent nature.

Forty two hours after the assassination, Trump appeared before the VFW’s National Conference where, in a massive disconnect from reality, he suggested:  “I withdrew the US from a horrible one sided nuclear deal and Iran is not the same country any more; that I can say.  We’ll see what happens but we’re ready to make a real deal; not a deal that was done by the previous administration which was a disaster.“ Is it rational to consider a new nuclear deal with Iran after having just assassinated that country’s most revered military leader?

By Wednesday, in an awkward and somewhat bumbling public appearance from  the White House, Trump appeared short of breath and nervous as he spoke the same belligerent rhetoric but in a more mellow tone.   He again raised the possibility of a new nuclear deal with Iran:  “We must all work together to make a deal with Iran that makes the world a safer and more peaceful place” and “The US is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it” as if the assassination was a long ago forgotten kerfuffle.

As Trump continued to pound on Soleimani in death about destabilizing the Middle East, every word he uttered about terrorists could be easily applied to the US, to himself or to Barack Obama or GW for their never-ending campaign to preserve The Empire.

With a penchant for over-exaggeration, Trump claims that the “US has achieved energy independence” as if it is a done deal.   “We are now the number one producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world.  We are independent and  “we do not need Middle East oil.” So let’s take him at his word that the US has truly achieved  long term reliable energy  independence; then let’s immediately initiate an exit strategy from Afghanistan, Iraq,  Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and where ever else US troops are protecting pipelines.

The Iranians are long term, big picture thinkers and they might see the wisdom of going through the motions of a new deal with the US but the smart money is on a covert act  that will claim a fitting justice for Soleimani as it is time for Israel to fight its own battles.

*

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.  She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31.

Featured image is from South Front

In response to the Trump regime’s assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi deputy PMU head Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, Iraq’s prime minister and parliament called for expelling US troops from the country.

They’re a hostile force wherever based, their presence making peace and stability unattainable.

Iraqis want them out of their country. Trump and hardliners surrounding him refuse to go, the country now occupied US territory.

Their presence is all about colonizing Iraq, permanently occupying its territory, controlling its hydrocarbon and other resources, along with using its military bases in the country as platforms for endless regional wars against invented enemies.

As president and commander-in-chief of US armed forces, Trump serves the interests of America’s military, industrial, security complex, Wall Street, Big Oil, and other corporate interests — at the expense of world peace, equity, justice, the rule of law, and other democratic values he and most others in Washington disdain.

Last week, Trump threatened tough sanctions on Iraq if US troops are expelled, saying:

“We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it,” adding:

He’ll impose “sanctions (on Iraq) like they’ve never seen before ever.”

According to former Iraqi official Fadhel Jawad, Baghdad can expel US forces because their presence isn’t based on legislation or a formal agreement.

Iraqi geopolitical analyst Sajad Jiyad explained that US forces violated the country’s constitution and statute laws “many times,” clear just cause for expelling them, adding:

“It’s a case of will the government be bold enough to take the initiative, or does it want to draw this out and pass the buck around?”

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Trump regime “warned that the US could shut down Iraq’s access to the country’s central bank account held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.”

It “manag(es) the country’s finances, including revenue from oil sales. (Losing access) could restrict Iraq’s use of that revenue, creating a cash crunch in (its) financial system.”

According to Shwan Taha, chairman of Iraqi investment bank Rabee Securities, “(t)he Fed…has a (financial) stranglehold on the (country’s) entire economy.”

Baghdad needs to free itself from petrodollar bondage by conducting bilateral trade with other nations in its own currency and theirs.

It needs to pursue stronger relations with Russia, China, and other nations on a mutually cooperative basis, freeing itself from US control.

Otherwise, it’ll remains hostage to US imperial whims and will, a colonized nation, not a sovereign independent one.

US relations with Iraq and other countries it occupies is based on an unacceptable master/vassal arrangement.

Iraqi Prime Minister Mahdi wants Pompeo to begin the process of withdrawing Pentagon forces from the country — details to be worked out through bilateral talks in Baghdad.

According to a statement from his office, Mahdi told Pompeo to “send delegates to Iraq to prepare a mechanism to carry out the parliament’s resolution regarding the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq,” adding:

US “forces had entered Iraq and drones are flying in its airspace without permission from Iraqi authorities and this was a violation of the bilateral agreements.”

During a Friday press conference in Washington, Pompeo rebuffed the request, saying:

“Our mission (in Iraq) is very clear. (We’re) there to perform a training mission to help the Iraqi security forces be successful and to continue the campaign against ISIS (sic),” adding: “We’re going to continue that mission.”

Trump called withdrawing US forces from Iraq “the worst thing to happen to” the country. “(T)his isn’t the right” time.

Fact: US troops in Iraq have nothing to do with combatting the scourge of ISIS Washington created and supports.

Fact: Their presence has everything to do with controlling the country and its resources, along with using Pentagon bases in its territory as platforms for endless regional wars.

Iraqis want freedom from US occupation. The Trump regime refuses to go. Pentagon forces are unlikely to be withdrawn any time soon.

Iran’s UN envoy Esmaeil Baghaei Hamaneh believes the Trump regime’s assassination of Soleimani and Muhandis pushed the envelope closer to ending US occupation of Iraq.

On Saturday, prominent Iraqi PMU commander Taleb Abbas Ali al-Saedi was lethally shot in Karbala, a city southwest of Baghdad — by an unknown gunman, according to Iraqi media, US dirty hands likely responsible.

Separately according to Iran’s Tasnim News, UK envoy to the Islamic Republic “Rob Macaire was arrested for hours for his involvement in provoking suspicious acts in a gathering held in front of Tehran Amir Kabir University on Saturday,” adding:

He’s accused of inciting students involved in protesting Iran’s announced accidental downing of a Ukraine airliner, US dirty hands perhaps responsible for orchestrating what happened.

“(F)reed a few hours later,” Macaire faces further questioning for his unacceptable actions.

Britain is no friend of Iran, partnered with Washington’s aim for regime change.

The presence of US and allied forces in the region assures endless wars, related violence, instability, and human misery — why it’s crucial to be rid of them.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Project Syndicate