Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning have exposed corrupt officials and criminal politicians

Assange and Manning are prisoners of conscience

How to free Assange and Manning?

Be the Voice of Assange and Manning in your community by any needs necessary.

***

“Cinquenta ogivas nucleares estariam prontas para mudar da base turca de Incirlik, na Anatólia, para a base USAF de Aviano, em Friuli Venezia Giulia, já que os EUA desconfiam cada vez mais da lealdade à NATO do presidente turco Erdogan”: relata a ANSA citando o que foi declarado pelo general aposentado da Força Aérea dos EUA, Chuck Wald, numa entrevista à Bloomberg, em 16 de Novembro. O facto da ANSA e alguns jornais falarem sobre este assunto, mesmo tarde, ainda é positivo. Isto confirma o que il manifesto documentou há muito tempo. “Parece provável – escrevemos em 22 de Outubro (mas a ANSA ignorou a notícia) – que, entre as opções consideradas em Washington, há a transferência de armas nucleares dos EUA da Turquia para outro país mais confiável. Segundo o Atomic Scientists Bulletin (EUA), a base aérea de Aviano pode ser a melhor opção europeia do ponto de vista político, mas provavelmente não tem espaço suficiente para receber todas as armas nucleares da Incirlik. O espaço poderia, no entanto, ser obtido, dado que já havia começado em Aviano, o trabalho de reestruturação para acolher as bombas nucleares B61-12 ».

Baseado no que foi relatado pela ANSA, o coordenador nacional dos Verdes, Angelo Bonelli, pergunta ao governo se confirma a notícia e traz imediatamente o problema à avaliação do Parlamento, pois que a Itália seria “transformada no maior depósito de armas nucleares da Europa e este silêncio do governo italiano é inaceitável”. Na realidade, não é só o governo que está calado, mas o próprio Parlamento, onde a questão das armas nucleares dos EUA em Itália, é tabu. Levantá-la significaria questionar a relação de sujeição da Itália aos Estados Unidos.

Assim, a Itália continua a ser a base avançada das forças nucleares USA. Segundo as últimas estimativas da Federação de Cientistas Americanos, em cada uma das duas bases italianas e nas da Alemanha, Bélgica e Holanda, actualmente existem 20 bombas B61 perfazendo um total de 100 mais 50 em Incirlik, na Turquia. No entanto, ninguém pode verificar quantas são na realidade. Das estimativas resulta que os USA estão a diminuir o seu número, o que está longe de ser tranquilizador. Eles estão a preparar-se para substituí-las pelas novas bombas nucleares B61-12. Diferentemente da B61, lançada verticalmente, a B61-12 segue em direcção ao alvo, guiada por um sistema de satélite e também tem a capacidade de penetrar no subsolo, explodindo em profundidade para destruir os bunkers dos centros de comando. O programa do Pentágono planeia, a partir de 2021,  construir 500 bombas B61-12 com um custo de aproximadamente 10 biliões de dólares. Não se sabe quantas B61-12 serão instaladas em Itália, nem em que bases, provavelmente não só em Aviano e Ghedi. Como mostra o mesmo anúncio do projecto, publicado pelo Ministério da Defesa, os novos hangares de Ghedi poderão hospedar 30 caças F-35 com 60 bombas nucleares B61-12, o triplo das actuais B-61 (il manifesto, 28 de Novembro de 2017).

Ao mesmo tempo, os USA estão a preparar-se para instalar mísseis nucleares terrestres (entre 500 e 5.500 km) em Itália e em outros países europeus, semelhantes aos Euromísseis eliminados pelo Tratado INF, assinado em 1987 pelos USA e pela URSS. Acusando a Rússia (sem qualquer prova) de tê-lo violado, os USA retiraram-se do Tratado, começando a construir mísseis da categoria proibida: em 18 de Agosto eles testaram um novo míssil de cruzeiro e, em 12 de Dezembro, um novo míssil balístico, este último capaz de atingir o objectivo em poucos minutos. Ao mesmo tempo, estão a fortalecer o “escudo antimísseis” na Europa. Na sua “resposta assimétrica”, a Rússia começa a instalar mísseis hipersónicos que, capazes de atingir uma velocidade de 33.000 km/h e de manobrar, podem perfurar qualquer “escudo”.

A situação em que nos encontramos é, portanto, muito mais perigosa do que demonstra a notícia já alarmante da provável transferência de bombas nucleares USA de Incirlik para Aviano. Nesta situação, domina o silêncio imposto pela vasta coligação política bipartidária responsável pelo facto da Itália, país não nuclear, albergar e estar preparada para usar armas nucleares, violando o Tratado de Não Proliferação que ratificou. Essa responsabilidade torna-se ainda mais grave, pelo facto da Itália, como membro da NATO, se recusar a aderir ao Tratado sobre a Proibição de armas nucleares (Tratado ONU), votado por uma grande maioria da Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

50 bombe nucleari Usa dalla Turchia ad Aviano

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

In the year 2019 the world was marked with a number of emerging and developing crises. The threat of terrorism, conflicts in the Middle East, expanding instability in South America, never-ending military, political and humanitarian crises in Africa and Asia, expansion of NATO, insecurity inside the European Union, sanction wars and sharpening conflicts between key international players. One more factor that shaped the international situation throughout the year was the further collapse of the existing system of international treaties. The most widely known examples of this tendency are the collapse of the INF and the US announcement of plans to withdraw from the New START.

Meanwhile, the deterioration of diplomatic mechanisms between key regional and global actors is much wider than these two particular cases. It includes such fields as NATO-Russia relations, the US posture towards Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, unsuccessful attempts to rescue vestiges of the Iran nuclear deal, as well as recent setbacks in the diplomatic formats created to de-escalate the Korean conflict.

Syria and The Middle East 

One of the regions of greatest concern in the world, is the Middle East. The main destabilizing factors are the remaining terrorist threat from al-Qaeda and ISIS, the crises in Libya, Syria and Iraq, the ongoing Saudi invasion of Yemen, the deepening Israeli-Arab conflict, and a threat of open military confrontation involving the US and Iran in the Persian Gulf. These factors are further complicated by social and economic instability in several regional countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and even Iran.

After the defeat of ISIS, the war in Syria entered a low intensity phase. However, it appears that the conflict is nowhere near its end and the country remains a point of instability in the region.

ISIS cells are still active in the country. The announced US troop withdrawal appeared to be only an ordinary PR stunt as US forces only changed their main areas of presence to the oil-rich areas in northeastern Syria. Washington exploits its control over Syrian resources and influence on the leadership of the Syrian Kurds in order to effect the course of the conflict. The Trump administration sees Syria as one of the battlegrounds in the fight against the so-called Iranian threat.

The province of Idlib and its surrounding areas remain the key stronghold of radical militant groups in Syria. Over the past years, anti-government armed groups suffered a series of defeats across the country and withdrew towards northwestern Syria. The decision of the Syrian Army to allow encircled militants to withdraw towards Idlib enabled the rescue of thousands of civilians, who were being used by them as human shields in such areas as Aleppo city and Eastern Ghouta. At the same time, this increased significantly the already high concentration of militants in Greater Idlib turning it into a hotbed of radicalism and terrorism. The ensuing attempts to separate the radicals from the so-called moderate opposition and then to neutralize them, which took place within the framework of the Astana format involving Turkey, Syria, Iran and Russia, made no progress.

The Summer-Fall advance of the Syrian Army in northern Hama and southern Idlib led to the liberation of a large area from the militants. Nevertheless, strategically, the situation is still the same. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, formerly the official branch of al-Qaeda in Syria, controls most of the area. Turkish-backed ‘moderate militants’ act shoulder to shoulder with terrorist groups.

Turkey is keen to prevent any possible advances of the government forces in Idlib. Therefore it supports further diplomatic cooperation with Russia and Iran to promote a ‘non-military’ solution of the issue. However it does not seem to have enough influence with the Idlib militant groups, in particular HTS, to impose a ceasefire on them at the present time. Ankara could take control of the situation, but it would need a year or two that it does not have. Therefore, a new round of military escalation in the Idlib zone seems to be only a matter of time.

Syria’s northeast is also a source of tensions. Turkey seized a chunk of territory between Ras al-Ayn and Tell Abyad in the framework of its Operation Peace Spring. The large-scale Turkish advance on Kurdish armed groups was halted by the Turkish-Russian ‘safe zone’ agreement and now the Syrian Army and the Russian Military Police are working to separate Kurdish rebels from Turkish proxies and to stabilize Syria’s northeast. If this is successfully done and the Assad government reaches a political deal with Kurdish leaders, conditions for further peaceful settlement of the conflict in this part of the country will be created. It should be noted that Damascus has been contributing extraordinary efforts to restore the infrastructure in areas liberated from terrorists by force or returned under its control by diplomatic means. In the eyes of the local population, these actions have an obvious advantage over approaches of other actors controlling various parts of Syria.

Israel is another actor pursuing an active policy in the region. It seeks to influence processes which could affect, what the leadership sees as, interests of the state. Israel justifies aggressive actions in Syria by claiming to be surrounded by irreconcilable enemies, foremost Iran and Hezbollah, who try to destroy Israel or at least diminish its security. Tel Aviv makes all efforts to ensure that, in the immediate vicinity of its borders, there would be no force, non-state actors, or states whose international and informational activities or military actions might damage Israeli interests. This, according to the Israeli vision, should ensure the physical security of the entire territory currently under the control of Israel and its population.

The start of the Syrian war became a gift for Israel. It was strong enough to repel direct military aggression by any terrorist organization, but got a chance to use the chaos to propel its own interests. Nonetheless, the rigid stance of the Israeli leadership which became used to employing chaos and civil conflicts in the surrounding countries as the most effective strategy for ensuring the interests of the state, was delivered a blow. Israel missed the moment when it had a chance to intervene in the conflict as a kind of peacemaker, at least on the level of formal rhetoric, and, with US help, settle the conflict to protect its own interests. Instead, leaders of Israel and the Obama administration sabotaged all Russian peace efforts in the first years of the Russian military operation and by 2019, Tel Aviv had found itself excluded from the list of power brokers in the Syrian settlement. Hezbollah and Iran, on the other hand, strengthened their position in the country after they, in alliance with Damascus and Russia, won the war on the major part of Syrian territory, and Iran through the Astana format forged a tactical alliance with Turkey.

Iran and Hezbollah used the preliminary outcome of the conflict in Syria, and the war on ISIS in general, to defend their own security and to expand their influence across the region.  The so-called Shia crescent turned from being a myth exploited by Western diplomats and mainstream media into a reality. Iran and Hezbollah appeared to be reliable partners for their regional allies even in the most complicated situations.

Russia’s strategic goal is the prevention of radical Islamists from coming to power. Russia showed itself ready to enter dialogue with the moderate part of the Syrian opposition. Its leadership even demonstrated that it is ready to accept the interests of other actors, the US, Israel, Kurdish groups, Turkey, Iran, and Hezbollah, if this would help in reaching a final deal to settle the conflict.

Summing up the developments of 2019, one might expect that the current low-intensity state of the Syrian conflict would continue for years. However, several factors and developments could instigate the renewal of full-fledged hostilities:

• A sudden demise or forceful removal of President Bashar al-Assad could create a situation of uncertainty within the patriotic component of the Syrian leadership;
• Changes within the Russian political system or issues inside Russia which could lead to full or partial withdrawal of support to the Syrian government and withdrawal of Russian forces from Syria;
• A major war in the Middle East which would turn the entire region into a battlefield. In the current situation, such a war could only start by escalation between the US-Israeli-led bloc and Iran.

Iran and The Persian Gulf. The War on Yemen

The Persian Gulf and the Saudi-Yemen battleground are also sources of regional instability. In the second half of 2019, the situation there was marked by increased chances of open military confrontation between the US-Israeli-Saudi bloc and Iran. Drone shoot-downs, oil tanker detentions, open military buildups, and wartime-like rhetoric became something common or at least not very surprising. The US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel point to Iran as the main instigator of tensions.

Iran and its allies deny responsibility for the escalation reasonably noting that their actions were a response to aggressive moves by the US-Israeli-Saudi axis. From this point of view, Iran’s decision to limit its commitments to the already collapsed Nuclear Deal, high level of military activity in the Persian Gulf, shoot down of the US Global Hawk spy drone, and increased support to regional Shia groups are logical steps to deter US—led aggression and to solidify its own position in the region. Iran’s main goal is to demonstrate that an open military conflict with it will have a devastating impact to the states which decide to attack it, as well as to the global economy.

The US sanctions war, public diplomatic support of rioters, and the Trump administration’s commitment to flexing military muscle only strengthen Tehran’s confidence that this approach is right.

As to Yemen’s Houthis, who demonstrated an unexpected success in delivering retaliatory strikes to Saudi Arabia, they would continue to pursue their main goal – achieving a victory in the conflict with Saudi Arabia or forcing the Kingdom to accept the peace deal on favorable terms. To achieve this, they need to deliver maximum damage to Saudi Arabia’s economy through strikes on its key military and infrastructure objects. In this case, surprising missile and drone strikes on different targets across Saudi Arabia have already demonstrated their effectiveness.

The September 14 strike on Saudi oil infrastructure that put out of commission half of the Saudi oil output became only the first sign of future challenges that Riyadh may face in case of further military confrontation.

The unsuccessful invasion of Yemen and the confrontation with Iran are not the only problems for Saudi Arabia. The interests and vision of the UAE and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East have been in conflict for a long time. Nonetheless, this tendency became especially obvious in 2019. The decline of influence of the House of Saud in the region and inside Saudi Arabia itself led to logical attempts of other regional players to gain a leading position in the Arabian Peninsula. The main challenger is the UAE and the House of Maktoum.

The UAE already gained an upper hand in the standoff with Saudi Arabia in the economic field. This provided motivation for further actions towards expanding its influence in the region.

During the year, Turkey, under the leadership of President Recep Erdogan, continued strengthening its regional positions. It expanded its own influence in Libya and Syria, strengthened its ties with Iran, Qatar, and Russia, obtained the S-400, entered a final phase in the TurkStream project, and even increased controversial drilling activity in the Eastern Mediterranean. Simultaneously, Ankara defended its national interests -repelling pressure from the United States and getting off with removal from the F-35 program only. Meanwhile, Turkish actions should not be seen as a some tectonic shift in its foreign policy or a signal of ‘great friendship’ with Russia or Iran.

Turkish foreign policy demonstrates that Ankara is not seeking to make ‘friends’ with other regional and global powers. Turkey’s foreign policy is mobile and variable, and always designed to defend the interests of Turkey as a regional leader and the key state of the Turkic world.

Developments in Libya were marked by the strengthening of the Libyan National Army (LNA) led by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar and backed by the UAE, Egypt, and to some extent Russia. The LNA consolidated control of most of the country and launched an advance on its capital of Tripoli, controlled by the Government of National Accord. The LNA describes its main goal as the creation of the unified government and the defeat of terrorism. In its own turn, the Government of National Accord is backed by Turkey, Qatar, the USA and some European states. It controls a small part of the country, and, in terms of military force, relies on various militias and even radical armed groups linked with al-Qaeda. Ankara signed with the Tripoli government a memorandum on maritime boundaries in the Mediterranean Sea. Thus, it sees the GNA survival as a factor which would allow it to justify its further economic and security expansion in the region. This clash of interests sets conditions for an escalation of the Libyan conflict in 2020.

Egypt was mostly stable. The country’s army and security forces contained the terrorism threat on the Sinai Peninsula and successfully prevented attempts of radical groups to destabilize the country.

Central Asia

By the end of the year, the Greater Middle East had appeared in a twilight zone lying before a new loop of the seemingly never-ending Great Game. The next round of the geopolitical standoff will likely take place in a larger region including the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Consistently, the stakes will grow involving more resources of states and nations in geopolitical roulette.

The threat that faces Central Asia is particularly severe since the two sets of actors have asymmetrical objectives. Russia and China are rather interested in the political stability and economic success of the region which they view as essential to their own political and security objectives. It is not in the interest of either country to have half a dozen failed states in their immediate political neighborhood, riven by political, economic, and religious conflicts threatening to spread to their own territories. In addition to being a massive security burden to Russia and China, it would threaten the development of their joint Eurasian integration projects and, moreover, attract so much political attention that the foreign policy objectives of both countries would be hamstrung. The effect would be comparable to that of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on the US political and military establishment. The monetary price of these wars, the sheer political distraction, wear and demoralization of the armed forces, and the unfortunately frequent killings of civilians amount to a non-tenable cost to the warring party, not to mention damage to US international “soft power” wrought by scandals associated with Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and “black sites”. Even now, shock-waves in the US military hierarchy continue to be felt regarding the court-martialed senior-ranking US Navy “SEAL” commando charged for the wanton killing of civilians in Northern Iraq during the US military’s anti-ISIS operations.

By contrast, this dismal scenario would be enough to satisfy the US foreign policy establishment which, at the moment, is wholly dominated by “hawks” determined to assure the continuation of US hegemony.  Preventing the emergence of a multi-polar international system by weakening China and Russia is their desire.  This sets the stage for another round of great power rivalry in Central Asia. While the pattern is roughly the same as during the 19th and late 20th centuries—one or more Anglo-Saxon powers seeking to diminish the power of Russia and/or China—the geography of the battlefield is considerably larger for it encompasses the entirety of post-Soviet Central Asian republics.  Also included is China’s province of Xinjiang which has suddenly attracted considerable Western attention, manifested, as usual, by concern for “human rights” in the region.  Historically, such “concern” usually precedes some form of aggressive action. Therefore the two sets of great power actors—the US and other interested Western powers on the one hand, with Russia and China on the other—are locked in a standoff in the region.

Afghanistan

The key security problem is militancy and the spread of terrorism. The US and its NATO partners remain unable to achieve a military victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban reached a level of influence in the region, turning it into a rightful party to any negotiations involving the United States. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that a fully-fledged peace deal can be reached between the sides. The Taliban’s main demand is the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the country. For Washington, conceding to this would amount to public humiliation and a forceful need to admit that the superpower lost a war to the Taliban. Washington can achieve a military victory in Afghanistan only by drastically increasing its forces in the country. This will go contrary to Trump’s publicly declared goal – to limit US participation in conflicts all around the world. Therefore, the stalemate will continue with the Taliban and the US sitting at the negotiating table in Qatar, while Taliban forces slowly take control of more and more territory in Afghanistan.

Besides fighting the US-backed government, in some parts of the country, the Taliban even conducts operations against ISIS in order to prevent this group from spreading further. Despite this, around 5,000 ISIS militants operate in Afghanistan’s north, near the border with Tajikistan. Member states of the Collective Security Treaty Organization are concerned that ISIS militants are preparing to shift their focus to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, and Russia. The terrorists are infiltrating CIS states, incorporating with organized crime, creating clandestine cells, brainwashing and recruiting new supporters, chiefly the socially handicapped youth and migrants, [and] training them to carry out terrorist activities. The worsening situation in Central Asia contributes to the spread of radical ideas. Now the main threat of destabilization of the entire Central Asian region comes from Tajikistan. This state is the main target of militants deployed in northern Afghanistan.

Destabilization of Central Asia and the rise of ISIS both contribute to achievement of US geopolitical goals. The scenario could devastate Russia’s influence in the region, undermine security of key Russian regional ally, Kazakhstan, and damage the interests of China. The Chinese, Kazakh, and Russian political leadership understand these risks and engage in joint efforts to prevent this scenario.

In the event of further destabilization of Central Asia, ISIS sleeper cells across the region could be activated and a new ISIS self-proclaimed Caliphate could appear on the territory of northern Afghanistan and southern Tajikistan. Russia and China would not benefit from such a development. In the case of China, such instability could expand to its Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, while in Russia the main targets could be the Northern Caucasus and large cities with high numbers of migrant laborers from Central Asian states.

Armenia now together with Georgia became the center of a US soft power campaign to instigate anti-Russian hysteria in the Caucasus. Ethnic groups in this region are traditionally addicted to US mainstream propaganda. On the other hand, the importance of the South Caucasus for Russia decreased notably because of the strong foothold it gained in the Middle East. 2020 is looking to be another economically complicated year for Georgia and Armenia.

China Challenges the US 

Throughout 2019, China consolidated its position as a global power and the main challenger of the United States. From the military point of view, China successfully turned the South China Sea into an anti-access and area-denial zone controlled by its own military and moved forward with its ambitious modernization program which includes the expansion of China’s maritime, airlift, and amphibious capabilities. The balance of power in the Asia-Pacific has in fact shifted and the Chinese Armed Forces are now the main power-broker in the region. China appeared strong enough to fight back against US economic and diplomatic pressure and to repel the Trump Administration’s attempts to impose Washington’s will upon Beijing. Despite economic war with the United States, China’s GDP growth in 2019 is expected to be about 6%, while the yuan exchange rate and the SSE Composite Index demonstrate stability. The United States also tried to pressure China through supporting instability in Hong Kong and by boosting defense aid to Taiwan. However, in both cases, the situation appears to still be within Beijing’s comfort zone.

The Russia-China Partnership

An interesting consequence of US-led pressure on China is that Washington’s actions provided an impetus for development of Chinese-Russian cooperation. In 2019, Moscow and Beijing further strengthened their ties and cooperation in the economic and military spheres and demonstrated notable unity in their actions on the international scene as in Africa and in the Arctic for example.

As to Russia itself, during the year, it achieved several foreign policy victories.

• The de-facto diplomatic victory in Syria;
• Resumption of dialogue with the new Ukrainian regime and the reanimation of the Normandy format negotiations;
• Improvement of relations with some large European players, like France, Italy, and even Germany;
• Implementation of the Nord Stream 2 project despite opposition from the US-led bloc;
• Implementation of the Turkish Stream project with Turkey;
• Strengthening of the Russian economy in comparison with previous years and the rubble’s stability despite pressure from sanctions. Growth of the Russian GDP for 2019 is expected to be 1.2%, while the Russia Trading System Index demonstrated notable growth from around 1,100 points at the start of the year to around 1,500 by year’s end.

The salient accomplishment of the Russian authorities is that no large terrorist attack took place in the country. At the same time, the internal situation was marked by some negative tendencies. There was an apparent political, media, and social campaign to undermine Chinese-Russian cooperation. This campaign, run by pro-Western and liberal media, became an indicator of the progress in Chinese-Russian relations. Additionally, Russia was rocked by a series of emergencies, corruption scandals linked with law enforcement, the plundering of government funding allocated to the settlement of emergency situations, the space industry, and other similar cases.

A number of Russian mid-level officials made statements revealing their real, rent-seeking stance towards the Russian population. Another problem was the deepening social stratification of the population. Most of the citizens experienced a decrease in their real disposable income, while elites continued concentrating margin funds gained through Russia’s successful actions in the economy and on the international level. These factors, as well as fatigue with the stubborn resistance of entrenched elites to being dislodged, caused conditions for political instability in big cities. Liberal and pro-Western media and pro-Western organizations exploited this in an attempt to destabilize the country.

The Militarization of Japan

Militarization of Japan has given the US a foothold in its campaign against China, Russia, and North Korea. The Japan Self-Defense Forces were turned into a fully-fledged military a long time ago. Japanese diplomatic rhetoric demonstrates that official Tokyo is preparing for a possible new conflict in the region and that it will fight to further expand its zone of influence. The Japanese stance on the Kuril Islands territorial dispute with Russia is an example of this approach. Tokyo rejected a Russian proposal for joint economic management of four islands and nearby waters, while formally the islands will remain within Russian jurisdiction -at least for the coming years. Japan demands the full transfer of islands a term which is unacceptable to Russia from a military and political point of view. The social and economic situation in Japan was in a relatively stable, but guarded state.

US-North Korea Relations

Denuclearization talks between the United States and North Korea reached a stalemate after the North Korean leadership claimed that Washington was in no hurry to provide Pyongyang with acceptable terms and conditions of a possible nuclear deal. The example of the US unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran also played a role. The positive point is that tensions on the Korean Peninsula de-escalated anyway because the sides sat down at the negotiation table. Chances of the open military conflict involving North Korea and the United States remain low.

Kashmir

In February 2019, the Indian-Pakistani conflict over the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir put the greater region on the brink of a large war with potential for the use of nuclear weapons. However, both India and Pakistan demonstrated reasonable restraint and prevented further escalation despite an open confrontation between their militaries which took place at the same moment. Meanwhile, the February escalation demonstrated the growing power of Pakistan. In the coming years, look to Jammu and Kashmir as a point of constant instability and military tensions, with very little chance that the sides will find a comprehensive political solution to their differences.

The Extension of ISIS in Southeast Asia

The threat of terrorism is another destabilizing factor in the region. In 2019, ISIS cells made several attempts to strengthen and expand their presence in such countries as Malaysia and Indonesia. Law enforcement agencies of both countries are well aware of this threat and contribute constant and active efforts to combat this terrorism and radicalism. It should be noted that Malaysia is in conflict with the Euro-Atlantic elites because of its independent foreign policy course. For example, its government repeatedly questioned the mainstream MH17 narrative and officially slammed the JIT investigation as politicized and nontransparent. So, the leadership of the country is forced to be in a state of permanent readiness to repel clandestine and public attempts to bring it into line with the mainstream agenda.

The European Union

While the European Union is, theoretically, the world’s biggest economy using the world’s second most popular currency in international transactions, it remains to be seen whether, in the future, it will evolve into a genuine component of a multi-polar international system or become a satellite in someone else’s—most likely US—orbit. There still remain many obstacles toward achieving a certain “critical mass” of power and unity. While individual EU member states, most notably Germany and France, are capable of independent action in the international system, individually they are too weak to influence the actions of the United States, China, or even Russia. In the past, individual European powers relied on overseas colonial empires to achieve great power status. In the 21st century, European greatness can only be achieved through eliminating not just economic but also political barriers on the continent. At present, European leaders are presented with both incentives and obstacles to such integration, though one may readily discern a number of potential future paths toward future integration.

Continued European integration would demand an agreement on how to transfer national sovereignty to some as yet undefined and untested set of European political institutions which would not only guarantee individual rights but, more importantly from the point of view of national elites, preserve the relative influence of individual EU member states even after they forfeited their sovereignty. Even if the Euro-skeptics were not such a powerful presence in EU’s politics, it would still be an insurmountable task for even the most visionary and driven group of political leaders. Such a leap is only possible if the number of EU states making it is small, and their level of mutual integration is already high.

The post-2008 Euro zone crisis does appear to have communicated the non-sustainability of the current EU integration approach, hence the recent appearance of “two-speeds Europe” concept which actually originated as a warning against the threat of EU bifurcation into well integrated “core“ and a less integrated “periphery”. In practical terms it would mean “core” countries, definitely including Germany, France, and possibly the Benelux Union, would abandon the current policy of throwing money at the less well developed EU member states and, instead, focus on forging “a more perfect Union” consisting of this far more homogeneous and smaller set of countries occupying territories that, over a thousand years ago, formed what used to be known as the Carolingian Empire. Like US territories of the 19th century, EU states outside of the core would have to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” to earn membership in the core, which would require them to adopt, wholesale, the core’s political institutions.

The deepening disproportion of EU member state economies, and therefore sharpening economic disputes, are the main factor of instability in Europe. The long-delayed withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the union, which is finally expected to take place in 2020, might trigger an escalation of internal tensions over economic issues which might blow up the EU from the inside. Other cornerstones of European instability are the extraordinary growth of organized crime, street crime, radicalism, and terrorism, most of which were caused by uncontrolled illegal migration and the inability of the European bureaucracy to cut off the flows of illegal migrants, integrate non-radicalized people into European society, and detect all radicals and terrorists that infiltrate Europe with migrants.

The situation is further complicated by the conflict in Ukraine and the destruction of international security treaties, such as the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and its planned withdrawal from the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty). These developments go amid constant military and political hysteria of micro-states and Poland instigated by the Euro-Atlantic elites. The EU bureaucracy is using this state of hysteria and ramping up speculations about a supposed military threat from Russia and an economic and political threat from China to distract the public and draw attention away from the real problems.

Russia and Africa

The return of Russia as the diplomatic and military great power to Africa marked a new round of the geo-economic standoff in the region. The apparent Russian-Chinese cooperation is steadily pushing French and British out of what they describe as their traditional sphere of influence. While, in terms of economic strength, Russia cannot compete with China, it does have a wide range of military and diplomatic means and measures with which to influence the region. So, Beijing and Moscow seem to have reached a non-public deal on a “division of labor”. China focuses on implementation of its economic projects, while Russia contributes military and diplomatic efforts to stabilize the security situation, obtaining revenue for its military and security assistance. Moscow plays a second violin role in getting these guaranteed zones of influence. Terrorism is one of the main threats to the region. The Chinese-Russian cooperation did not go without a response from their Western counterparts that justified their propaganda and diplomatic opposition to Beijing-Moscow cooperation by describing Chinese investments as “debt-traps” and the Russian military presence as “destabilizing”. In 2019, Africa entered into a new round of great powers rivalry.

US “Soft Power” in Latin America. Ecuador, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico

The intensification of US “soft power” and meddling efforts, social, economic tensions, activities of non-state actors, and organized criminal networks became the main factors of instability in South America. Venezuela and Bolivia were targeted by US-backed coups. While the Venezuelan government, with help from China and Russia, succeeded in repelling the coup attempt, Bolivia was plunged into a violent civil conflict after the pro-US government seized power. Chile remained in a state of social economic crisis which repeatedly triggered wide-scale anti-government riots. Its pro-US government remained in power, mainly, because there was no foreign ‘democratic superpower’ to instigate the regime change campaign. Actions of the government of Colombia, one of the key US regional allies, undermined the existing peace deal with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and forced at least a part of the former FARC members to take up arms once again.

If repressions, killings, and clandestine operations aimed at the FARC members committed to the peace continue, they may lead to a resumption of FARC-led guerrilla warfare against the central government. The crisis developing in Mexico is a result of the growth of the drug cartels-related violence and economic tensions with the United States.

The right-wing Bolsonaro government put Brazil on track with the US foreign policy course to the extent that, the country worked with Washington against Venezuela, claiming that it should not turn into ‘another Cuba’. A deep economic crisis in Argentina opened the road to power for a new left-centric president, Alberto Fernandez. Washington considers South America as its own geopolitical backyard and sees any non pro-US, or just national-oriented government, as a threat to its vital interests. In 2020, the US meddling campaign will likely escalate and expand, throwing the region into a new round of instability and triggering an expected resistance from South American states. An example of this is the situation in Bolivia. Regardless of the actions of ousted President Evo Morales, the situation in the country will continue escalating. The inability of the pro-US government to deliver positive changes and its simultaneous actions to destroy all the economic achievements of the Morales period might cause Bolivia to descend into poverty and chaos causing unrest and possibly, a civil war.

Hybrid Warfare

During 2019, the world superpower, led by the administration of President Donald Trump, provided a consistent policy designed to defend the interests of US domestic industry and the United States as a national state by any means possible. This included economic and diplomatic pressure campaigns against both US geopolitical competitors and allies. The most widely known Trump administration move of this kind was the tariff war with China. However, at the same time, Washington contributed notable efforts in almost all regions around the globe. For example, the United States opposed Chinese economic projects in Africa, Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in Europe, tried to limit exports of the Russian defense industry, pressured NATO member states who did not want to spend enough on defense, and proposed that US allies pay more for the honor and privilege of provided “protection”.

The US Economy in Crisis 

Additionally, Trump pressured the Federal Reserve Board of Governors into lowering interest rates and announced plans to lower interest rates even further to weaken the dollar in order to boost national industry and increase its product availability on the global market. These plans caused strong resistance from international corporations and global capitalists because this move may undermine the current global financial system based upon a strong US dollar. This straightforward approach demonstrated that Trump and his team were ready to do everything needed to protect US security and economic interests as they see them. Meanwhile, it alienated some “traditional allies”, as in the case of Turkey which decided to acquire Russian S-400s, and escalated the conflict between the Trump Administration and the globalists. The expected US GDP growth in 2019 is 2.2%. The expected production growth of 3.9% reflects the policy aimed at supporting the real sector. In terms of foreign policy, the White House attempted to rationalize US military presence in conflict zones around the world. Despite this, the unprecedented level of support to Israel, confrontation with Iran, China, and Russia, militarization of Europe, coups and meddling into the internal affairs of sovereign states remain as the main markers of US foreign policy. Nevertheless, the main threat to United States stability originates not from Iranians, Russians, or Chinese, but rather from internal issues. The constant hysteria in mainstream media, the attempt to impeach Donald Trump, and the radicalization of different social and political groups contributes to destabilization of the country ahead of the 2020 presidential election.T

Dangerous Developments in 2019

The year 2019 was marked by a number of dangerous developments. In spite of this, it could have been much more dangerous and violent. Political leadership by key actors demonstrated their conditional wisdom by avoiding a number of open military conflicts, all of which had chances to erupt in the Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, South America, and even Europe. A new war in the Persian Gulf, US military conflict with North Korea, an India-Pakistan war -none of these were started.  A peaceful transfer of power from Petro Poroshenko to Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine allowed for the avoidance of a military escalation in eastern Europe. China and the United States showed their restraint despite tensions in the Asia-Pacific, including the Hong Kong issue. A new global economic crisis, expected for some time by many experts, did not happen. The lack of global economic shocks or new regional wars in 2019 does not mean that knots straining relations among leading world powers were loosened or solved. These knots will remain a constant source of tension on the international level until they are removed within the framework of diplomatic mechanisms or cut as a result of a large military conflict or a series of smaller military conflicts.

Chances seem high that 2020 will become the year when a match will be set to the wick of the international powder keg, or that it will be the last relatively calm year in the first quarter of the 21st century. The collapse of international defense treaties and de-escalation mechanisms, as well as accumulating contradictions and conflicts among world nations give rise to an especial concern.

*

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

“In general, unfortunately, the qualifications required to gain power and keep it have almost no connection with those required to govern with competence and impartiality.” – Jean-François Revel (1924-2006), French author and philosopher. (In ‘Ni Marx ni Jésus’, 1970, p. 68).

“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of a private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism —ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), 32nd American President (1933-1945). (In a speech to Congress, on April 29, 1938).

“The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.”- John Adams (1735-1826), 2nd American President, 1797-1801. (In ‘A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law’, 1765).

“Men’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but men’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary”. – Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), American Protestant theologian. (In ‘The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness’, 1944).

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy? —A Republic, if you can keep it.”- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), US Founding Father. (A lady’s question and Franklin’s answer: at the close of the Constitutional Convention, in 1787).

Democracy, as President Abraham Lincoln phrased it at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, in 1863, is “the government of the people, for the people, and by the people”. It is a political system that guarantees an individual’s basic human rights and freedoms (of thought, conscience, speech, religion, assembly, petition and of the press, etc.). — It guarantees due process and equality before the law. — It makes the government accountable to the people and it forbids a government from subjecting individuals to arbitrary prison, slavery or bondage, etc. — In a democracy, a person is able to speak his or her mind and express political preferences with reasonable safety.

Historically, the legal principle of Habeas Corpus, which originated in England in the 12th century, was a great step toward liberty and freedom in democracies, because it forbids unlawful arrest and detention or imprisonment, without due process.

Democracy is a system, which is based on the fundamental principle that political power in a society comes from the sovereignty of people, and not from abstract deities and from their convenient interpreters on Earth (kings, emperors, etc.). In a democracy, people in government govern with the consent of the people. Benjamin Franklin made the concept perfectly clear when he wrote, “In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns”.

However, the democratic system is not perfect and it constantly runs the risk of being corrupted and subverted. — “Democracy”, said Winston Churchill in 1947, “is the worst form of Government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”. — In reality, representative democracy is a fragile form of government. It cannot be taken for granted. It requires special conditions and constant vigilance to exist and to last, lest it perish in the hands of dictators or of different types of oligarchies.

— It is based on three fundamental principles:

1- that people, through the majority rule, should be the deciding final authority, in elections or referendums, and in the respect of political minorities;

2- that people should be equal under the law, and

3- that there should be constitutional rules and political and legal institutions to make sure that the first two principles are respected.

Historically speaking, democracy is by no means a natural form of government. Dictatorship, especially totalitarian dictatorship, relies on violence and brute force, and on the government of a single man or an oligarchy, to exert absolute governmental control over the people. Throughout history, indeed, it has allowed kings, emperors, demagogues, despots and autocratic men, and their oligarchies, to usurp absolute power, to subjugate the people and to eliminate any opposition and other political parties, but their own.

In reality, no democracy is immune to an authoritarian push. That is why a democracy, to survive, must be defended and protected by the people, by unbiased medias, by intellectuals and thinkers, and, above all, by a democratic constitution and a non corrupt judiciary system.

The second half of the 20th century saw a big  jump in the number of democracies

The first half of the 20^th Century was plagued with two world wars and a severe economic depression. The economic problems and poverty, which resulted from the First World War (1914-1918) and which were endemic in many countries created a fertile ground during those times for dictators and autocrats of all kinds. During that period, the percentage of democratic countries did not surpass 31 percent. At the end of World War II, in 1945, there were a total of 137 autocracies against only 12 true democracies in the world, (i.e. with a democratic constitution, protection for civil liberties, free elections and an independent judiciary).

Things changed dramatically during the second half of the 20th century. This was a development the world had never seen before. The number of democracies exploded. The United Nations was established in 1945 with the mission of preventing future wars. Some 50 countries became the first signatories, although not all of them endorsed democracy as a political system. Nevertheless, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims the basic concept of democracy by stating unequivocally that: “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.”

During that crucial period, there were two important geopolitical developments:

– First, from 1945 into the 1960s, under pressures from the United States and other countries, strong independence movements liberated former colonies from previous colonial political systems. This process of decolonization took place in Africa, but also in Asia, especially in India, which is today the most populous democracy in the world. This led to the creation of new states, and many of them adopted the democratic system.

– Secondly, the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, and its subsequent dissolution, led to another dramatic increase in the number of new states and new democracies in Eastern Europe.

No less than 14 of the former Soviet republics became independent states, besides Russia. However, only a handful of them (the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) are truly democratic and hold free and fair elections. Some of the new states, however, are de facto autocratic regimes (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan) and they hold only symbolic elections. Among the five other former Soviet republics, a few have become more democratic (Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Tajikistan and Armenia), but they are still a mixture of democracy and authoritarianism.

The number of true democracies in the world has declined since 2006

Researchers at Stanford University have recently sounded the alarm: Without American moral leadership, they say, democracy everywhere is in danger of a free fall. Political scientist Larry Diamond, for one, has published a new book, “Ill Winds: Saving Democracy from Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency”, in which he describes how liberty is under assault in the United States and abroad, by a rising trend toward authoritarianism, and how democracies globally have weakened or failed. He notes, for example, that as recently as 2006, 62 percent of all nations were functioning democracies, while that number, by 2017, had dropped to 51 percent. He sees a danger that the 21^st century could be defined, one day, by the “rise of the autocrat”.

Why is this so? One culprit, among others, is economic and financial globalization, which has weakened democratic governments in their capability to solve domestic economic problems.  Globalization has also produced important economic structural changes, which have spurred the growth of technology and of new industries, but which have left some groups of workers behind, especially in old industries, resulting in a process of deindustrialization and a loss of high-paying jobs.

Another cause of democratic decline in some countries may be due to a nationalist backlash against globalization having gone too far, too fast. Many nations have increasingly more porous national frontiers, which have increased the flows of immigrants and refugees from abroad, and which have persuaded some people that “democracy does not work well for them and that it no longer promotes their interests”.

A certain democratic regression has also been observed, over the most recent decades, with the tendency in some nations to entrust to technocrats or to judges the task ex officio of solving some contentious social and political problems, rather than to establish public commissions of inquiry, as it was the custom in the past.

In some countries, indeed, especially within the European Union, important political powers have shifted from national governments to unelected technocrats, at the center, thus creating a democratic deficit. This has frustrated the will of the people, alienated them and undermined their faith in their own politicians. People in the U.K., for instance, want out of the EU essentially because they want to regain control over their borders. In some other countries, as it is the case in Canada, for example, since 1982, large chunks of political power have been transferred to what has been called a government of judges, which consists in leaving to the judiciary decisions, which should normally be the responsibility of elected governments.

Another factor, related to the two causes mentioned above, could be tied to the rise of inequalities of income and wealth in some countries and the growing role of big money in domestic politics, so much so that some talk about a ‘democracy for the rich’. It is a fact that economic and financial globalization has reduced global inequality between nations, but it has also increased inequality within the most industrialized nations.

In the United States, for example, the winners of globalization have used their exploding riches to influence the U.S. government—not to compensate the losers of globalization but to lower taxes for themselves—thus adding political to economic reasons for increased inequality. The increased and destabilizing political polarization, which can be observed in the U. S. and in some other countries, can be seen as a popular response to the infinite greed of some capitalists lacking a social conscience.

Conclusion

The observed decline of democracy in this century appears to be both an economic and a political problem. If the retreat from democracy is to be stopped and hopefully reversed, both economic and political solutions will have to be found. Complacency and denial could only make matters worse.

*

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.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, of the book “The New American Empire”, and the recent book, in French « La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018 ».

Please visit Dr. Tremblay’s site: http://rodriguetremblay100.blogspot.com/ where this article was originally published. Professor Rodrigue Tremblay is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Perhaps I read too many alternative articles on too many internet sites, but with all the counter-perspective information (counter to the MSM), my information addled brain is waiting for one of several events (or a combination thereof).

Essentially there are three ideas, all related, as to where the future of humanity lies.  All the scenarios are negative from lesser to greater degrees depending on whose blog or news post is being considered.

Climate change

Science has clearly demonstrated through long observation of current events and by studying historical records (recorded in ice and sediment deposits around the world) that the climate is changing.  Not only is the concern about ‘global warming’ as about all the consequences that are already meeting science’s predictions on an accelerated basis.  Environmental concerns are also widespread about chemical pollution changing the parameters of existence for many life forms.

In one sense I am not waiting for climate change as it is already well underway.  What I am waiting for is the point where the people in power realize there will be no easy fixes, no easy survival for either the poor masses or their huddled wealthy colleagues.  Perhaps then something may be attempted to ameliorate the situation.

Or, climate change may simply continue its inexorable path, generally ignored by those in power (as demonstrated by the various COP meetings) until a major tipping point is reached (as it has in the Amazon basin, see this). Adaptation at a local level will be the only means of survival.  Mother nature will continue on in her own indomitable way regardless.

Economic collapse

There are many blogs and pundits theorizing that the enormous mountain of hidden debt and disappeared money (see Catherine Austin Fitts and Mark Skidmore for the latter, see this) will one day collapse into nothingness, leaving the US$, many other currencies, and the global economy seriously broken.  The scenarios presented range from a week or so up to many decades to try and recover our current consumer oriented lifestyle (if indeed that became the goal).

That is obvious bad news for everyone, but it can also be considered to be good news.  If the US$ loses its global fiat reserve status through a colossal debt collapse, its power to interfere and sanction other countries would be null and void.  What remains is wondering if the initial response would be military, a terrible option leading to the third degree I am waiting for.

Nuclear war

With nine nuclear armed states and thousands of nuclear warheads (down from the approximate 70 000 during the first Cold War) ready for launch, any regional war,  any coercive war, any simply belligerent power grab, would more than likely reach an active nuclear threshold.  I’m not really waiting for that as it hangs over our heads (maybe literally?) all the time and has done so for seven decades.

India and Pakistan could start it off against each other.  The US-Israeli empire could start it off against Iran.  The U.S. could take out its rage at its decline by attempting a first strike attack.  The U.S. may see its hegemony blocked by China and Russia and try to make a “limited” first strike, stupidly believing there would be no counter attack.

Regardless, the many scenarios are all deadly for the planet.  Nuclear winter, high radiation levels, and the lack of any remaining technological society would mean the end for humans and most species on earth.

No easy fixes

For anyone digging deep into these scenarios it becomes evident that they are all related.  The bottom line is the psychopathic drive for power, the unleashed greed of the corporate mindset, and the insouciant attitude of most western populations, carefully inculcated through a lifetime of media attention to infotainment, celebrity status, and consumer consumption.

There are no easy fixes to any of these although the actual solution to the problems are rather simple.  It is people’s reaction to the requirements of the solutions that make it “difficult and complex,” a phrase politicians and corporate heads love to use in order to hide their lack of attention to any solution at all.

In the meantime….

While these scenarios swirl through my mind and I sometimes become very cynical and pessimistic about the human species and its chances for survival in the long run, I do not hide from the issues that are more common, more personal, more local.  On a human scale, smaller projects are easier to deal with and perhaps with enough care and attention – and enough awareness – the smaller projects could coalesce into larger and larger benefits until a clean, clear way forward is available.

There are so many topical subsets to be concerned about:  racism, homophobia, xenophobia, local environmental projects, drugs, crime, homelessness, poverty, militarized surveillance,  and on.  There are also larger projects such as militarism, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the colonial settler ideas still predominant in the so called ‘western’ and ‘developed’ countries.

Keep in mind that many of these smaller and associated larger problems are also essential for the corporate-military-bankster powers in order to keep people divided in ignorance and intolerance.  The mainstream media is the manufacturer of much of that ignorance and intolerance.

Many options are available to help others and keep ones mind from going numb and/or insane.  So in the meantime, write letters, make presentations, educate, donate funds, go to protests – whatever your personal comfort level is.  Also in the meantime, lead an active life, whatever form that takes, personalize it.  It will be different for different people – arts, sports, social groups, music, schooling or studies of some sort, or maybe simply getting out and walking around your neighbourhood and getting to know people.

*

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.

Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: People hold signs during the March for Science in Melbourne, Australia on April 22, 2017. (Photo: Takver/flickr/ccc)

This week, amid protests by people upset with United States intervention in Iraq, individuals forced their way into and damaged the US embassy compound in Baghdad. In response, US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper declared on Tuesday that 750 additional US troops would be deployed immediately to the Middle East, and it was reported that anonymous US officials said thousands more could be sent there soon.

Here is another option to consider: End US intervention and sanctions, along with the threat of both, that stir up resentment toward the US in Iraq and elsewhere. Announcing the relocating and major downsizing of the huge US embassy in Iraq would help show the US is serious about following through.

If the US embassy in Iraq were intended to accomplish peaceful and diplomatic tasks, it would be much smaller, in line with the size of other embassies in countries with similar characteristics in areas such as population size and levels of trade and travel between them and America. Instead, in Baghdad the US has its largest embassy, even larger than US embassies in Mexico and Canada, two countries that share long borders with America and have very much larger amounts of trade and travel between them and America.

Built by the US government after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, the US embassy in Baghdad is an important part of the continuing US government effort to exert control in the country and the larger region. Indeed, then-US House of Representatives member Ron Paul (R-TX) included the continuing presence of the gigantic embassy in Baghdad as part of his explanation of why President Barack Obama’s 2011 announcement of the withdrawal of some US troops from Iraq was of much less significance than many reports then suggested. Paul wrote in a November of 2011 editorial:

Some 39,000 American troops will supposedly be headed home by the end of the year. However, the US embassy in Iraq, which is the largest and most expensive in the world, is not being abandoned. Upwards of 17,000 military personnel and private security contractors will remain in Iraq to guard diplomatic personnel, continue training Iraqi forces, maintain “situational awareness” and other functions. This is still a significant American footprint in the country.

Eight years later, the embassy remains and rampant US intervention in both Iraq and the larger region persists. Instead of continuing the policy of intervention, President Trump could implement the policy reversal Paul endorsed in his editorial. Paul wrote: “I have long said that we should simply declare victory and come home.” That would be nice. However, escalation appears to be in the cards.

*

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 Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

 “The current situation in Syria is precisely caused by the erroneous actions of some countries.  It is these countries that should really reflect on and answer the series of questions before us.  If they really care about the Syrian people and the humanitarian situation in Syria, why don’t they vote for the Russian draft resolution?  They have every opportunity to fulfill their promise to the Syrian people.  This also shows once again that their concern is hypocritical and they are pursuing typical double standard, which is a concrete manifestation of politicizing humanitarian issues.”  (China’s Ambassador to the UN Zhang Jun)

In 1990, when the USSR was collapsing, and China not yet a world power, the US succeeded in manipulating the Security Council to pass Resolution 678 which led to the destruction of the infrastructure necessary to support human life in Iraq.

Again, in 2011, before Putin and Xi Jinping became heads of state in Russia and China, the West succeeded in manipulating the Security Council to pass Resolution 1973 which “authorized” the destruction of Libya, ostensibly for “humanitarian” purposes. Or as Indian Ambassador Puri said, “Responsibility to Protect” was used as a camoflage to “bomb the hell out of Libya.” Libya is now also an incubator of terrorism.

Soon thereafter, in fact within months,  Syria began suffering destabilization, social chaos, and great concern for “human rights violations” in Syria was voiced in the Security Council.  This time, Russia and China were aware of the ploy, and the three historic double vetoes, cast by Russia’s late Ambassador Vitali Churkin and China’s former Ambassador Li Baodong, prevented the “humanitarian corridor” (in reality a Trojan Horse) the West tried to force through Syria.

However much one might have hoped that the demolition of state structures in the Middle East would have ended there, in the six years since those famous double-vetoes had been cast, the vicious attempt to turn Syria into a failed state, or a demolished state, (such as Iraq and Libya have become, facilitating the theft of their oil and other resources) the struggle continues, Syrians are dying, fleeing the rubble of what had been their homes, their lives destroyed in this ruthless, incessant war, as Russia and China are now attempting to prevent Syria from descending into intolerable ruin, which  will inevitably result if President Assad falls in the vile game of regime change.

Syria: “humanitarian aid” used as a camouflage for invasion

After the famous double-vetoes by Russia and China in 2013,  one would have hoped that the situation in Syria would have stabilized.  Instead, the conflict is escalating.  Though humanitarian aid is crucially needed by the Syrian victims of this proxy war, the fact that “humanitarian aid” is used by the West as a camouflage for invasion, leading to regime change, has been exposed.  Thus, two draft resolutions were presented at the Security Council on December 20, one by Germany, Belgium and Kuwait and one by Russia and China.  Both draft resolutions were vetoed.

The Syrian representative, Mr. Talouh stated:

“great regret over the  obstinacy of certain Council members, notably the co-pen holders, in pursuing an unbalanced approach that led to a proposal that, because of its content, is a departure from declared humanitarian purposes.  In addition, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has been manipulating data;  assistance falls into the hands of armed terrorists, rather than those who actually need it.  Al-Nusra Front, for one, depends on humanitarian assistance coming in from Turkey.”

Mr. Talouh asked “how those who claim to be concerned at the people of Syria can turn a blind eye to the pillaging of gas and the occupation by American forces.”  He emphasized that the “focus of humanitarian assistance for Syria is in Damascus,” further emphasizing that his  “Government is the main partner in humanitarian endeavors. National sovereignty must be respected.”

Unilateral Sanctions on Iran. Threats Directed against China 

Though the trajectory of the West in 2011 seemed to be the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and ultimately Iran, prior to those famous double-vetoes by Russia and China in 2013, it is possible that the West never abandoned that deadly trajectory.

Now, with unilateral sanctions on Iran creating chaos and misery for the people of Iran, and the US evidently attempting to reproduce in China the “full court press” that Sean Gervasi brilliantly demonstrated played so decisive a role in the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the prognosis, on a global scale is dismal.  This NED supported “Full Court Press” on China includes: the instigation of terrorist and separatist movements in Xingjang, the prolonged provocation of “color revolution” in Hong Kong (there are 1,000 U.S. diplomats at the U.S. Embassy in Hong Kong – why are so many needed in that tiny location?), the sale, by the US of fighter jets to Taiwan, the infamous enlistment of Tibet’s Dalai Lama by the CIA, etc.

The territory of China is being assaulted on the West, East, South and North.

Though the Chinese leadership are undoubtedly aware of the menacing thrust, it will require the strategy of genius to halt this “full court press.”  On a global scale, the proxy conflict in Syria is a miniscule example of what may become a global conflict between the forces of progress and the reactionary powers imposing Milton Friedman’s neoliberal “economic genocide” as far as their military enables them to do,  with the enticing lure of pillage an irresistible seduction, regardless of the risk of global annihilation, should actual (and inevitably nuclear) war ensue.

*

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

Carla Stea is Global Research’s correspondent at United Nations Headquarters, New York, N.Y. She is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from edgarwinkler / Pixabay

A professora Marilena Chauí, em recente artigo sobre o novo movimento ultrarreacionário (que ascendeu e já dá mostras de cair), afirma que essa extrema direita neoliberal não deve ser denominada “fascista”, pois que pratica o enfraquecimento do Estado (conforme receita do Consenso de Washington), o entreguismo do patrimônio nacional, e não o “nacionalismo” (como no fascismo clássico ítalo-germânico, da primeira metade do século XX).

Contudo, nesse quesito (talvez secundário para o cerne de seu artigo), parece-me que a engajada filósofa e mestra – que já formou tantas gerações na USP, inclusive a minha – ora se equivoca.

Fascismo: face do capitalismo em tempos de descontrole social

O fascismo não passa de uma carta na manga capitalista, usada nos tempos em que a farsa eleitoral – dita “democracia liberal” – não funciona para seus propósitos de conservação do lucro imediato. Apela-se então para o ódio ao Outro, à violência xenófobo-racial e de gênero, à culpabilização midiática de tudo o que é diferente ou que propõe algo distinto do quadro lastimável que está posto. Com isso, alcançam justificar um maior controle social da população (ou, mais especificamente, dos trabalhadores).

Se nos anos 1930 as potências capitalistas estavam em conflito, e o capital ainda tinha certa “nacionalidade”, dando espaço para a aparente característica “nacionalista” do fascismo, agora a situação é outra. A nova gestão neoliberal do capital é “global”, e já não permite tais desavenças internas.

Publicado inicialmente no site ALAI, o 23 de Outubro de 2019

Foto: Reprodução

Yuri Martins Fontes : Filósofo, doctor en historia de América Latina (Universidad de San Pablo), pos-doctorado en ética marxista y en historia del trabajo, es profesor, investigador y escritor; autor de “Marx na América” (Alameda, 2017), e “História e Lutas Sociais” (EDUC, 2019). Coordina al Núcleo Práxis de la USP y colabora regularmente con medios críticos independientes.

Introduction

The term ‘white supremacy’ (WS) is being used a lot these days, finding a home in many discussions on social media and in activist circles. Definitions of WS largely fall into two categories, that it is a belief system or that it is an elitist, inequitable hierarchy (see above). Such definitions tend to be descriptive only, seldom if ever offering a history-based analysis, which would necessarily emphasize the emergence and revolutionary political innovations of capitalist elites in medieval Europe, particularly England (11^th– 16^th century c.e.). This, of course, begs the question as to how an effective counter strategy can be executed in the absence of such radical analysis.

The Color Game

It is first necessary to explain the meaning and significance of the use of ‘color’, in this case ‘black and white’, in the context of socio-political analysis. Why do European-American capitalists (EACs) and their European capitalist brothers (ECs) use ‘white’ to describe Europeans and their ascendants around the globe? Why do they designate ALL non-Europeans as “black”? The answer is found in the academic term “differentiation of oppression.”

Capitalism originated in England about 500 years ago after a long evolutionary process that began with the Norman invasion in 1066 c.e. Subsequent to their successful invasion and colonization, Norman elites led by William the Conqueror faced the challenge of dominating and exploiting the newly conquered population, who were resistant and significantly outnumbered them. Thus, they needed to devise strategies and tactics to undermine peasant solidarity in the face of a common colonizing enemy and exploiter.

This was accomplished in England, the birthplace of capitalism, in a variety of ways including

1. Overturning customary law especially regarding peasant land tenure and substituting elite-friendly common law (the courts).
2. Monopolizing free access to natural resources, especially land (enclosure).
3. Implementing the legal concept of dominium or ‘absolute private property’, which blocked communal oversight and/or intervention.
4. Creation of a management/supervisory buffer class (“middle class”).
5. Violent coercion.

After successfully conquering the peoples of the Americas and the Caribbean in the 16^th and 17^th centuries, ECs (from England, France, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, et al) were tasked with the same challenge, sustainably dominating and exploiting an angry, disenfranchised majority. The obvious solution was to use much the same strategies and tactics used successfully in England and Continental Europe where they faced the same problem. It was one thing for ECs/EACs to take advantage of their colonial political organization (capitalism) and superior military technology to successfully conquer another people. It was quite another thing, however, to hold that power. They had to find a viable way to keep their subjects distrustful of and at odds with each other.

The forays of European capitalist agents into Africa, the Caribbean, the Americas, and East Asia including India, Japan, China and the Pacific Islands, led them to a remarkable discovery, that the skin color of most of the world’s peoples are varying degrees of brown rather than the albinism characterized by most Europeans and, again, they found themselves to be heavily outnumbered. Seizing upon this physiological difference, Feudal lords and the capitalist lords they evolved into created various narratives regarding the non-European brown majority on the planet to justify their lawless, violent activities that characterised the emergence of capitalists and capitalism.

The White Supremacy narrative (WSN) has several elements that are closely interrelated including:

1. Race/Color – ‘White’ skinned (European) people are superior to ‘Black’ skinned (Afrikan and other non-European) people.
2. Religion – The European version of Christianity is superior to non-European religions and spiritual systems.
3. Culture – European culture is superior to non-European cultures.

A hierarchy of exploitation was created using various pseudo political constructs including – race/color, culture, lifestyle, gender, age, religion and nationality. Moving up in the hierarchy eases exploitation and increases one’s political and economic opportunities. Academics call this the “differentiation of oppression” because the level and intensity of exploitation is not the same for everyone. Consequently, people are much more likely to focus on “moving on up” by any means necessary, including exploiting other landless wage laborers, rather than making fundamental change in the society.

EACs/ECs insist by way of the WSN that Afrikans and other non-Europeans, that is, “blacks,” can be and in fact, must be exploited more than Europeans, that is, “whites”. In fact, the level and intensity of exploitation of ‘blacks’ and ‘whites’ is further differentiated WITHIN each respective political construct. Thus, darker ‘blacks’ are exploited more than lighter ‘blacks’ and lighter ‘whites’ (e.g. northern Europeans) are less exploited than darker ‘whites’ (e.g. southern Europeans). Therefore, as can be surmised from the foregoing, the purpose of WS and other interrelated tactics is to facilitate and sustain the exploitation of the masses of the people by a tiny group of elite European-American men.

Obviously, the ‘color game’ must be rejected as an illegitimate tool used by EACs/ECs to maintain their dominance, however, Afrikans in America and around the globe should reject it for another very important reason. The forced acceptance of the pseudo political construct ‘black’ has all but erased the ancestral identities of far too many Afrikans in the Americas and throughout the Diaspora, e.g. Igbo, Ashante, Akan, Wolof, Fon, Yoruba, Ngola, et al.

Elite European and European-American Men Dominate and Control Global Capitalism

According to Forbes magazine, as of 2019 there are 2,208 billionaires on the planet.

By continent:

• Asia – 719
• North America – 631
• Europe – 559
• South America – 85
• Oceania – 35
• Afrika – 25

Adding North America, Europe and South America captures most billionaires of European ascent:

• 631 + 559 + 85 = 1,275

Therefore, over half of the 2,208 billionaires in the world are of European ascent.

According to Bloomberg magazine the wealthiest families on the planet in 2018 were as follows:

1. Walton, Walmart, $151B, U.S.
2. Koch, Koch Ind., $99B, U.S.
3. Mars, Mars, $90B, U.S.
4. Van Damme, Anheuser-Busch, $54B, Belgium
5. Dumas, Hermes, $49B, France
6. Wertheimer, Chanel, $46B, France
7. Ambani, Reliance Ind., $43B, India
8. Quandt, BMW, $43B, Germany
9. Cargill/Macmillan, Cargill, $42B, U.S.
10. Boehringer, Boehringer Ingelheim, $42B, Germany
11. Albrecht, Aldi, $39B, Germany
12. Mulliez, Auchan, $37.5B, France
13. Kwok, Sun Hung Kai Properties, $34B, China
14. Cox, Cox Ent., $34B, U.S.
15. Pritzker, Hyatt Hotes, $34B, U.S.
16. Lee, Samsung, $31B, South Korea
17. Rausing, Tetra Pak, $31B, UK
18. Thomson, Thomson Reuters, $31B, Canada
19. Johnson, SC Johnson, $28B, U.S.
20. Dassault, Dassault Grp, $28B, France
21. Duncan, Enterprise Products, $26B, U.S.
22. Hoffman, Roche, $25B, Switzerland
23. Hearst, Hearst Corp, $25B, U.S.
24. Lauder, Estee Lauder, $24B, U.S.
25. Ferrero, Ferrero, $23B, Italy

(Source: Bloomberg)

European families (includes the U.S., Europe and Canada) constitute a whopping 88% of the world’s richest families! Non-European families in China, India and South Korea, make up the remainder. Clearly, something other than an egalitarian, meritocracy has determined the ownership, management, control and distribution of resources on much of the planet. This comes as no surprise when one becomes familiar with the historical origins and subsequent development of capitalism.

The emergence of capitalism in England 500 years ago was an imperial scheme marked by violence, colonialism, the monopolization of natural resources especially land and the overthrow of customary communal law, which presented a legal road block to the efforts of feudal lords to sustain and expand their power, status and privilege.

Norman feudal lords used several revolutionary tactics to maintain and expand their wealth extraction from their English colonial subjects including:

1. Enclosure stripped peasants of their customary rights ensuring free access to land by constructing physical and legal barriers around common and ‘waste’ land from which peasants extracted resources for day-to-day life, thereby forcing formerly self-sufficient people into life or death dependency.
2. Absolute private property (dominium), a legal concept adopted by Norman feudal lords from imperial Rome, which removed privately owned land and resources from communal management and control, thereby eliminating barriers to the maximum extraction of wealth.
3. Leased Land, created by the elite-friendly common law, gradually replaced freehold, copyhold, etc., thereby removing peasant’s access to land under customary law.

Thus, the landless wage laborer was born, forced into life-or-death dependency upon the capitalist owned and controlled market.

Keep in mind that capitalism only existed in Europe, specifically England in the 16^th century. This means that ECs had a tremendous advantage over their competitors on the European continent and elsewhere who had yet to make the revolutionary changes necessary to enable them to compete.

By way of the capitalist elite owned and controlled courts and legal system, the illegitimate colonial activities of capitalists were now “legal”, which helped to diffuse resistance to the new political system. This new legal environment set the stage for the emergence of the industrial revolution in England beginning in earnest in the 17^th century. Feudal elites on the European mainland quickly adopted the new political system of capitalism in order to economically compete. ECs then aggressively spread capitalism to the Americas, the Caribbean, Afrika and Asia by violence and legal chicanery.

ECs mercilessly invaded, conquered, enslaved and colonized the people of Afrika, the Americas and the Caribbean. Their objective was to capture new lands and peoples to exploit. They outlawed the cultures and systems of governance of the conquered people and installed capitalism. The people and their lands were renamed and, in many cases, national borders were redrawn, often arbitrarily. Clearly, such actions must be seen as illegitimate.

To this day, the ascendants of the ECs who invaded the Americas are firmly in power and have ensured that the ‘nations’ of the Americas remain firmly integrated into global capitalism. Therefore, these ‘nations’ must be viewed for what they are -capitalist colonies dominated by elite European men and their zombie followers in central and South America. The same holds true for the ‘nations’ of the Caribbean and Afrika.

Returning to the chart above, we see that EACs make up 40% of the world’s richest families, followed by France at 16% and Germany at 12%. The primary position of the U.S. is largely explained by the destruction of its major economic competitors in Europe and Asia during World War 2 and changes in the financial architecture of U.S. and global capitalism.

The destruction of the industrial infrastructure of Europe, southwest Asia and parts of East Asia, especially Japan, Korea, China and the South Pacific Isles is well known. Less well known is the initiative by EACs/ECs to construct and dominate the financial architecture of global capitalism. Today, they control a whopping 82% of the world’s foreign currency reserves. This means that the dollar and the Euro are used predominately in international trade, especially for the purchase of petroleum and its derivatives, another clear indication of the extent to which elite European men dominate global capitalism today.

The Bretton Woods Conference

In July 1944, the Bretton Woods Conference was held in Bretton Woods, NH that included 730 delegates from 44 ‘nations’:

• The Americas (19): United States, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iceland, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.
• Europe (10): Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, United Kingdom and Yugoslavia.
• Afrika (4): Egypt, Ethiopia, Liberia and South Afrika.
• Asia (5): British Raj, China, Iran, Iraq and the Soviet Union
• The Caribbean (3): Cuba, Dominican Republic and Haiti.
• Pacific (3): Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines.

The Bretton Woods conference (image above) was held when the outcome of the war had been decided in favor of the ‘allies’.  The conference was an initiative of the treasury departments of the U.S. and the UK.

The stated goals of the conference were:

1. Promote stability of exchange rates and financial flows (International Monetary Fund).
2. Organize and manage speedy reconstruction in the aftermath of the war and promote economic development, especially through loans to rebuild infrastructure (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development – IBRD).

Representatives pledged to peg their exchange rates to gold, make their currencies convertible and were required to subscribe to the IMF’s capital in order to receive funding for reconstruction from the IBRD. The underlying goals of the conference were also to promote ‘open markets’, which meant lowering barriers to trade and the international movement of capital. Thus, the fundamental building blocks of the financial architecture of global capitalism were put in place by 44 ‘nations’ dominated by EACs/ECs, the ‘victors’ in the aftermath of a devastating war that killed tens of millions of people.

The U.S. took upon itself the role of leading the capitalist world, referred to as ‘the free world’ by the Dominant Capitalist Narrative (DCN), which at the time was composed of 44 capitalist nations and their colonies. To do so, EACs aggressively intervened in the affairs of other ‘nations,’ particularly those who had not yet agreed to integrate their political economies into the capitalist owned and controlled system. To do so, they massively expanded their military reach and aggressively intervened in the Americas, the Caribbean, South West Asia and East Asia, which was a huge drain on the treasury. EAC’s direct military involvement in the Vietnam War (1955 – 1975) in particular had a tremendous negative impact on their financial and political capital.

The Bretton Woods system began to fall apart in the 1960s as nations began to compete economically with the U.S. as they shook off the effects of WW2. Nations started demanding that their dollar reserves be converted to gold as agreed because it was suspected that the U.S. was overleveraged, that it had printed more dollars than the value of its gold reserves. Others decided to leave Bretton Woods altogether (France, West Germany, Switzerland). Bretton Woods would remain in effect until 1971 when the Nixon Administration ended the convertibility of the dollar to gold as required by the Bretton Woods agreement. This made the dollar a floating currency (also called fiat) whose value is determined by market events.

The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), another very important component of the financial architecture of global capitalism was founded in Brussels in 1973, two years after the ‘Nixon Shock’. Representatives from 239 banks in 15 countries, worked to transition toward a more reliable and automated messaging system. The SWIFT network makes it possible for financial institutions to send and receive transaction information.

Since the dollar is the world’s leading reserve currency (62%) and the Euro is second at 20%, most international currency transactions must pass through SWIFT, which is a privately owned cooperative. Remember that one of the key features of capitalism is absolute private property meaning that such property is legally immune from community or communal intervention. This gives EACs/ECs tremendous leverage over global financial transactions. The financial transactions of governments, corporations, institutions and individuals who use the dollar and/or the Euro all must pass through the SWIFT network.

EACs/ECs have had considerable success in pressuring SWIFT to block nations, institutions and individuals that violate illegal, unilateral sanctions imposed by the U.S.

The Petro Dollar

The formation of the ‘U.S.-Saudi Arabian Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation’ in 1974 by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger established another key component of the architecture of global capitalism, the petro dollar.

“The Commission was established on the heels of the Arab oil embargo and price increases. The embargo emphasized that closer U.S.-Arab ties were needed. The oil price increases gave Saudi Arabia a substantial amount of petrodollars, which could be used for development purposes.

The Commission was perceived as an important mechanism for:

1. Fostering closer political ties between the two countries through economic cooperation.
2. Assisting Saudi industrialization and development while recycling petro-dollars.
3. Facilitating the flow to Saudi Arabia of American goods, services, and technology.”

Report by the Comptroller General of the United States: U.S.-Saudi Arabian Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation’ (March 1979)

In July 1974, U.S. Treasury secretary William Simon traveled to Saudi Arabia to negotiate an agreement to:

“…neutralize crude oil as an economic weapon and find a way to persuade a hostile kingdom to finance America’s widening deficit with its newfound petrodollar wealth.

The basic framework was strikingly simple. The U.S. would buy oil from Saudi Arabia and provide the kingdom military aid and equipment. In return, the Saudis would plow billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America’s spending.” – Andrea Wong, “Behind Saudi Arabia’s 41-Year U.S. Debt Secret”, Bloomberg (May 2016).

Saudi monarchs agreed to the arrangement under the stipulation that their large purchases of U.S. treasury bonds be kept secret.

“By December 1974 the US Treasury had signed an agreement in Riyadh with the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency, whose mission was, “to establish a new relationship through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York with the (US) Treasury borrowing operation. Under this arrangement, SAMA will purchase new US Treasury securities with maturities of at least one year,” explained Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Jack F. Bennett, later to become a director of Exxon.” – F. William Engdahl, “From Golden Dollar to Petro Dollar to Narco Dollar” (Sept. 2016)

Saudi Arabia’s agreement to only accept the U.S. dollar for petroleum purchases pressured the remaining members of OPEC, many of whom were absolute monarchies like the House of Saud and thus required protection from their unhappy people, to follow suit in 1975. Thus the free-floating, fiat dollar became, in effect, backed by petroleum and the military.

The recycling of petrodollars is as follows:

1. From oil consuming “nations” to oil producing “nations” for the purchase of petroleum and its derivatives.
2. From oil producing “nations” to businesses and financial institutions in America and the UK through the purchase of government treasury bonds and military weapons and equipment.
3. From American and UK financial institutions to oil consumers by way of direct loans, which enable them to buy petroleum and its derivatives from oil producers.

The fact that the U.S. dollar’s value is free-floating and constantly recycled internationally permits EACs to print money without fear of inflation thereby enabling their pursuit of endless war, entangling weaker nations in ‘debt traps, unrestrained market speculation and manipulation, and other malign strategies and tactics that would otherwise be a prohibitive drain on the economy.

Summary

The domination of global capitalism by elite European and European-American men has resulted in European-American capitalists occupying the top of the global capitalist pyramid followed by their European brothers.

The “White Supremacy Narrative” (WSN) should be rejected because it uses pseudo political constructs such as, race/color, to justify tactics that differentiate the level and intensity of exploitation of landless wage laborers under capitalism. EACs/ECs assigned the pseudo political term “black” to Afrikans and all non-Europeans and the term “white” to all Europeans. It is not merely a belief but a tried-and-true tactic used to sustainably dominate the proverbial 99%.

The forced acceptance of the pseudo political term “black” has damaged the connection between Afrikans in the Diaspora and their Afrikan identities, thus the connection with their ancestors is compromised. Today, far too many of the ascendants of enslaved Afrikans in the Diaspora find no value in identifying with their original identities, such as Ngola, Fon, Oromo, Igbo, Yoruba. Many also find no value in identifying merely as Afrikans.

The differentiation of oppression is indispensable to an elite minority in dominating a resistant majority. It effectively pits wage laborers who occupy different positions in the capitalist hierarchy against each other. They are coerced into focusing their attention and resources on surviving and “moving up the ladder” rather than on fundamentally changing the system.

The WSN is but one tactic in the hegemonic tool kit of EACs/ECs. Others include endless war, institutionalized colonialism, slavery and sexism. They have evolved their tactics over the 500 years since the birth of their revolutionary political system in England. They continue to dominate every area of life in the colonies aka nations created by their ancestors, especially their currencies and thus their economies. The aim of such domination continues unchanged, that being, to maintain the power, privilege and status of elite European men.

EACs found themselves in the driver’s seat in the aftermath of World War 2 due to the massive destruction of the manufacturing infrastructure of their competitors around the globe. They along with their European capitalist brothers established the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development through coercive agreements at the Bretton Woods Conference (1944), which established currency exchange rates relative to gold and ensured that elite European-American men were the prime beneficiaries of the reconstruction boom.

The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) another very important component of the financial architecture of global capitalism was founded by ECs in Brussels in 1973, two years after the Nixon administration ended the convertibility of the dollar to gold. Thus, all international transactions involving the dollar and the Euro must pass through the SWIFT network giving elite European men (capitalists) tremendous power and leverage over “independent nations.”

EACs created the petrodollar in 1974 with the ‘U.S.-Saudi Arabian Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation’. In this agreement, Saudi elites agreed to only accept the dollar in payment for its petroleum products and use its burgeoning petrodollar reserves to purchase U.S. Treasury notes, weapons and military equipment. In return, EACs committed to military aid and assisting with economic development, which has resulted in the seemingly permanent entrenchment of millions of advisors, technicians, consultants and contractors from Europe and America.

The recycling petrodollar allows EACs to print money without fear of inflation thus enabling their pursuit of “full spectrum dominance”, that is, superiority in every possible combat environment, against any “enemy” without suffering defeat (Joint Vision 2020, America’s Military Planning For Tomorrow, National Defense University, Institute for National Strategic Studies, 2000). EACs are estimated to have 800-1,000 military bases in dozens of ‘countries’ around the globe (Jules Dufour, “The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases”, Global Research, July 2007).

The chokehold that EACs and their European brothers have on the financial architecture of global capitalism make possible such a tremendous projection of power beyond U.S. borders and relentless military interventions such as the illegal invasion of Iraq, the destruction of Libya, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, ongoing bombing campaigns in Somalia, Iraq and Syria. EACs/ECs are able to impose crippling economic sanctions on targeted ‘governments’, institutions and individuals, effectively blocking them from international transactions using the petrodollar and the Euro, e.g. Cuba, Russia, Iran, Somalia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Syria, China, et al.

The emergence of global regional powers over the past 25 years is changing the geopolitical landscape, favoring Greater Asia led by China and Russia. They and other regional powers are determined to end their subservience to elite European men by de-dollarizing and decoupling their economies from global capitalism, which will, of course, take time. In the meantime, they are engaging in currency swaps, barter, futures trading, import substitution, economic diversification and so on to lessen the control that elite European men have over their political economies.

The de-dollarization and decoupling project is picking up steam globally and will, undoubtedly continue until the goal is achieved, that being, sovereignty and self-reliance. These initiatives cannot be stopped short of EACs/ECs waging a catastrophic global war that would dwarf the ‘world wars’ of the 20^thcentury in its destructiveness. The ongoing efforts by capitalist colonies to free themselves from the hegemony of elite European men will have major negative impacts on the economies of capitalist “nations.”

But that’s another story for another time.

*

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.

Cheikh Amma Diop is a geopolitical analyst, activist and reggae artist living and working in the Washington, DC metro area. He is currently conducting a literature review of the historical origins of capitalism in preparation for a book tentatively entitled “Debunking the Most Popular and Dangerous Myths About Capitalists and Capitalism.” He can be reached at [email protected]. 

Sources

1. The Agrarian Problem in the 16^th Century, R. H. Tawney (1912)
2. Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development In Pre-Industrial Europe, Robert Brenner (1974)
3. A Crisis of Feudalism, R. H. Hilton (1985)
4. The Decline of Serfdom in Medieval England, R. H. Hilton (1969)
5. English Feudalism and the Origins of Capitalism, George Comninel (2000)
6. The Origins of Capitalist Development: a Critique of Neo-Smithian Marxism, Robert Brenner
7. The Origin of Capitalism in England 1400 – 1600, Spencer Dimmock (2014)

Since mid-2018, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has been stricken with another Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak largely impacting the northeastern region of the vast mineral-rich nation in Central Africa.

EVD has its origins in the DRC during the late 1970s when the deadly Viral Hemorrhagic Fever (VHF) strain became known to the country and the world.

The epidemic which has been mainly concentrated in the provinces of North Kivu, Ituri and South Kivu, has been difficult to address on a medical level due to the lack of an adequate healthcare and educational system. Despite the enormous strategic mineral wealth of the country of some 81 million people, the historical legacy of imperialism remains a major factor in stifling genuine economic growth and social development.

Since the discovery of this highly contagious disease there have been several major outbreaks in the DRC and other African countries. The largest pandemic occurred in three West African states from late 2014 to early 2016. These nations were Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea-Conakry.

After the West African pandemic was declared over, there were approximately 28,000 cases documented resulting in more than 11,000 deaths. The rapid spread of the disease took a tremendous toll on the people of these three countries along with neighboring states which were compelled to mobilize limited medical resources to prevent the entry of EVD across their borders.

Statistical information compiled by the DRC Health Ministry and various humanitarian organizations indicates that the present outbreak is the second largest in the history of the disease. Due to security concerns on various levels, healthcare workers and researchers have not been able to travel freely in some sections of the affected areas.

A report issued during late December 2019 by Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF, Doctors without Borders) places the current outbreak within its historical context saying:

“During the first eight months of the epidemic, until March 2019, more than 1,000 cases of Ebola were reported in the affected region. However, between April and June 2019, this number doubled, with a further 1,000 new cases reported in just those three months. Between early June and the beginning of August, the number of new cases notified per week was high, and averaged between 75 and 100 each week; since August, this rate has been slowly declining, with just 70 cases identified throughout all of October. The latest figures provided by DRC Ministry of Health via World Health Organization are 3,371 total cases; 3,253 confirmed cases and 2,228 total fatalities. While there are positive signs that the number of cases is slowly reducing, the outbreak remains a serious public health concern, and it is unclear when it may end.” (See this)

There has been more than one occasion over the last 18 months when the current EVD pandemic in DRC appears to have been arrested. Nonetheless, other cases surfaced placing additional fears within the medical community and the general population of the disease spreading to broader geographic areas.

MSF in its conclusion to the report referenced above leaves the reader with an unsettling observation: “Overall, the geographic spread of the epidemic appears to be unpredictable, with scattered small clusters potentially occurring anywhere in the region. This pattern, along with the lack of visibility on the epidemiological situation, and the risk of flare-ups in former hotspots, is both extremely worrying and makes ending the outbreak even more challenging.”

Compounding the medical crisis in the eastern DRC provinces impacted by the EVD pandemic are the ongoing conflicts pitting rebel groups against the military forces of the central government in Kinshasa. President Felix Tshisekedi took office last year and has worked out a coalition arrangement with the forces which remain loyal to former head-of-state Joseph Kabila.

Nevertheless, outside of these working relationships at the highest governmental levels there are attacks being carried out by the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) in North Kivu in the city of Beni, where in late December, 23 people were reportedly hacked to death. The ADF originated in Uganda. However, the group which claims to be at war with both the DRC and Ugandan governments is aggressively waging a war on the civilians in the border regions between the two countries.

Similar problems exist in neighboring Central African Republic (CAR), a former French colony which has undergone considerable political and social turmoil in recent decades. Former President Francois Bozize has returned to the country after fleeing amid a military coup led by the Seleka group which seized control of the government in 2013. Seleka is a Muslim-dominated organization which sprang up in response to the plight of the minority Islamic population in the country of 4.6 million people.

A spokesman for Bozize says he is planning to re-enter CAR politics by running for president in the upcoming 2020 elections. Considering the contentious sectional divisions which have been a reality since 2013, a campaign by Bozize could prompt the resumption of armed conflict in the capital of Bangui.

The World Food Program (WFP) reports in an assessment of the current humanitarian situation in the CAR that:

“Floods affected at least 25,000 people in and around Bangui in late October, as well as in Ouaka, Basse Kotto, Mbomou and Ouham prefectures. More than 10,000 homes were destroyed across the affected areas. The humanitarian community mobilized to meet the most urgent needs of the affected populations. The humanitarian situation in CAR remains alarming. A three percent increase in the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) is due in part to new displacements of more than 20,000 people in Birao following armed clashes at the beginning of September. The number of IDPs in CAR has again exceeded the symbolic threshold of 600,000.”

These two states, the DRC and CAR, although facing different problems, share similarities in relationship to the protracted internal conflicts hampering the ability of the state and society to resolve outstanding issues. Present in the DRC and CAR are United Nations mandated peacekeeping missions which are authorized by the Security Council in cooperation with African Union member-states and their regional affiliates.

However, these UN missions have only been partially effective. The overriding nature of the instability of post-colonial African states remains unresolved.

West Africa: Political and Regional Conflicts in Cameroon, Nigeria and Niger

Internal divisions inherited from European colonialism and the contemporary neo-colonial character of international relations, are by no means confined to Central Africa. In the West Africa region the states of Nigeria, Cameroon and Niger are reflective of the general crises of instability and underdevelopment.

Cameroon has been rocked by sectional conflict pitting regions of the oil-producing state which were colonized Britain and France against each other. In southern Cameroon a secessionist movement has arisen calling for the partitioning of the country.

Considering the prevailing rhetoric related to regional and continental unity in Africa, it is highly unlikely that such a position could gain diplomatic support among the leadership of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). At present there is much curiosity over the proposal for the abandonment of the CFA franc zone currency system for a regional medium of exchange known as the “ECO.” Several governments have expressed an interest in moving towards this regional currency.

There are criteria for the conversion from the CFA franc pegged to the Euro to a stand alone ECO. An article published by the VOA pointed out that:

“The key demands for entry are to have a deficit of less than 3 percent of gross domestic product, inflation of 10 percent or under and debts worth less than 70 percent of GDP. Economists say they understand the thinking behind the currency plan but believe it is unrealistic and could even be dangerous for the region’s economies which are dominated by one single country, Nigeria, which accounts for two-thirds of the region’s economic output. Nigeria’s Finance Minister Zainab Ahmed told AFP ‘there’s still more work that we need to do individually to meet the convergence criteria’.” (See this)

Although Nigeria is the largest economy in the West Africa region and one of the leading states on the continent as whole with a population (200 million) which by far outstrips all other AU nations, the country remains embroiled in the Boko Haram insurgency in the northeast. President Muhammadu Buhari, now in his second term of office, stated while running in 2015 that he would eliminate the Boko Haram threat within six months. Obviously this has not materialized as the regional impact of the putative “Islamist” movement has extended into Cameroon, Niger and Chad.

Niger, a former French colony, is the source of the world’s fourth largest production of uranium. The United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) has a presence inside the country along with Paris which is coordinating regional military forces to pursue the targeted “terrorist threat.” Insurgents have launched several high-profile attacks on establishments frequented by westerners. In 2017, four AFRICOM Green Berets were killed in Niger under circumstances which have not yet been fully explained.

AFRICOM is building drone capability in Niger while spreading the military and intelligence capability of Washington across the continent. These developments related to the continuing interference of France and the U.S. in West Africa does not bode well for continental unity based upon a program of empowering the majority of workers, farmers and youth.

Joint military operations between France, the European Union (EU), AFRICOM and NATO are annual occurrences in West Africa. Questions of the viability of the ECO aside, there can be no genuine independence and unity in any region of Africa with the growing presence of imperialist military units.

The Need for a Fundamental Break with Neo-colonial Arrangements

Therefore, taking into consideration the internal conflicts still raging across various regions within AU member-states, coupled with the incapacity of existing governments to stabilize the situations in Central and West Africa, an approach is required which relies on the strategic positioning, mineral wealth, energy resources and human capital of the more than one billion people on the continent. Such a political program would require the empowerment of the working class, farmers and youth as the principal agents of developmental transformation.

The contradiction between African development and imperialism remains a stark reality well into the 21^stCentury. Europe and subsequently North America were built into world powers due to their exploitation of Africa through the centuries-long Atlantic slave trade, colonialism, imperialism and neo-colonialism.

To reverse this ongoing disadvantageous situation for Africa, a severing of the tentacles of dependency is required. The AU member-states must build up their economic, political, technological and military capabilities independent of the imperialist states.

Once these decisions are made on a continental level the resolution of internal conflicts based upon issues of language, religion, ethnicity and social status, can be envisioned. The ultimate objective is the establishment of a unified Africa based upon socialist planning and sustainable economic reconstruction.

*

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.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

Every day of 2019 we have provided you with articles that report, break down and analyze the pressing issues of our times by authors from all over the globe. We have kept access to the site free of charge so as to get the articles to as many people as possible. Global Research also remains fully independent by not accepting money from public or private foundations. As the internet becomes a less friendly space for independent media, we have seen our revenue from advertising and book sales drop dramatically over the past year.

We really will need a big boost in donations and membership subscriptions from our readership if we are to make it through 2020 and beyond. We would not be here without your support. We wish you and your loved ones Peace for the New Year.

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

*     *     *

US Military Bases in Turkey and Qatar May be Removed for Security Reasons

By Steven Sahiounie, January 02, 2020

The US government has long faced a dilemma in dealing with Turkey and Qatar, who pose as partners on the global stage. The US has maintained relations with both while being increasingly concerned with their malign behavior.

Both support the Muslim Brotherhood, finance terrorists, promote extremist ideologies such as Radical Islam, and openly host and partner with Hamas and al-Qaeda. Turkey and Qatar are ‘brothers in arms’ and share an affinity for Radical Islam that shapes their regional engagement.

The West’s Present “Misconduct” Has a Long History. America’s Proclivity for War

By James ONeill, January 02, 2020

One of the persistent themes of western political leaders is that they support the notion of “the rule of law”. By this they generally mean the system of law as developed by western nations, and in the international context the formulation over the past 120 years or so of international law.

By this of course, they mean “their law”. Any deviation from this by non-western nations is to be deplored and where appropriate punished.

The UN Predicted Gaza Would be “Unliveable” by 2020. Israel’s Deliberate Plan to “Destroy Life” in Palestine?

By Tania Hary, January 02, 2020

While revelers around the world are making new year’s resolutions for 2020, in the Gaza Strip, a different kind of assessment is taking place as Palestinians try to determine whether, or how, they can survive the next 10 years. In 2012, the United Nations published a report whose title asked a jarring question: “Gaza in 2020: A Liveable Place?” The report surmised that without fundamental change and collective effort, the strip would become “unliveable” in only eight years’ time.

Palestinians Decry ICC Prosecutor’s Delay of Israeli War Crimes Investigation

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, January 02, 2020

Bensouda filed a 112-page document with the Court’s Pre-Trial Chamber. She found a reasonable basis to believe that Israeli forces committed the war crimes of willful killing, willfully causing serious injury to body or health, disproportionate use of force, transfer of Israeli civilians into the Palestinian territory of the West Bank, and the killing of over 200 Palestinians during demonstrations at the Israel-Gaza fence. She also cited a reasonable basis to investigate possible war crimes by Palestinians, including intentional attacks against civilians, using civilians as human shields, and the commission of torture and willful killing.

Syria, Washington and the Kurds. “The Rojava Dream is Dead”

By Prof. Tim Anderson, December 31, 2019

With the defeat of ISIS and Nusra, the exposure of the ‘White Helmets’ and the various Chemical Weapons stunts, and with the collapse of ‘Rojava’, Washington is fast running out of options in Syria. Syria is winning, but the big power has not yet given up. Knowing that it is losing, it still acts to prolong the endgame and punish the Syrian people.

Nullify Government Tyranny: In 2020, Harness the Power of Your Discontent

By John W. Whitehead, December 31, 2019

Government corruption, tyranny and abuse have propelled us at warp speed towards a full-blown police state in which egregious surveillance, roadside strip searches, police shootings of unarmed citizens, censorship, retaliatory arrests, the criminalization of lawful activities, warmongering, indefinite detentions, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, police brutality, profit-driven prisons, and pay-to-play politicians have become the new normal.

Here’s just a small sampling of the laundry list of abuses—cruel, brutal, immoral, unconstitutional and unacceptable—that have been heaped upon us by the government over the past two decades.

The 2020 Imperative: Freedom of Speech. Cease Being Mesmerised by Demons.

By Julian Rose, December 31, 2019

We have a vast global communication network at our fingertips, a significant part of which has long since been hijacked by the purveyors of ‘the daily matrix’. But another part of which still manages to operate within a spectrum that gives a possibility for what we refer to as ‘freedom of speech’.

*

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 writer has always been told, since childhood, that I was a ‘funny guy’. I was, and is, able to bring humor to everyday occurrences. Having attempted at times to do ‘Stand Up comedy’ way back when, the thought of making a career of it always crossed my mind. In 1992, with my college buddy, Jay D. securing the ‘Morning Man’ spot on WABC Radio in NYC, I did some improvisational bits live on air. My character, Dino, a ‘wiseguy’ boss of a Brooklyn crew who happened to be married to a  domineering Jewish wife, went over well. So well that many who listened to the interplay between host Jay and myself figured that the creator of the Sopranos HBO series, who happened to be from the metro NYC area, must have gotten his ideas from us. Who will ever know?

Fast forward twenty years. Having heard of an amateur comedy contest in Saint Augustine Fl, one hour’s drive from my home, I decided to ‘take the plunge’. I signed up for the contest and was told that each contestant would have 8 minutes on stage. Being a writer and always looking for some bits of truth entangled in humor, I wrote my shtick. One such segment would be based upon my own experiences with needing a slew of dental work. In my bit I explained how, with the fact that so many of us have no dental coverage or very little of it, this is how a visit to a dentist’s office in the very near future would look:

Dentist (while surveying my mouth, to his dental assistant who is taking notes): Ok, number 10 $ 350, number 21 $1100, number 19 $1100 plus another $1000. The night in question soon arrived, and I was nervous, having waited 30 years in between comedy club gigs. I got to the place and surveyed the crowd. There were 37 people sitting at tables around the stage. The MC met me and told me that I would be the first to go on… not the best of situations. He assured me that he himself, a professional comedian, would ‘warm up’ the audience before introducing me. I sat on a bar stool off to the left of the audience, sweating profusely. The MC began, doing strictly ‘Tit and Fart jokes’. The audience was in stitches! I knew that I was in trouble… and was I! He finished up, introduced me for my 8 minutes and on  I went. Well, one lady, sitting up front to my left, just laughed at everything I tossed out. The other 36 people…. dead silence! My mouth was so dry I was surprised I could last the eight minutes. I did, went back to my bar stool, sat for ten minutes and got the hell out of there!

There has been an epidemic throughout our nation that is more deadly than any flu or opioid addiction. Simply said it is this low brow culture that has inculcated all walks of life. With a carnival barker in the White House, nastiness and insults flung far and wide, Amerika is the laughing stock of the industrialized world. Moe, Larry and Curly  are the linchpins of what was once the most humorous of nations. If Mort Sahl ever attempted to go on stage nowadays he would most likely be tar and feathered!

The cerebral humor of the late George Carlin, while still cherished by those of us who actually study history and appreciate such dissent, is not what the doctor ordered anymore. We are now a totally low brow nation with some exceptions. Poking fun at weaknesses in human beings replaces weaknesses in character of those in power. Howard Stern and the late Don Imus made this pathway to a low class country their focal points. Locker room humor, something many of us, this writer included, love to inject in private interplay, is now front and center. President Cheetos is only another ( and terrible) symptom of this tragic loss of high culture. Those who stand with their stupid red MAGA baseball caps and signs, shouting obscenities in response to his own, are the ‘ bastard children’ of this low class Amerika. As with those fools, thugs and assholes in 1930s Germany, wearing their brown and black uniforms, Zig Heiling as they destroyed Jewish citizens, their businesses and synagogues, so too are we approaching that Rubicon… maybe even in 20/20.

*

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].

In remarks during Pyongyang’s yearend Plenary Meeting, Kim Jong-un said his government will continue development of strategic weapons because of US hostility toward the country, adding he’ll no longer be bound by an ICBM test moratorium.

Pyongyang’s KCNA news agency quoted him saying the following:

“We can not give up the security of our future just for the visible economic results and happiness and comfort in reality now that hostile acts and nuclear threat against us are increasing and nothing has changed between the days when we maintained the line of simultaneously pushing forward the economic construction and the building of nuclear force and now when we struggle to direct our efforts to the economic construction owing to the US gangster-like acts,” adding:

“We will never allow the impudent US to abuse the DPRK-US dialogue for meeting its sordid aim but will shift to a shocking actual action to make it pay for the pains sustained by our people so far and for the development so far restrained.”

“In the past two years alone when the DPRK took preemptive and crucial measures of halting its nuclear test and ICBM test-fire and shutting down the nuclear-test ground for building confidence between the DPRK and the US, the US, far from responding to the former with appropriate measures, conducted tens of big and small joint military drills which its president personally promised to stop and threatened the former militarily through the shipment of ultra-modern warfare equipment into south Korea.”

“Under such condition(s), there is no ground for us to get unilaterally bound to the commitment (of no further nuclear and missile tests), the commitment to which there is no opposite party, and this is chilling our efforts for worldwide nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.”

“There is no need to hesitate with any expectation of the US lift of sanctions even now that we had a close look into the real intention of the US.”

If its hostile policy towards the DPRK continues, there will never be the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, he stressed.

“We will reliably put on constant alert the powerful nuclear deterrent capable of containing the nuclear threats from the US and guaranteeing our longterm security” — stressing that the DPRK’s deterrent actions will depend on US policies toward the country.

Last spring, Kim set a yearend deadline for Trump to engage in good faith evenhanded talks, adding he’d only only agree to another summit if the US agrees to “constructive…improvement of relations…with a proper attitude and (willingness to seek) proper solutions…”

As a new year begins, he’s gotten no positive signs from Washington.

Two summits with Trump (in 2018 and 2019) failed because of one-sided White House demands in return for empty promises — sure to be breached based on evidence of how the US operates.

Both right wings of the one-party state demand other nations bend to Washington’s will, what the scourge of imperialism is all about — enforced by endless wars of aggression, economic terrorism, and other hostile actions.

Ahead of Kim’s yearend deadline,  DPRK Deputy Foreign Minister Ri Thae Song said: “It is entirely up to the US what Christmas gift it will select to get.”

In his Plenary Meeting remarks, Kim said Pyongyang will unveil a “new strategic weapon” soon — perhaps an upgraded ICBM.

In response on Tuesday, Pompeo said the Trump regime is “hopeful that…Chairman Kim will make the right decision and…choose peace and prosperity over conflict and war.”

Pompeo, other US officials, and establishment media ignore that neither Kim, his father or grandfather ever attacked another nation preemptively throughout North Korean history.

The DPRK supports peace and stability in East Asia and elsewhere, its nonbelligerent policy polar opposite how the US operates globally — perpetually at war with invented enemies.

When the Korean peninsula was divided post-WW II, a tragic error, the US created the myth of a DPRK threat as a pretext for preemptively attacking the country.

Today, its nuclear and missile deterrents are solely for self-defense because of the genuine threat of US aggression.

US Indo-Pacific imperial policies are all about containing and co-opting North Korea and China — maintaining adversarial relations instead of cooperative ones.

It’s how the US operates globally, using sticks, not carrots, in pursuit of its aims.

A Final Comment

Establishment media claims of a DPRK Christmas “gift” to the US it would consider provocative proved empty.

The year ended quietly on the Korean peninsula.

Based on DPRK history, whatever Kim intends ahead militarily, it’ll surely only be efforts to prepare the nation’s defense capabilities against possible hostile US actions.

Earlier he said his country might seek a “new path” if the Trump regime continues making unacceptable demands with no reciprocal concessions.

He also said they’ll “never be denuclearization on the Korean peninsula” as long as hostile US policies continue.

His government “will steadily develop necessary and prerequisite strategic weapons for the security of the state until the US rolls back its hostile policy towards the DPRK and lasting and durable peacekeeping mechanism is built.”

What hasn’t existed between both countries since the 1940s is highly unlikely ahead with hardliners in charge of US foreign policy.

*

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.

One of the persistent themes of western political leaders is that they support the notion of “the rule of law”. By this they generally mean the system of law as developed by western nations, and in the international context the formulation over the past 120 years or so of international law.

By this of course, they mean “their law”. Any deviation from this by non-western nations is to be deplored and where appropriate punished.

The epitome of this approach was to be found in the Nuremberg trials and their Japanese equivalent that followed victory in the Second World War. The waging of war was declared to be the supreme international crime. The chief American counsel at the Nuremberg Tribunal, Robert Jackson, stated that the Nuremberg trials placed “international law squarely on the side of peace as against aggressive warfare.”

The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials may be seen in retrospect as the apogee of the concept that waging war was an offence against humanity. Since 1945 the major western powers, notably but not exclusively limited to the United States, have waged almost continuous war.

This has mostly been directed at countries that lack the ability, military or otherwise, to fight back.

Neither is this a new phenomena. Wikipedia has an astonishing list of wars involving the United States going back to the Revolutionary War of 1775-1783 and continuing almost unabated up to the present day. With unintentional humour, World War Two is listed as a “United States-Allied victory.”

As any student of that war knows, the vast bulk of the fighting and the casualties, took place on the eastern front between Germany and its allies and the Soviet Union. The war had been waging for more than two years before the Americans became a formal party. Total American losses during World War II were just over 407.000, fewer than Russia lost in the battle of Stalingrad alone (478,000 killed or missing) over a period of five months.

The West’s proclivity for war continued unabated after the end of World War Two. The Korean War (1950-53), the Vietnam War 1945-1975), Afghanistan (2001-?, Iraq 2003- ?) and Syria (2008 – ?) are only some of the better known conflicts. There were constant lesser battles carried out by the United States and its allies, particularly in the Caribbean and Latin America, seen (by the United States) as part of its own sphere of influence since the Munro doctrine was first proposed in December 1823.

One of the outstanding features of these post-World War II invasions, occupations, or warfare by other means, is that they have shown a diminishing degree of success. Where they have been unsuccessful on the battlefield, the United States has continued to wage economic and financial war on its foes.

The classic illustration of this is the Korean War, the origins and conduct of which has always been grossly misrepresented by the West. It is however, instructive on a number of levels. The North-South boundary was drawn by two United States functionaries following the defeat of the occupying Japanese in 1945. The Soviet army, which occupied the North following the end of the war, withdrew in 1948. The United States, which occupied the South, has never left and today sees South Korea as an essential element in its encirclement of China.

There are literally hundreds of United States military bases in proximity to or aimed at China, yet the western media are solely preoccupied with alleged Chinese “aggression” actual or potential. Apart from its multiple military bases, the United States regularly carries out military exercises with its regional allies such as Japan and Australia that are thinly disguised preparations for waging war on China. One such regular exercise practices blockading vital Chinese trade routes through the Straits of Hormuz.

The Korean War was instructive on a number of levels. The invasion of the North by United States and Allied troops reached the Chinese border, which threatened the new PRC. We now know that the United States military command sought President Truman’s consent to
use their virtual monopoly of nuclear weapons (certainly China had none) to bomb the PRC.

The primary objective was to reinstate the Chiang Kai Shek Government that had fled to what was then called Formosa following its defeat in the Chinese Civil War.

The intervention of the PRC in the Korean War was decisive. United States and Allied troops were rapidly expelled from the North. What was instructive also however was that the United States used its overwhelming air superiority to effectively destroy North Korea’s civilian infrastructure and food producing capacity.

This was instructive on a number of levels. Not only was the destruction of civilian targets a monumental war crime (for which they hung Germans following the Nuremberg trials), but there has never been legal accountability for these crimes. Again, this precedent is instructive for the actions and lack of accountability for American war crimes to this day.

Despite enormous Western pressure, most of it illegal under international law, the North Koreans have survived to this day. There is still no peace treaty to formally end the war, although it is now more than 66 years since the armistice. North Korea is now a nuclear armed power and in this writer’s view any expectation that they will disarm is delusional.

Those nuclear weapons, and the military protection of Russia and China are the major deterrent to further United States aggression in the region.

Vietnam was a similar defeat for United States imperialism in the region. Again, a long war (1945-1975) fought first by the French and then by the United States and its Western allies following the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu In May 1954.

Although the United States did not use nuclear weapons, they employed a full range of other chemical and biological mechanisms, the use of which were again war crimes perpetrated on a civilian population. The consequences of this chemical and biological warfare persist to the present day in the form of ravaged agricultural land, and most distressingly, children still being born with deformities directly attributable to the chemical and biological warfare agents employed by the United States throughout the war.

Again, in what is by now a manifestly common pattern, the perpetrators of these war crimes remain completely immune from prosecution, notwithstanding token prosecutions of low level military officers such as Lieutenant William Calley for the My Lai massacre. An article in the United States publication Foreign Policy (21 May 2019) in titled “America Loves Excusing its War Criminals” is a perfect encapsulation of the reality.

More recently two other major wars illustrate a number of facets, including deceptive motivations for the wars; persistent lying about the realities following the invasions; and the extraordinary difficulties by the victim nations in dislodging the invaders, even decades later.

The two wars in question are Afghanistan (2001 – to the present and counting) and Iraq (2003 to the present and counting). In both cases the ostensible justification for the invasion were blatant lies. Ron Susskind’s book on Bush’s Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill (The Price of Loyalty 2004) revealed how the decision to invade Afghanistan was made well before the purported reason of the events of 11 September 2001. Rather, the invasion and occupation had more to do with Afghanistan’s strategic location and the oil routes from the Caspian Sea basin than any alleged role by Osama bin Laden who was alleged (falsely) to have orchestrated the use of aeroplanes to destroy public buildings in New York and Washington.

In Iraq’s case the monstrous lies told and repeated ad nauseam by loyal allies, was Saddam Hussain’s “weapons of mass destruction.”

It is not difficult to perceive recurring patterns here. Countries that are strategically located with valuable resources become the object of invasion, occupation and the theft of those resources and suffering enormous civilian casualties (well over 1 million people in the case
of both countries). None of the allegations ever bear any resemblance to the truth.

Similarly, in another recurring pattern, none of the perpetrators of these monstrous activities ever face a court holding them to account for their crimes. There are of course many examples. When one examines the record of invasions, occupations, demonstrable lies uttered in justification, and ongoing theft of natural resources it is impossible to reconcile this history with the “rules based international law” mantra so solemnly repeated by western leaders.

There are however, some encouraging signs that this era of lawless banditry may be approaching its end days. I refer here to the rapid rise of China, or more accurately, the reemergence of China as the dominant power in the world.

Through a variety of initiatives, of which the BRI is the biggest and best known (and significantly, opposed by the United States and Australia). There are a variety of other economic and political initiatives that are of a truly transformative nature. Their very successful present and likely future trends are a major reason the United States is using every weapon in its political, economic and financial arsenal to oppose and undermine these predominantly Chinese led initiatives.

In this writer’s view, that attempted sabotage will ultimately fail, although at considerable cost to a number of nations. As we enter 2020 however, these initiatives, from China in the East to Russia in the West and beyond, offer the best prospect of a stable world than the past disastrous two centuries of western dominance have proved to be.

*

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

James O’Neill is an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

Canadian activists have compiled a study of Canada’s 2019 voting record at the United Nations on resolutions [see list below] that document and censure Israeli violations of international law.

There was much fanfare made about Canada’s orphan “yes” vote at the UN General Assembly this year on “The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” resolution. But in the broader context of the other 17 resolutions calling out Israel’s war crimes, that Canada either voted against (15) or abstained on (2), this lone vote can only be seen as deceptive and hypocritical.

Justin Trudeau, explaining his government’s vote to Canadian Zionists, stated:

“The government felt that it was important to reiterate its commitment to a two-states-for-two-peoples solution at a time when its prospects appear increasingly under threat.”

However, if the Trudeau government was really committed to a “two-states-for-two-peoples solution,” it is inconceivable that at the same time they also voted against:

1. A resolution to support the work of the “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” that affirms the UN “has a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in all its aspects”;
2. The “Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine” resolution that calls “on Member States not to recognize any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regards to Jerusalem”;
3. “The Syrian Golan” resolution that “Demands once more that Israel withdraw from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967 in implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions”;
4. “Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources” resolution;
5. The resolution that condemns the “Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan” and reaffirms the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force”; and
6. The resolution concerning “Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” that expresses “grave concern about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel.”

And finally, why would Canada vote against a resolution to uphold the rights of “Persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities,” unless it supports Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and the “Greater Israel Project”?!

Some observers have speculated that Canada’s lone vote was motivated by Trudeau’s desire to obtain a seaton the UN Security Council. Over a year ago, then Foreign and now Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland was quotedas follows during a visit to Israel:

“She also mentioned Canada’s current bid for one of 10 non-permanent seats on the UN Security Council for 2021-2022, which she hoped would allow Canada to serve as an ‘asset for Israel and… strengthen our collaboration’.”

So, this is what Canada plans to do if it gets sufficient votes for a seat, be an “asset for Israel”?

Canada is relying on the votes, and possible lobbying, of some Arab reactionary regimes to get the backing required for the Security Council seat; one example is Jordan.

Just last month during a visit, “Jordan’s King Abdullah II told Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that the Middle Eastern kingdom supports Canada’s bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council.” This was according to Jordan’s ambassador to Canada, Majed Alqatarneh, who also said Jordan “believes it is important that Canada have a seat on the Security Council.”

Canada also seems to be counting on the support of certain diplomatic circles from the US; former US ambassador to Ottawa, Bruce Heyman stated:

“For me, today, when the U.N. General Assembly is all together, a Canadian seat on the U.N. Security Council is more important than ever.”

We tell Mr. Trudeau that instead of your objective of getting a seat at the UN Security Council, you may end up with a seat in front of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. If the “two-states-for-two-peoples solution… prospects appear increasingly under threat,” it is because of Canada’s (and others) unconditional support for Israeli occupation, war crimes, and apartheid.

*

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.

As Nepal prepares to fix a date for holding talks with India to resolve the border issue, the seriousness of resolve on Indian side and depth of the issue must be realized.

The history of demarcation of India-Nepal border began on March 4th, 1816, after the signing of the “Sugauli Treaty” between the then British India and the state of Nepal, which declares River Mahakali, of Nepal, as the border-line between both the countries. The Treaty was expected to resolve the border issues, but it did not. Even after such a long time, the dispute regarding the border and the no-man’s land area is being ensued now and then in different areas of Nepali border. The reason for the continuation of such dispute is that the rivers, counted on as border, diverged from their courses several times in the past. Interestingly, around 600 Km of the border is defined by rivers. Mechi in the East, Mahakali in the West and Naryani in the Susta area, and the unavailability of old maps and documents to revise demarcations has made the situation more significant. The Central government of India deputed its Para-military security guards of special services bureau (Shastra Seema Bal) along the border where as to counter guard the Nepali side of border-line, presence of Nepali security is almost nil!. Taking advantage of the ignorant attitude of Nepalese towards border guard, India started encroachment of the border land. She has said to encroach over 61,000 hectares in 26 of the bordering districts, by now. There has been a lot of hue and cry over the encroachment by Nepali people which unfortunately never fell on the deaf ears of the giant called India.

India surrounds Nepal from the East, West and South. There is a 1,808 km long border (September 2019 Wikipedia shows as 1,758 km) between Nepal and India, where out of 75 districts adjoining Indian territory, 26 have been encroached, marking 71 areas of disputes altogether. The major ones include Kalapani- Limpiyahura, Susta, Mechi and Tanakpur. There is often found an opportunistic overtone in both countries regarding the ownership of such disputed border points. Hence, to resolve the issue, an India-Nepal Joint Technical Level Boundary Committee has been set up in motion which is still to find a reasonable solution for this false encroachment issue.

The encroachment by India started right after the Indo-Sino border war of November 1962. After facing defeat the Indian army set-up a camp inside Nepali’s territory at Kalapani to monitor the Chinese activities. But now they claim that the area belongs to them. However, reports prepared by Buddhi Narayan Shrestha, former director general of the Department of Survey Nepal, corroborates that the maps of 1850 and 1856 prepared by the Survey of India with the participation of Nepalese authority clearly states that the river originates from Limpiyadhura, 16 km North-West of Kalapani, which proves that Kalapani belongs to Nepal. But India refuses to accept those maps as proof. They say that the map prepared by them in 1875 should be considered as proof which shows river Mahakali origin is beyond Kalapani. Interestingly, the said map does not have Nepal’s certification.

The other disputed area situated in the East of Naryani River, is the Susta area, which is the tensest area owing to encroachment. Some time ago, over one thousand Indian villagers backed by Indian border police force (SSB) had forcibly entered the Nepali territory in Susta. They completely destroyed sugarcane in about ten hectares of land and also manhandled men and women. Where the locals of Susta complain such incidents are rampant in the area. The main reason behind the dispute is the changing course of Naryani River, over the past decades. The river has said to change its course towards the Nepalese side in the West. India has encroached about 14,500 hectares of the reclaimed land because of this. The intrusion happened in stages over a period of decades. According to reports, lands disputes among locals are usually won by Indian nationals who have the support of the armed Indian Border Police Force – the Seema Sashastra Bal. Considering the situation, the people of Nepal had launched a “save Susta campaign”. The organizers requested students of Nepal to join them and launch a valley wide campaign from Nepal’s capital Katmandu. The purpose of the campaign was to inform the world about the wicked plans of her “polite” neighbor India. Actually the reason to start off the border dispute at Susta side is that Susta is surrounded by Indian Territory on three sides -the North, South and East, and on the West it is the Naryani River. Hence, cutting off Susta from its mother land becomes much easier for India to occupy it which will pave her closer to the “Greater India” dream of Hindus.

The other most talked about point of dispute is Mechi. India’s disapproval of “Junge pillers” as the main boundary pillars has sparked the Mechi border dispute. The map published by the British India right after the Sauguli Treaty clearly indicates those pillars to be the main boundary pillars. Even history is evident that British had erected those pillars as monuments of Nepal-India border. But the credit goes to the Indian desire of getting control over weak and tiny neighbours which made her to incite the dispute by denying the original Sauguli Treaty signed by the British and the Nepal Kingdom.

According to the official records, Nepal covers a total area of 147,181 Sq Km. But in reality, the territory of Nepal is gradually shrinking because of the increasing encroachment by India. The Maoists Young Communist league (YCL) once submitted a memorandum to the Indian embassy Katmandu, demanding immediate return of the encroached land by the Indians in Susta area but later the political havoc in Nepal made everything go vanish for some time. They demanded that scientific demarcation of the border land must be done as per historical maps, the encroached territories should be given back to Nepal and the bilateral bordering area should be regulated. The district level of Nepal and India earlier agreed not to allow the use of encroached land for any purpose and put the issue at the central level for the resolution of the problem. But despite the agreement Indian farmers have been cultivating in the disputed area.

The Nepal-India joint Technical level Boundary Committee has supposed to have completed 97% of the task of strip-mapping the border, as per 1874 Persian map adopted by the committee. According to them all the disputes, except Susta and Kalapani, have been resolved. But when the border is traced in the field, many instances of encroachment are found. The unwisely decision of Nepalese side of accepting the Persian map as the basis of demarcation has made them deprived of 1630 hectares of their own land, which now lies in Indian territory. The border committee somehow, could not act the way it ought to. It failed to take firm decisions regarding border disputes at several places, such as the presence of Indian Paramilitary force in Kalapani since 1962.

India has many interests in Nepal to fulfill which it has gradually made her strong political, diplomatic, economic and cultural influence there, all due to RAW’s efforts. Her main strategy is to keep Nepal instable and always dependent towards India. In this regard, she has supported arms to the establishment as well as anti-establishment groups in Nepal, according to the former Prime Minister BP Koirala’s biography. India has a history for formulating efforts on multiple fronts to weaken the already fragile country to facilitate its swallowing. It is high time when all the Nepalese, currently divided among various political affiliations, should come together against the onslaught, instigated by India, in Nepalese territory and understand the game-plan of their hegemonic neighbor. And India also should realize that the flame she has ignited in Nepal can very well extend to its own northern flank and the unstable southern part as well. Keeping in mind the on-going protests in India on account of CAB and changed status of Kashmir and Ladakh, this possibility is too real and near both.

Author’s note: This research article appeared in author’s blog in the year 2009, unfortunately still stands accurate. Updated the figures and current situation India is facing at home.

*

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.

While revelers around the world are making new year’s resolutions for 2020, in the Gaza Strip, a different kind of assessment is taking place as Palestinians try to determine whether, or how, they can survive the next 10 years. In 2012, the United Nations published a report whose title asked a jarring question: “Gaza in 2020: A Liveable Place?” The report surmised that without fundamental change and collective effort, the strip would become “unliveable” in only eight years’ time.

The report was released just months before the second of three Israeli military operations that would be launched in Gaza over a period of six years. Following the third operation, Protective Edge, in 2014, with its massive toll in human life and extensive damage to civilian infrastructure, UN officials subsequently warned that the strip would actually become unlivable by 2018. The predictions of the Gaza 2020 report had not factored in military operations of such magnitude.

Nonetheless, on the eve of 2020, people are asking what became of the UN’s predictions – as if at the stroke of midnight, the specter of unlivebility may or may not come true. Yet by all accounts, and according to the indicators chosen by the UN, life in Gaza is palpably worse now than it was in 2012. For example, the unemployment rate went from 29% when the report was written to 45% today, with the rate at more than 60% among young Palestinians.

Dishearteningly, the capacity for electricity production in the strip has remained unchanged over the past eight years, despite increased demand as the population grew from 1.6 million to nearly two million. Electricity supply even got worse given that Egyptian lines have been out of operation since early 2018. Power is available for just half the day – an improvement over certain periods, but nowhere near reasonable for 2020. Aquifer water is 96% undrinkable, as predicted. Households spend precious income on purchasing drinking water, which is not always safe; and given that many families cannot afford to purchase water, water-borne illnesses, especially among children, are widespread.

Israel, through its control over movement, has played a central and intentional role in this decline. Israeli citizens are told that it’s “all Hamas’s fault,” which may help them to sleep better at night, but belies the truth of the story. Gaza has been gradually cut off and isolated by Israel over decades; and in 2007, when Hamas took power in the strip, Israel all but hermetically sealed off the territory.

Israeli officials made a calculus – quite literally – that applying pressure would help it achieve its political goals in Gaza. At points, Israel limited entrance of food and, for the past 12 years, has targeted sectors of the economy with policies like arbitrary limits on fishing and access to farmlands, on entrance of inputs for manufacturing, and on marketing and export of goods. Several military operations later, though, some Israeli officials acknowledged that their “calculus” was way off. Particularly following Protective Edge, many noted that the deteriorating humanitarian situation on the ground was actually a liability for Israel.

The army’s head of intelligence even cited the UN’s Gaza 2020 report in a Knesset Committee hearing in early 2016, telling Knesset members that economic activity was needed to head off the UN’s prediction that the strip would become unlivable by 2020. He called economic activity “the most important restraining factor” and said that without an improvement in conditions on the ground, Israel would be the first to experience the blowback. This type of logic became common among Israeli officials, from the defense ministry to the prime minister himself, even though these individuals had actively overseen policies that were designed to do the exact opposite.

This logic translated into meager policy changes. In 2012, the fishing limit was just three nautical miles from the shore, then rose to six miles in 2015, then to 15 miles in some parts today. Unlike in 2012, when no goods were permitted to exit Gaza to be sold in its traditional markets in the West Bank and Israel, today an array of goods can go to the West Bank and some products can also be sold in Israel. In 2012, an average of just 22 truckloads of goods exited Gaza, while in 2019 it was more than 10 times that amount, or 240 truckloads monthly. In 2012, construction materials were barely allowed in for international organizations, while today, materials can enter for the private sector under the Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism.

However, while these micro changes gave some relief to Palestinians in Gaza, they have not reversed the strip’s macro deterioration. Rather than attempting to transform the situation, Israel and other regional actors are simply searching for a new calculus to achieve “quiet” by making Gaza more survivable.

In line with this objective, Egypt began regularly operating the Rafah Crossing with Gaza in 2018, after keeping it mostly closed for five years. Qatar also stepped forward with massive financial support in 2018 and 2019, paying for fuel for electricity generation at the strip’s only power plant, supporting construction projects, and giving cash payments to poor families. Other donors – European countries, Gulf states, and others – continued substantial funding to UNRWA and to dozens of other international and local organizations, providing critical aid and bridging gaps caused by cuts in U.S. funding.

Is this the massive effort that the UN envisaged was needed to change course and make Gaza liveable? Far from it. It is the bare minimum required to keep people’s heads just above water, absent of real economic development, prospects for future growth, or a commitment to human rights.

The Israeli policy changes, the increase in truckloads, and the aid money have all gone to keeping things just good enough so as not to allow a massive outbreak of disease, and to calm a potential uprising by those thirsty for water. No one should be breathing a sigh of relief, however, as the “quiet” cannot erase the hunger felt by thousands of Palestinian families suffering food insecurity. And it does not mask the desperation of young men who are fleeing the strip in search of a better life.

It is an illusion to think that this situation is manageable. No one should be sleeping soundly at night until there is a significant shift in approach, whereby civilians are not held hostage to the actions of their de facto government, and are not turned into fodder for the election campaigns of failing Israeli politicians. There have been substantive efforts by the international community and even some policy changes from Israel, but there has never been a fundamental decision on the part of Israel to actually let people live in Gaza, rather than just survive.

Human beings are not machines, and many of the indicators that make life worth living cannot be found in a UN report. Yes, people need water, electricity, jobs, and healthcare to get by – but what about the things that are harder to measure? The need for freedom, the ability to plan one’s life, to feel hopeful about the prospects for one’s children, and to feel safe in one’s home?

In that sense, the Gaza 2020 report and Israeli officials who tried to follow its prescriptions fell very short. But the UN officials who warned that Gaza would become unlivable by 2018 were onto something. In 2018, the floodgates of hopelessness in Gaza were pried open as people realized that the plan is to preserve their isolation with no prospect of a resolution to the conflict. Through their protests at the Great March of Return, young Palestinians in Gaza, the vast majority of the population, showed the world that it is not just food and water that they need to survive. They need freedom, dignity and hope.

*

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.

Tania Hary is the executive director of Gisha, an Israeli NGO founded in 2005, whose goal is to protect the freedom of movement of Palestinians, especially Gaza residents.

First published on September 6. 2020

Strange though as it may seem, we feel nervous writing this report. Nervous that Google, Twitter, Facebook etc. might deem our site ‘less trustworthy’ or something similar. Nervous because we could very well become victims of internet censorship perpetrated by the Tech giants like Google et al for touching such a hot button issue with a hint of skepticism. We feel nervous because we fear imminent attacks by the so-called ‘fact checkers’. Attacks on our good name because we refuse to tow the establishment line on this subject of acute public interest.

Indeed, we live in a strange time when open discussions on extremely important public health issues became taboo. Authoritarian censorship became our New Normal. While authorities around the world mandate face masks, we remain prohibited from discussing its pros and cons.

Therefore, in this article we refrain from interjecting any of our own ‘non-expert’ opinions into this debate. We avoid opposing the so-called experts on mainstream media with any of our own viewpoints.

Instead, we simply present 8 peer reviewed academic studies on surgical & cloth masks published on PubMed.gov; and let you the reader draw your own conclusions.

The studies are:

1. PMID: 19216002

Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial

Objective: Health care workers outside surgical suites in Asia use surgical-type face masks commonly. Prevention of upper respiratory infection is one reason given, although evidence of effectiveness is lacking.

Results: Thirty-two health care workers completed the study, resulting in 2464 subject days. There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group. Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headache during the study period (P < .05).

Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.

2. PMID: 20092668

Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review

Objective: Many national and international health agencies recommended the use of face masks during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. We reviewed the English-language literature on this subject to inform public health preparedness.

Results: There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected.

Conclusion: Further studies in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

3. PMID: 22188875

The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence

Objective: There are limited data on the use of masks and respirators to reduhce transmission of influenza. A systematic review was undertaken to help inform pandemic influenza guidance in the United Kingdom.

Results: Six of eight randomised controlled trials found no significant differences between control and intervention groups (masks with or without hand hygiene; N95/P2 respirators)…. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies found that mask and/or respirator use was independently associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)….however, these estimates were derived from the analyses of six SARS studies whose methodology was problematic.

Conclusion: None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection…. There is a limited evidence base to support the use of masks and/or respirators in healthcare or community settings.

4. PMID: 15340662

The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease

Objective: This study investigated the physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis (HD) on patients with ESRD.

Results: Thirty nine patients (23 men; mean age, 57.2 years) were recruited for participation in the study. Seventy percent of the patients showed a reduction in partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), and 19% developed various degrees of hypoxemia.

Conclusion: Wearing an N95 mask for 4 hours during HD significantly reduced PaO2 and increased respiratory adverse effects in ESRD patients.

5. PMID: 32406064

Short-term skin reactions following use of N95 respirators and medical masks

Objective: To analyze the short-term effects of N95 respirators and medical masks, respectively, on skin physiological properties and to report adverse skin reactions caused by the protective equipment.

Results: Skin hydration, TEWL, and pH increased significantly with wearing the protective equipment. Erythema values increased from baseline. Sebum secretion increased both on the covered and uncovered skin with equipment-wearing.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that skin biophysical characters change as a result of wearing a mask or respirator. N95 respirators were associated with more skin reactions than medical masks.

6. PMID: 32285928 (full Paper on ViaMedica Journals)

Cloth masks versus medical masks for COVID-19 protection

Objective: Global shortage of medical masks is a real and expanding problem. In turn, there is growing availability on the market of cloth masks. This is a study on the comparison of the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in the context of viral infections.

Results: Laboratory tests showed the penetration of particles through the cloth masks to be very high (97%) compared with medical masks (44%). A consequence of the above penetration is also a higher risk of critical care illness, the influenza- -like illness is more significant in the cloth mask group than in the medical mask. Moreover, the rate of confirmation of laboratory-confirmed viruses was also much higher for cloth masks than for medi- cal masks or groups that did not wear any mask.

Conclusion: Cloth masks don’t protect as well as medical masks. Moreover, the physical properties of a cloth mask, reuse, the frequency and effectiveness of cleaning, and increased moisture retention, may potentially increase the infection risk, since, as it indicated by Osterholm et al. [7] the virus may survive on the surface of the face- masks. In this context self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. Observations during SARS suggested double-masking and other practices increased the risk of infection because of moisture, liquid diffusion and pathogen retention [8].

7. PMID: 25903751

A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks.

Results: The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm…. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.

Conclusions: This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.

8. PMID: 32513410

A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers

Objective: It is debatable whether asymptomatic COVID-19 virus carriers are contagious. We report here a case of the asymptomatic patient and present clinical characteristics of 455 contacts, which aims to study the infectivity of asymptomatic carriers.

Results: The median contact time for patients was four days and that for family members was five days…. The blood counts in most contacts were within a normal range. All CT images showed no sign of COVID-19 infection. No severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections was detected in 455 contacts by nucleic acid test.

Conclusion: In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.

***

So, do masks work? Well, as shown in studies #1, #2 and #3 above, the claim ‘masks prevent viral infections’ remains far from settled. All three papers point to a lack of conclusive studies demonstrating the effectiveness of face masks in preventing viral infections. It’s also important to note that studies #2 and #3 specifically examine all available peer reviewed papers on face masks efficacies; and they both unanimously state that no study established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against viral infections.

Moreover, as we can see from studies #1, #4 and #5, negative and harmful side effects of mask usage remain undeniable. From headaches, skin reactions to hypoxemia, prolonged use of masks carries inescapable harmful consequences.

Furthermore, authorities around the world recommend we use cloth masks. On its face, considering the potential shortage of surgical and N95 masks, this recommendation seems reasonable. However, when we examine studies done specifically on cloth masks, we quickly realize not only do cloth masks offer almost no conclusive benefits against viral spreads (upto 97% particles penetration), usage of cloth masks may also introduce considerable risk of doing more harm than good. As demonstrated in studies #6 and #7, using cloth masks can actually make it more likely that someone would catch viral infections.

Besides, the entire premise of mask mandates rests upon the notion of ‘spread by asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers’; that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers can and do spread the virus. Yet, we can see from study #8 that infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers appears anything but certain. In fact, the study could not find a single infection occurring among 455 contacts of asymptomatic COVID19 patients.

So, do masks really work? Should we all wear them? Well, this article didn’t set out to make any recommendations for or against using face masks. However, judging from the peer-reviewed science documented above, no one in their right mind should make bold recommendations to use face masks; specially not cloth masks and definitely not for prolonged periods of time. And therefore, making them mandatory would simply seem insane to any sane person. Yet, all mainstream media outlets zealously recommend face masks and cloth masks with prophetic confidence. And due to surgical and N95 masks shortage, authorities, in essence, mandate cloth masks for millions around the world.

Even a large portion of the general public have been conditioned so effectively by the mainstream media and the medical authorities, that they often display a form of panic driven hysteria upon seeing someone not wearing a mask. Yet, anyone following legitimate published science can easily come to a very logical – and sensible – conclusion to not wear masks to prevent viral infections.

Therefore, instead of asking: do masks work? perhaps we should be asking: should masks be mandatory?

*

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.

Author Rez Karim is an Electrical Engineer and Chief Editor at VitalColumns.com where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from the author

In March 2019, Manning was  imprisoned for invoking her constitutional right of silence.

She courageously refused to be part of the Trump regime’s effort to frame and imprison Julian Assange longterm for the “crime” of truth-telling investigative journalism the way it’s supposed to be.

Released in May following expiration of the grand jury she justifiably refused to cooperate with, she was straightaway subpoenaed to testify before a new grand jury — imprisoned again for invoking her right of silence.

Earlier she said the following:

“I will not comply with this, or any grand jury. Imprisoning me for my refusal to answer questions only subjects me to additional punishment for my repeatedly-stated ethical objections to the grand jury system,” adding:

“The grand jury’s questions pertained to disclosures from nine years ago, and took place six years after an in-depth computer forensics case in which I testified for almost a full day about these events. I stand by my previous public testimony.”

“I will not participate in a secret process that I morally (and legally) object to, particularly one that has been historically used to entrap and persecute activists for protected political speech.”

“…I resent being forced to endanger myself by participating in this predatory practice.”

The hostile US grand jury system “undermine(s) the integrity of public discourse with the aim of punishing those who expose any serious, ongoing, and systemic abuses of power by” officials in Washington.

In response to each question asked, she said the following:

“I object to the question and refuse to answer on the grounds that the question is in violation of my First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment, and other statutory rights.”

Constitutionally protected rights in the US aren’t good enough — for her and anyone else dark forces in Washington want framed and imprisoned for political reasons.

Due process and equal protection under law are null and void in the US, state-sponsored police state repression replacing it.

Manning is one of thousands of abused political prisoners held captive indefinitely in the US gulag prison system.

On December 30, UN special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer accused the Trump regime of torturing Manning, releasing a letter he wrote in November last year.

Calling her indefinite detention unlawful, he demanded her release, tweeting that her continued captivity “amount(s) to torture & should be discontinued & abolished without delay.”

Last March, her lawyers called her unconstitutional detention “pointless, punitive and cruel,” stressing she won’t change her mind about refusing to participate in state-sponsored crucifixion of Julian Assange.

She’s currently being punitively fined $1,000 a day for remaining silent.

Her unacceptable detention is “incompatible with the international human rights obligations” the Trump regime is required to obey under international law, said Melzer.

A yearend Manning tweet described her last decade from 2010 – 2019, as follows:

“- 77.76% in jail

– 11.05% in solitary confinement

– 51.23% fighting for gender affirming care

– 100.00% being true to myself no matter what

– 0.00% backing down

#HappyNewYear”

Melzer’s letter dated November 1 ran six pages. Here’s what he said:

“I have the honor to address you in my capacity as Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 34/19.”

“In this connection, I would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s Government information I have received regarding the use of civil contempt sanctions to detain and fine, Ms. Chelsea Manning, allegedly to coerce compliance with grand jury procedures.”

“She is currently detained in William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria, Virginia.”

“Ms. Manning was the subject of an urgent appeal sent by my predecessor on 30 December 2010 (UA 20/2010), with regard to allegations of prolonged solitary confinement during her pre-trial detention, reportedly imposed in an effort to coerce her to testify against her will.”

“In follow-up to the reply by your Excellency’s Government to that letter, and after holding several discussions with the then Legal Advisor of the Government and key officials from the Departments of Defence and State, a further letter was sent to the Government on 16 June 2011 (AL 8/2011).”

“The letter expressed concern over the refusal by the relevant authorities to allow private, unmonitored and privileged communications in accordance with the terms of reference and working methods of the mandate.”

“Furthermore, concern over restrictive conditions for prisons visits and for interviews with inmates was the subject of a press statement by the mandate holder on 12 July 2011.”

“Convicted and sentenced to 35 years of imprisonment in 2013, Ms. Manning’s sentence was commuted to 7 years of total confinement in January 2017.”

“While I welcome Ms. Manning’s subsequent release in May 2017, I am deeply concerned at the new allegations outlined below.”

“According to the information received:”

“In March 2019, Ms. Manning was summoned to appear and give testimony before a federal grand jury convened in the Eastern District of Virginia.”

“The grand jury was reportedly assembled for the purpose of investigating numerous reporters, national security journalists, domestic and international publishers and freedom of information activists.”

“Ms. Manning objected to the subpoena and raised a number of legal challenges to its legitimacy.”

“On 8 and 16 May 2019, having unsuccessfully requested the subpoena to be withdrawn or quashed, she was found to be in civil contempt of the court’s order to appear before the grand jury.”

“Since then, Ms. Manning has been confined at William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria, Virginia, with the aim of coercing her to testify.”

“In addition, she has been subject to a daily fine, for the first thirty days at a rate of USD 500 and thereafter at the rate of USD 1,000 for each day she refuses to give testimony.”

“The duration of such coercive detention is reportedly limited to the duration of the grand jury, namely 18 months, but could be perpetuated indefinitely with the subsequent establishment of successive grand juries.”

“While I do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, I express serious concern at the reported use of coercive measures against Ms. Manning, particularly given the history of her previous conviction and ill-treatment in detention.”

“It is my understanding that the practice of coercive deprivation of liberty for civil contempt under the Recalcitrant Witness Statute, 28 U.S.C § 1826, involves the intentional infliction of progressively severe mental and emotional suffering for the purposes of coercion and intimidation at the order of judicial authorities.”

“Indeed, victims of prolonged coercive confinement have demonstrated post-traumatic symptoms and other severe and persistent mental and physical health consequences.”

“Based on these elements, I conclude that such deprivation of liberty does not constitute a circumscribed sanction for a specific offense, but an open-ended, progressively severe measure of coercion fulfilling all the constitutive elements of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

“In my view, such measures do not fall under the ‘lawful sanctions’ exception of Article 1 CAT, but are contrary to the absolute, non-derogable and peremptory prohibition of torture and, therefore, should be discontinued and abolished without delay.”

“More specifically, the practice of coercive detention appears to be incompatible with the international human rights obligations of the United States under, inter alia, Articles 1, 2, 15 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), as well as under Articles 2, 7 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); ratified by the United States of America in 1994 and 1992 respectively.”

“I would also draw the attention of your Excellency’s Government to paragraph 8a of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23, which reminds States that ‘Intimidation and coercion, as described in article 1 of the Convention against Torture…can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or to torture.’ ”

“In connection with the above alleged facts and concerns, please refer to the Annex on Reference to international human rights law attached to this letter which cites international human rights instruments and standards relevant to these allegations.”

“As it is my responsibility, under the mandate provided to me by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention, I would be grateful for your observations on the following matters:”

“1. Please provide any additional information and/or comment(s) you may have on the above-mentioned allegations.”

“2. Please provide information concerning the factual and legal grounds for subjecting Ms. Manning to continued deprivation of liberty and daily fines, especially after her categorical and persistent refusal to give testimony demonstrates the lack of their coercive effect.”

“3. Please provide information on how such coercive measures, which do not constitute circumscribed criminal sanctions, but which appear to intentionally inflict progressively severe suffering and financial pressure for the purpose of coercing individuals to testify against their conscience, are compatible with the international human rights obligations of the United States and, most notably, the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and ill-treatment as provided for, inter alia, in the ICCPR and the CAT (Convention Against Torture).”

“4. Please explain what are the legal consequences when it is demonstrated that the contemnor is not coercible and will not testify against his or her conscience, thus defeating the purported purpose of his or her incarceration?”

“5. Please provide information on the measures taken to ensure the physical and mental integrity of Ms. Manning, as required under ICCPR and CAT.”

“I would welcome receiving clarification to these questions at your earliest convenience, as the allegations described in this letter warrant urgent attention, and may have serious adverse consequences for Ms. Manning’s rights and integrity.”

“This communication and any response received from your Excellency’s Government will be made public via the communications reporting website within 60 days.”

“They will also subsequently be made available in the usual report to be presented to the Human Rights Council.”

“While awaiting a reply, I recommend that Ms. Manning’s current deprivation of liberty be promptly reviewed in light of the United States’ international human rights obligations.”

“Should my assessment regarding its purely coercive purpose be accurate, I recommend that Ms. Manning be released without further delay, and that any fines disproportionate to the gravity of any offense she may have committed be cancelled or reimbursed.”

“I intend to publicly express my concerns in the near future as, in my view, the information upon which my concerns are based is sufficiently reliable to indicate a matter warranting prompt attention.”

“I also believe that the wider public should be alerted to the potential human rights implications of these allegations.”

“Any public expression of concern on my part will indicate that I have been in contact with your Excellency’s Government’s to clarify the issue/s in question.”

“Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.”

Nils Melzer

Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

The letter includes an annex with information on relevant international laws, norms and standards, explaining the Trump regime’s breach of its international and constitutional obligations.

Manning and countless others are political prisoners in America, languishing longterm under cruel and inhumane conditions — enduring solitary confinement, poor medical care, and other forms of abuse.

Howard Zinn called dissent “the highest form of patriotism,” adding:

“(I)f patriotism means being true to the principles for which your country is supposed to stand, then certainly the right to dissent is one of those principles.”

“And if we’re exercising that right to dissent, it’s a patriotic act.”

“One of the great mistakes (about) patriotism…is to think (it) means support for your government, (ignoring America’s Declaration of Independence principle that says) when governments have become destructive (of life, liberty and equality). it is the right of the people…to alter or abolish” them.

Former political prisoner Marilyn Buck called prisons warehouses to “disappear the unacceptable, depriv(ing) captives of their liberties, their human agency, and to punish (and) stigmatize prisoners through moralistic denunciations and indictment based on bad genes – skin color (ethnicity, or other characteristics) as a crime,” adding:

Countless thousands in the US aren’t imprisoned because they’re “criminals, but because they’ve been accused of breaking (a law) designed to exert tighter social control and state repression,” scapegoating, demonizing, and criminalizing them for their beliefs and activism.

Police state brutality locks them in cages for advocating peace over war, for courageously resisting injustice, defending freedom, equality, and human rights, and believing another world isn’t just possible but essential for a world safe and fit to live in.

Post-9/11, it’s increasingly harsh and unjust. Imprisonment for political views in the US resembles how Dante’s Inferno described hell, saying:

“Abandon hope all ye who enter here,” the fate of political prisoners in the US gulag prison system at home and abroad.

Suffering from late-stage uterine cancer, Buck was released in mid-July 2010, perishing three weeks later.

Human rights lawyer Lynne Stewart was released from political imprisonment on New Year’s day 2014 after being given  months to live because of terminal breast cancer.

On March 8, 2017, she died from cancer and complications from a massive stroke days days earlier, followed by mini-strokes.

I knew Lynne and wrote the following on her passing:

She was a people’s lawyer, a human and civil rights champion, a justice warrior, framed by the Bush/Cheney regime for doing the right things.

Never backing off from or shunning controversy, she championed the rights of the poor, underprivileged, and others rarely afforded due process unless lucky to have an advocate like her.

Practicing human rights law for 30 years, she knew the risks, yet courageously took them.

The US notoriously honors its worst and punishes its best, the fate of Lynne, Marilyn, Julian, Chelsea, and countless others less well known.

*

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.

Israeli forces demolished two houses 0n Wednesday belonging to Palestinian families in the Silwan neighbourhood of occupied East Jerusalem, south of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

After two years of construction, the al-Khalialeh families had made ready their houses to move into in the near future, their relative Jamal al-Khalialeh told Middle East Eye.

The two families were shocked to wake up on the first day of the new year to hear that Israeli bulldozers accompanied by military forces were demolishing the two houses.

They were not at the scene when Israeli security forces had earlier broken into the two properties, local media reported.

“They had an Israeli court hearing at 10am to look into the issue of demolishing the houses, but at 8:30 am they were surprised to hear the demolishing vehicles had come to knock down their houses,” said Jamal.

The two houses are 100 metres square and located next to each other.

The first house is owned by Wafa al-Khalialeh with her husband and their seven children. The second house belonged to Mohanad al-Khalialeh and his wife and their two children.

Both families declined to comment for MEE, as they were still in a state of shock.

Jamal said that the families’ lawyer had managed to get a halt decision from an Israeli judge at around 9:15am but that the Israeli authorities had refused to stop the demolition.

“They started demolishing at around 9am and said that they cannot leave the house half demolished as it is unsafe for the public,” Jamal said.

‘Nearly impossible to obtain building permits’

The demolishment of the houses was carried out based on the basis that “building without permit” had occurred.

Israel rarely issues building permits for Palestinians in East Jerusalem or in Areas B and C of the occupied West Bank.

Since Jewish settlements are allowed to grow in the same area, many Palestinians consider the policy an effort to “Judaise” the areas by preventing Palestinian construction.

The Palestinian neighbourhood of Silwan is a hotbed of Israeli settler activity, often promoted by the right-wing Elad settler group.

Ali Jaabis, an activist in Silwan, told MEE that despite supporting their building application with documents from regulated lawyers, and the architecture meeting the proscribed conditions, “it is nearly impossible for Palestinians of Jerusalem to obtain building permits” from the Israeli authorities.

Israel’s military occupied East Jerusalem in 1967 and later annexed it in a move never recognised internationally.

The government has named Jerusalem Israel’s “eternal, undivided capital”, but Palestinians consider its eastern sector the capital of any future state.

*

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

Featured image: A sign stating ‘Danger, demolition. Entry is prohibited’ was placed by Israeli authorities on top of the rubble of the Khalialehs’ houses (MEE\Sondus Ewies)

In a significant development for Israeli accountability, Fatou Bensouda, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), seeks to launch an investigation into war crimes committed in Palestine. But she has established an unnecessary and politically suspect condition to slow down the process.

Following a five-year preliminary examination, Bensouda found a reasonable basis to mount an investigation of “the situation in Palestine.” She is “satisfied that (i) war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip . . . (ii) potential cases arising from the situation would be admissible; and (iii) there are no substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice.”

Bensouda began the preliminary examination six months after Israel’s July 2014 “Operation Protective Edge,” during which Israeli military forces killed 2,200 Palestinians, nearly one-quarter of them children and more than 80 percent civilians.

In a preliminary examination, the Office of the Prosecutor decides whether: the crimes fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC; there are genuine national proceedings; and beginning an investigation would further the interests of justice and the victims.

In an investigation, the prosecutor develops evidence, identifies suspects, and applies for arrest warrants and summons to appear before the Court.

Bensouda Asks Court to Decide Whether It Has Jurisdiction

Bensouda filed a 112-page document with the Court’s Pre-Trial Chamber. She found a reasonable basis to believe that Israeli forces committed the war crimes of willful killing, willfully causing serious injury to body or health, disproportionate use of force, transfer of Israeli civilians into the Palestinian territory of the West Bank, and the killing of over 200 Palestinians during demonstrations at the Israel-Gaza fence. She also cited a reasonable basis to investigate possible war crimes by Palestinians, including intentional attacks against civilians, using civilians as human shields, and the commission of torture and willful killing.

The prosecutor could have commenced the investigation without asking the Court’s permission. Bensouda determined “that the Court does indeed have the necessary jurisdiction in this situation.” But given the “unique and highly contested legal and factual issues,” particularly the issue of “the territory within which the investigation may be conducted,” she asked the Pre-trial Chamber for a ruling on “the scope of the territorial jurisdiction” of the ICC under the Rome Statute. Bensouda wants confirmation that the “territory” subject to investigation “comprises the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza.” She recommends that the jurisdictional issue be “resolved without undue delay.”

Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute. The ICC, however, can exercise jurisdiction over nationals of a non-party if they commit crimes in the “territory” of a state party. In 2012, Palestine was recognized as a non-member observer State to the United Nations under General Assembly Resolution 67/19. Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute and became a member of the States Parties of the International Criminal Court.

The State of Palestine, which welcomed Bensouda’s decision to start an investigation, noted that the ICC prosecutor “has jurisdiction over the occupied territory of the State of Palestine, given that Palestine is a State Party to the Rome Statute and that the State of Palestine granted the Prosecutor jurisdiction to look into crimes committed in its territory.”

Israel contends that “a sovereign Palestinian State does not exist, and that the precondition to the Court’s jurisdiction thus cannot be fulfilled. This is because sovereignty over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip remains in abeyance, and the Palestinian entity manifestly fails to meet the criteria for statehood under general international law.” In his legal opinion, Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit wrote, “the Palestinian Authority lacks effective control over the territory concerned (and in claiming that the territory is occupied by Israel, essentially concedes that that is so).” He claims that because there is no sovereign Palestinian state, there is no “territory” over which the Court can exercise jurisdiction.

However, Israel is occupying the Palestinian territories, which does not give Israel sovereignty over them. Al-Haq, Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights (Al-Mezan) and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) issued a joint statement saying, “Israel does not have sovereign authority, but de facto administrative authority premised on actual and potential effective control in terms of military presence and substitution of authority…” Moreover, “…Israel, the Occupying Power, exercises extra-territorial jurisdiction in the occupied Palestinian territory for purposes related to the protection of the occupied population due to the fact that the area is under its temporary control and military occupation. This does not in any way give Israel sovereign rights over the territory,” they wrote.

Why Did Bensouda Delay the Investigation?

The issue of territorial jurisdiction is “a redundant and moot point” that amounts “to an unnecessary delay in the progression of the situation to full investigation,” the Palestinian organizations noted. Since jurisdictional issues are usually decided during the preliminary examination, the groups asked why “the question of territorial jurisdiction has only now come to the fore?”

After Bensouda indicated she wished to open an investigation, she was lambasted by the Israeli press, which branded her “public enemy number one.”

Bensouda may fear additional repercussions if she proceeds with the investigation without a jurisdictional ruling from the Court. In April 2019, after she asked the Court to open an investigation into war crimes committed by Afghan and U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the United States revoked her visa. The Court then denied Bensouda’s request to launch the investigation, citing the “interests of justice.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threatened to take further action against investigators who participate in an ICC investigation.

Although Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute, the United States never ratified it. In fact, George W. Bush withdrew the U.S.’s signature from the statute in 2002. Congress then enacted the American Service-Members’ Protection Act to prevent prosecution of U.S. armed forces in the ICC. One provision, called the “Hague Invasion Act,” authorized the use of force to extricate any U.S. or allied national detained by the ICC. The Bush administration blackmailed 100 countries that were parties to the statute by forcing them to sign bilateral immunity agreements pledging not to turn over U.S. persons to the ICC or the U.S. government would withhold foreign aid to them.

Bensouda’s term will expire in 2021 and the Court’s consideration of the jurisdictional issue could extend beyond her service. That may lessen any negative consequences she might suffer.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blasted Bensouda for her intention to initiate an investigation, charging her with denying “the truth when she says that the very act of Jews living in their ancestral homeland, the land of the Bible, that this is a war crime.” Likewise, Netanyahu’s political rival Benny Gantz said that “the Israeli army is one of the most moral militaries in the world” and “the Israeli army and State of Israel do not commit war crimes.”

In fact, there is overwhelming evidence of Israel’s commission of war crimes, including willful killing; willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health; unlawful and wanton, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity; and intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population.

Moreover, by the end of 2018, Israel had unlawfully transferred 628,000 Israeli settlers to settlements in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The Rome Statute lists as a war crime, “The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

“After 71 years of continuing Nakba and 52 years of military occupation, the time has come to end impunity for Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the furtherance of its aggressive colonization of Palestinian territory,” the Palestinian human rights organizations declared. Nakba, which is Arabic for “catastrophe,” refers to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, as 750,00 Palestinians fled or were evicted from their homes from 1947 to 1949 during the creation of Israel. In 1967, after the Six-Day War, Israel militarily occupied the Palestinian territories.

Accountability for Israeli war crimes is long overdue. The ICC should immediately ratify Bensouda’s investigation.

*

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

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. She is a frequent contributor to global Research. 

Featured image is from IMEMC

The US government has long faced a dilemma in dealing with Turkey and Qatar, who pose as partners on the global stage. The US has maintained relations with both while being increasingly concerned with their malign behavior.

Both support the Muslim Brotherhood, finance terrorists, promote extremist ideologies such as Radical Islam, and openly host and partner with Hamas and al-Qaeda. Turkey and Qatar are ‘brothers in arms’ and share an affinity for Radical Islam that shapes their regional engagement.

The Incirlik airbase in southern Turkey is the home of the US Air Force 39^th Air Base Wing and houses US nuclear weapons. Turkey has been a member of NATO for over 60 years but has not always seen eye-to-eye on US military operations, such as the US partnership with the YPG, a Syrian Kurdish militia in northeastern Syria.  The Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar is home to the US Central Command, which serves as headquarters for US military operations across the Middle East.

Two vitally important US military bases, but both hosted by countries which are at odds with the US ‘war on terror’.

The Middle East stands divided into 2 camps: the Turkish-Qatari partnership pitted against the Saudi-Emirati clan. While all are Sunni Muslim majorities, and US allies, the division between the 2 camps lies in the adherence to the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Saudi-Emirati clan has denounced the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorists, along with Egypt, Syria, and Russia; however, the Turkish-Qatari partners have embraced the doctrine and are promoting it. The US Congress and President Trump have periodically discussed whether the US should join those outlawing the group, but have not taken that step yet, and the Muslim Brotherhood operates offices and mosques across the US freely. The Diyanet Center of America, which is said to be the largest Islamic campus in the Western Hemisphere, was built by Turkey, dedicated by Erdogan, and is located in Maryland.

Erdogan’s AKP party has a long connection with the Muslim Brotherhood, and after his 2007 election, he began to publically identify with the Islamist group. Conversely, the Muslim Brotherhood does not operate offices in Qatar, as they are forced to promote the ideology and interests outside of Qatar’s shores.  Even though the US designated Hamas a terrorist group in 1997, still Erdogan has close ties to the group and their leadership. When the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Mohammed Morsi, won the Presidency of Egypt in 2012 Erdogan cheered and rushed to establish trade agreements between the 2 nations.

Turkey and Qatar operate as a tag-team in the world of financing terror.  When a financer of terror is publically exposed in one country, he simply takes up residence in the other and thus remains free to operate regardless of the charges or evidence, and with the cozy relationship with the US, both countries are operating as safe-havens.

The Radicals that have been sheltered in Qatar and Turkey have openly anti-American views, support armed resistance and extremist ideology; however, they seemingly can get away with this behavior right under the nose of their American allies. The US administrations have so far refused to face the problem and pursue an approach to counter those activities or to take appropriate action in the event Turkey and Qatar do not want to change their ways.  Their present behavior is jeopardizing the long-term military alliance with the US.

In blatant disregard for US interests, Erdogan bought the Russian S-400 air defense system, and Qatar is in negotiations to follow suit.  US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has threatened Turkey with sanctions. The US can invoke the ‘Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act’, which would allow Trump to levy sanctions on Turkey for the buying of Russian defense equipment.

Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and the UAE broke all ties with Qatar in June 2017, and began a land, sea and air blockade of Qatar, after charging the Emir with the support of terrorism, collaborating with Iran, and creating chaos in the Middle East.  The US has not taken steps to demand Qatar to stop financing terror.

The US Department of Defense is rumored to have studied options in the region, which would see the closing of Incirlik and Al-Udeid bases, and the relocation of the 2 facilities to countries which are not harboring, supporting, and defending terrorists and the doctrine of Radical Islam, which is a political ideology, and not a religion or sect. Safer locations such as Bulgaria and Bahrain have been studied.

The Turkish media are either outright state-owned and operated, or at the very least are state-controlled.  Al Jazeera Arabic and English are both state-owned. The content of these media promote sectarian hate-speech at times and are pro-regime with a distinct bias against Saudi Arabia. Public awareness campaigns in the US have begun to inform the public that what those media are broadcasting could be disinformation at times.

Turkey and Qatar have been sending weapons, cash and now mercenaries to Libya to prop up the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Sarraj. While the US and others are trying to promote negotiations for peace, the terrorists flooding in from Turkish ships and the weapons landing in Qatari planes are detrimental to the process.  The US is now considering designating Turkish and Qatari officials who are sending funds or arms to Libya, and this may include the Muslim Brotherhood. The US Treasury Department can sanction individuals and entities that are involved in terror and financing terror, and pressure can be brought to bear on Erdogan and the Emir to stop the practice.

Ankara and Dohar can change their image as sponsors of terror, and global investors would be more comfortable with their rehabilitated image. The US has the tools to pressure the pair into changing their ways, but whether the political will exists to do so is in question.

*

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. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse.

As the calendar prepared to flip from 2019 to 2020, protesters stormed the US embassy in Baghdad.  As I write this, the action — a response to US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria which killed at least 25 and wounded more than 50 — hasn’t yet become a reprise of the Iran hostage crisis of 40 years ago, but it’s eerily reminiscent.

Although few Americans seem to notice, Iraq is arguably the second-longest war in US history.

Mainstream media often refer to the 18-year US occupation of Afghanistan as “America’s longest war.” That claim is wrong on its face.

Setting aside a century of “Indian wars” and two decades of involvement in Vietnam prior to the 1965 escalation, the Korean War handily takes the “longest war” prize:  It began in 1950 and has merely been in ceasefire status, with occasional flare-ups and no final settlement, since 1953. If wars were people, the Korean War would be collecting Social Security.

The US war in Iraq is approaching its 28th birthday, also with no end in sight.

It began in January of 1991 with Operation Desert Storm (“the liberation of Kuwait” from Iraqi occupation). The 12 years between that “mother of all battles” and the 2003 US invasion were punctuated by US bombings to facilitate a Kurdish secession movement in the north,  protect persecuted Shiites in the south, and provide convenient distractions from assorted Clinton administration peccadilloes.

Following the short, sharp conventional fighting phase of the invasion, the war remained a very hot conflict — a combination of civil war and anti-occupation insurgency — for years following US president George W. Bush’s “mission accomplished” announcement in May of 2003.

A brief cooling period accompanied Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration, but by 2014 American troops (and “civilian contractors,” i.e mercenaries) were once again arriving to intervene in the new regime’s fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The airstrikes which sparked the current protests were carried out in response to a rocket attack on a regime military base in which one of the aforementioned American mercenaries was killed.

The bigger picture:

The US government is using Iraq as a staging area for its ongoing actions in Syria and against Iran (which it blames for this specific rocket attack and for its backing of militias in Iraq in general).

US president Donald Trump talks a good “let’s get out of all these stupid wars” game. But in actuality he has increased, and continues to increase, the size of US military deployments to, and the tempo of US military operations in, the Middle East and Central Asia.

Several thousand US troops remain in Iraq and the war looks likely to stretch into a fourth decade.

There is, of course, an alternative: Trump could put his money where his mouth is and begin withdrawing US troops from the region instead of continuing to pour American blood and treasure into a series of conflicts which should never have happened in the first place.

Peace on Earth? Maybe not. But the US going home and minding its own business would be a good start.

*

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

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

Featured image: US Stryker vehicle hit by a deeply buried improvised explosive device while conducting operations just south of the Shiek Hamed village in Iraq., 2007. Public domain.

Russian and Chinese warships joined Iran’s Navy and Revolutionary Guards vessels on Friday for four days’ worth of maritime exercises in the Gulf of Oman and the northern Indian Ocean, simulating search and rescue, anti-piracy and shooting drills.

The US Navy is concerned that the recent lull in hostilities with Iran following this summer’s string of escalatory actions in the form of tanker sabotage attacks, ship seizures and drone shootdowns may be repeated, Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly has said.

“I think they’re going to continue to perform provocative actions over there,” Modly said, speaking to Reuters on Friday. “And I think they’ll look at every opportunity they can to do that,” he added, without offering any more details.

“There’s nothing that suggests to me, short of a regime change there, that you have a different tone set from the leadership, that would suggest to me that they’re going to stop doing what they’ve been doing,” Modly explained.

The top Navy official also complained about how the US’s ‘response’ to Iran has forced it to take its eye off more serious adversaries, like China.

“As they start creating mischief over there…our reaction is we send an aircraft carrier over there for 10 months,” Modly said. “What does [the Iran deployment] do to our carrier readiness? It degrades readiness the longer it’s over there,” he complained.

Joint Drills

On Friday, units of the Iranian Navy and Revolutionary Guards were joined by Russian and Chinese warships for maritime security drills which Iranian officials said proved that their country could not be isolated. The drills, set to run until Monday, are the first of their kind for Iran since its 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted Friday that the drills made clear the three countries’ “broader commitment to secure vital waterways” amid US efforts to build a regional ‘maritime security coalition’ known as ‘Sentinel’. Tehran proposed a regional maritime coalition in September which excluded outsiders the US and

Tensions between the US and Iran have subsided in recent months, even though verbal back-and-forth threats and warnings have continued. Relations the two countries, which enjoyed a thaw toward the end of the Obama administration thanks to the Iran nuclear deal signed in 2015, worsened dramatically in May 2018 after the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from the agreement and slapped Iran with several rounds of energy and banking sanctions. In May 2019, Tehran began scaling back its commitment to the nuclear deal, citing its European signatories’ apparent inability to secure its interests. The country maintains, however, that it has no intention of pursuing weapons of mass destruction, saying such arms run counter to the country’s Islamic faith

Also in May, the US announced that it would be deploying a carrier strike group to the Middle East to counter an unspecified ‘Iranian threat’ against its interests in the region. This was followed by a series of sabotage attacks, tanker seizures and the shootdown of a $220 million US drone over the Strait of Hormuz in June, with tensions between the two countries escalating to the brink of war.

*

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.

In response to last Sunday’s terror-bombing strikes by Pentagon warplanes that killed over two dozen Kata’ib Hezbollah members of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, wounding many others, Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi called what happened “a dangerous aggravation which endangers the security of Iraq and the region.”

On Monday, Iraqi paramilitaries vowed to retaliate against what happened.

Iraq’s National Security Council denounced US aggression as a violation of the country’s sovereignty, vowing to “revise its relations” with the US.

Israel’s Netanyahu “congratulated” Pompeo on the mass slaughter and destruction incident.

Iran called it a “clear example of (US) terrorism.” Russia accused the Trump regime of “inflam(ing) the situation.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow wasn’t informed of the attacks in Iraq and Syria in advance — heightening regional tensions.

Anti-US public outrage followed. Hundreds of protesters in Baghdad broke into the US embassy compound in the heavily-fortified Green Zone.

According to AP News, they broke through the gate used by vehicles to enter the compound, smashed security cameras, and set a reception area ablaze.

An AP reporter on the scene said “flames (were) rising from inside the compound and at least three (armed) US soldiers were on the roof of the main embassy building…their guns pointed at the protesters,” adding:

“There was a fire at the reception area near the parking lot of the compound, but it was unclear what had caused it. A man on a loudspeaker urged the mob not to enter the compound.”

They came within 200 meters of the main building, tear gas used against them. A sign placed on a compound wall said: “America is an aggressor.”

Protesters chanted: “Down, Down USA!” “Death to America.” “Death to Israel.” Outside the US embassy, they hurled water and stones over its walls.

They raised Popular Mobilization Unit flags,” taunting embassy security staff, said AP.

They sprayed graffiti on walls and windows, supporting militia fighters.

“(H)undreds of angry protesters set up tents outside the embassy. As tempers rose, the mob set fire to three trailers used by security guards along the embassy wall,” said AP.

Iraqi soldiers and police sent to the scene “were forced back by the protesters who blocked their path.”

Things erupted after mourners held funerals for militia fighters killed in a Baghdad neighborhood.

There was no immediate State Department or Pentagon response to the US embassy compound breach.

According to Reuters, “(t)he US ambassador to Iraq and other staff were evacuated from their embassy in Baghdad for their safety on Tuesday, Iraqi officials said, as thousands of protesters and militia fighters outside the gate denounced US air strikes in Iraq.”

Video images showed large crowds of Iraqis in Baghdad marching peacefully in response to the Pentagon’s Sunday terror-bombing strikes.

Iraqi Asaib Ahl al-Haq militia leader Qais al-Khazali was quoted by Reuters, saying:

“Americans are unwanted in Iraq. They are a source of evil and we want them to leave.”

AFP News tweeted: “Several thousand protesters demonstrate(d) in front of the US embassy in Baghdad over US air strikes that killed more than two dozen paramilitary fighters at the weekend.”

Prime Minister Mahdi urged protesters to leave the US diplomatic compound and stay away, saying violence committed will be punished.

Sunday Pentagon aggression heightened tensions in Iraq, Syria and Iran more than already.

Likely retaliation by Iraqi militia fighters will probably be followed by further US aggression, risking greater hostilities in the war-torn region.

The only solution is ending US occupation of Iraq and Syria, along with its endless regional wars of aggression. The same goes for all its war theaters.

Sustained mass public anger is the only chance of achieving these objectives that won’t happen any time soon under the rosiest of scenarios.

Most important is what’s entirely absent — mass US anti-war protests nationwide.

There’s no sign of what’s vitally needed, public resistance for peace, equity and justice.

Warhawks Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bush/Cheney and Obama are gone, succeeded by warrior president Trump, fueling Washington’s addiction to endless wars of aggression against nonbelligerent nations threatening no one.

We have a choice. End them or risk eventual nuclear immolation by accident or design.

A Final Comment

An offensive NYT article headlined: “This Has Been the Best Year Ever,” saying:

“For humanity over all, life just keeps getting better.”

Citing advances in modern technology, etc., the Times ignored endless US wars of aggression.

Ongoing in multiple theaters, they’ve taken millions of lives post-9/11, no resolution of them in prospect.

In the US and West, neoliberal harshness created impoverished millions, living from paycheck to paycheck, struggling daily to get by, social justice in these countries eroding — on the chopping block for elimination.

It wasn’t always this way. I’m old enough to remember the interregnum of relative peace and stability from end of WW II in summer 1945 until US aggression on North Korea began in June 1950.

The US has been permanently at war since that time, the nation’s resources increasingly going for militarism, warmaking, corporate handouts, and tax cuts for the rich — while popular needs go begging.

On Tuesday, Trump falsely accused Iran of “orchestrating an attack on the US Embassy in Iraq,” adding:

“They will be held fully responsible.” Does he have another US war of aggression in mind?

If 2019 was “the best year ever,” heaven protect us from likely greater horrors ahead — especially if the Trump regime initiates hostilities against Iran.

*

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.

According to the Times of Israel, citing a Channel 13 report, Netanyahu “has made a final decision to ask the Knesset to grant him immunity from prosecution in three corruption cases and informed Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein in writing of his intention,” adding:

He’s “willing to face criminal prosecution, but only after he leaves political life.”

Edelstein’s office refuted the report, a spokesperson saying: “No request was made.”

Before yearend Tuesday evening local time, Netanyahu must formally request Knesset immunity or forgo the chance of getting it, a majority MK vote needed.

Indicted by Israeli attorney general Avichai Mandelblit, he’s charged with bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, serious offenses.

At a days earlier Hanukkah event, he turned truth on its head, saying: “Immunity isn’t against democracy (sic). Immunity is a cornerstone of democracy (sic).”

It’s a mute point in Israeli fantasy democracy, the real thing nonexistent in the apartheid state from inception.

Seeking Israeli High Court of Justice support for immunity from prosecution, Netanyahyu falsely equated Mandelblit’s indictment with interfering in “who can run the country and who can’t.”

Under Israeli law, it’s up to a special Knesset committee to decide if the body would vote up or down on immunity. It hasn’t been created as yearend approaches.

If March election results again fail to form a new government, disposition of charges against Netanyahu could be delayed months longer — unless Israel’s High Court rules on the issue.

Hard evidence shows he’s guilty of multiple counts. The longer justice is delayed, the longer it’s denied.

Israeli police and state prosecutors recommended Netanyahu be indicted. Mandleblit published detailed information on charges against him.

He’s hellbent to avoid prosecution that will likely convict and imprison him. He falsely called charges against him “rigged,” opposition elements conspiring against him (sic).

According to a new Channel 12 poll, 51% of Israelis oppose immunity. Only 33% support it.

According to Israeli Law Professor Suzie Navot, immunity is unlikely for bribery, fraud and breach of trust, only for minor offenses under Israeli law, explaining:

Immunity for Knesset members is “mainly to protect their freedom of speech, for instance, (regarding) offenses such as incitement, racism, support for terrorism, libel.”

“Israel doesn’t put MKs on trial for such offenses. That’s the core of immunity — to prevent MKs from being put on trial for things they say.”

“This is called functional immunity, which protects parliamentarians from prosecution for things they did in fulfilling their parliamentary work. This kind of immunity exists all over the Western world.”

Israeli law enacted in 1951 states:

“A Knesset member shall bear no criminal or civil responsibility, and shall be immune from any legal proceeding, in respect to a vote, an oral or written expression of opinion, or any other act, in and outside the Knesset, if such vote, expression of opinion or act, pertains to or is directed toward the carrying-out of his (or her) mandate as a member of the Knesset.”

The above does not apply to major charges Netanyahu faces.

Haaretz editors slammed him, saying he’s “exploiting his position in an attempt to evade justice.”

“He has dragged Israel into three election rounds only because he’s refused to” step down and face accountability, leaving the country in “political deadlock,” adding:

“Requesting immunity is a cowardly act by someone who has something to hide.”

“Parties colluding with such a request demonstrate their disdain toward the value of equality before the law and the rule of law.”

“That is why the coming election will revolve around this issue. Will Israel return to the path of normalcy, or will it give refuge to a prime minister trying to evade justice by using his immunity?”

Israel’s High Court is considering whether Netanyahu should step down as prime minister given serious charges against him.

He said neither Supreme Court justices or Israel’s attorney general should decide who serves as prime minister.

On Tuesday, the Jerusalem Post said Israel’s High Court delayed ruling on whether Netanyahu can remain prime minister, a morning session ending with no decision.

Based on what was discussed, it appeared the justices “prefer to stay out of the issue,” the broadsheet reported. A ruling up or down doesn’t appear imminent.

If after third-round March elections Netanyahu is still unable to gain majority 61-seat coalition support, what’s most likely based on previous election results, perhaps his ability to avoid prosecution and remain prime minister will be weakened or lost.

For now, things remain in limbo at yearend.

*

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 Shutterstock

On Saturday, January 4 the ANSWER Coalition, CODEPINK and others are calling on people from around the United States to organize local demonstrations to demand: NO MORE U.S. TROOPS TO IRAQ OR THE MIDDLE EAST! U.S. OUT OF IRAQ NOW! and NO WAR/NO SANCTIONS ON IRAN!

SIGN ON AS AN ENDORSER HERE!

In response to the massive protests in Iraq following the latest U.S. aerial assault that killed scores of Iraqis, Donald Trump has ordered 750 more U.S. troops to the Middle East and potentially 3,000 more. This is in addition to the 5,200 U.S. troops already stationed in Iraq. Every U.S. president over the last 28 years has ordered the bombing of Iraq. The decision by Donald Trump and the Pentagon to launch new air assaults against Iraqis in the past week ignited nationwide resistance by Iraqis who want to reclaim their full sovereignty and do not want Iraq to be used in a U.S. war on Iran.

More than a million Iraqis have died during the past 28 years as a consequence of U.S. occupation, bombings and sanctions. Tens of thousands of U.S. troops have either been killed or suffered life-changing wounds. The U.S. government has spent more than $3 trillion dollars in the on-going occupation and bombing of this oil-rich country. Instead of taking the United States out of this endless war, Trump is building up U.S. forces in the region and threatening a war with Iran.

Initiators for this call include the ANSWER Coalition, CODEPINK, Popular Resistance, World Beyond War and many other anti-war and peace organizations. If you want to add your name as an endorser click here.

To find an event near you or to have an event listed click here!

Demonstrations will also take place on Saturday, January 4 in the following cities.

• The White House – Washington D.C.
  12noon at the White House
• Albuquerque, NM 
  2pm at Kirtland Airforce Base, San Mateo and Gibson Blvd
  Initiated by ANSWER Albuquerque
• Chicago, IL 
  12noon at Trump Tower
  Initiated by ANSWER Chicago
• Los Angeles, CA 
  1pm at Pershing Square
  Initiated by ANSWER LA
• New York City, NY 
  11am at Time Square
  Initiated by ANSWER New York
• San Francisco, CA 
  12noon at Powell and Market
  Initiated by ANSWER San Francisco
  
  
• Arlington, MA 
  12noon at Broadway Plaza, Mass. Ave. and Medford St
  Initiated by Arlington United for Justice with Peace (AUJP)
• Seattle, WA
  2pm at Westlake Park
  Initiated by ANSWER Seattle
• Atlanta, GA
  3pm at Little Five Points
  Initiated by ANSWER Atlanta
• Denver, CO
  Event details to be announced
  Initiated by ANSWER Denver

Further details for each city will be released soon and more cities will be announced. To find an event near you or to have an event listed click here!

*

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

Featured image is from Oxfam International

“I would take away their wealth, I would take away their oil. Just take all the wealth.

You heard me. I will take the oil.”

A compilation video of Donald Trump quotes about ‘taking Iraqi oil’ by Abizaid N. Alqassier published on Arabic language social media in November 2016. The statements were made during Trump’s election campaign. 

“It is likely that such a Trump desire to ‘take Iraq’s oil’ repeated over and over before Trump became President, and now repeated the day after his inauguration, could easily inspire some Iraqis to target the 5,000 US troops currently in Iraq if Iraqis believe that the new US President is serious about taking their oil.”

This “ideology” justifying “stealing the oil” is now being applied to Syria.

And the mainstream media applauds.

Syria is now considering launching a lawsuit against the United States at the ICC, accusing the US of stealing Syrian oil.

In his 2019  “Urbi et Orbi” (to the city and the world) Christmas message Pope Francis  focussed on the “darkness in human hearts”: “There is darkness in economic, geopolitical and ecological conflicts, yet greater still is the light of Christ.” Pope Francis did not elaborate on the underlying causes of “darkness” nor did he acknowledge the crisis within the Catholic Church.  

In his 2018 Testimony, Archbishop Vigano describes the prevailing situation within the Church. He acknowledged that:

“Bishops and priests, abusing their authority, have committed horrendous crimes to the detriment of their faithful, minors, innocent victims, and young men eager to offer their lives to the Church, or by their silence have not prevented that such crimes continue to be perpetrated. … We must have the courage to tear down the culture of secrecy and publicly confess the truths we have kept hidden.”

Archbishop Vigano’s statements (which remain to be fully corroborated) directed against Pope Francis pertain to a pattern of alleged abuse (including pedophilia) committed within the Catholic Church to which Pope Francis had casually “turned a blind eye”.

But there is “More than Meets the Eye”.  Who Was Jorge Mario Bergoglio before he became Pope? 

Prior to his election by the papal conclave, the role of Jorge Maria Bergoglio in Argentina’s “Dirty War” was known and documented.  It was known to the US State Department. It must have been known to one or more of the 115 “Cardinal Electors” of the Papal Conclave which convened at the Sistine Chapel on March 12, 2013. Needless to say, both the Catholic Hierarchy and the international community turned a blind eye. And the media through “omission” has remained silent.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio not only supported the military dictatorship, he also played a direct and complicit role in the “Dirty War” (la guerra sucia”) in liaison with the military Junta headed by General Jorge Videla, leading to the arrest, imprisonment, torture and disappearance of progressive Catholic priests and laymen who were opposed to Argentina’s military rule.

“While the two priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio, kidnapped by the death squads in May 1976 were released five months later. after having been tortured, six other people associated within their parish kidnapped as part of the same operation were “disappeared” (desaparecidos).”

In a bitter irony, the two priests sent to the torture chamber were committed to the Theology of Liberation against which Bergoglio at the time was firmly opposed.

Lest we forget, shortly after his investiture in March 2013,  Pope Francis was described by the British media of having brought “Liberation Theology into the Vatican”, in the footsteps of Francis of Assisi.

That was a nonsensical statement (“fake news”): In 1976, Bergoglio’s intent (in liaison with the military junta) was to crush Liberation Theology.

In 2005, human rights lawyer Myriam Bregman filed a criminal suit against Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, accusing him of conspiring with the military junta in the 1976 kidnapping of two Jesuit priests.

Several years later, the survivors of the “Dirty War” openly accused Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of complicity in the kidnapping of  priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio as well six members of their parish (who were disappeared),  (El Mundo, 8 November 2010)

(Image Left: Jorge Mario Bergoglio and General Jorge Videla)

All this was known prior to his investiture. Why was it not revealed to the broader public? Catholics around the World are totally unaware of  “Who Was Pope Francis I”, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

The following article was first written in March 2013  following the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis I by the Vatican conclave. Minor edits were added in May 2013.

“Washington’s Pope”? Who is Pope Francis I? Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Argentina’s “Dirty War”

by Michel Chossudovsky

March 14, 2013

The Vatican conclave has elected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis I

Who is Jorge Mario Bergoglio? 

In 1973, he had been appointed “Provincial” of Argentina for the Society of Jesus.

In this capacity, Bergoglio was the highest ranking Jesuit in Argentina during the military dictatorship led by General Jorge Videla (1976-1983).

He later became bishop and archbishop of Buenos Aires. Pope John Paul II elevated him to the title of cardinal in 2001

When the military junta relinquished power in 1983, the duly elected president Raúl Alfonsín set up a Truth Commission pertaining to the crimes underlying the “Dirty War” (La Guerra Sucia).

The military junta had been supported covertly by Washington.

US. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger played a behind the scenes role in the 1976 military coup.

Kissinger’s top deputy on Latin America, William Rogers, told him two days after the coup that “we’ve got to expect a fair amount of repression, probably a good deal of blood, in Argentina before too long.” … (National Security Archive, March 23, 2006)

“Operation Condor”

Ironically, a major trial opened up in Buenos Aires on March 5, 2013 a week prior to Cardinal Bergoglio’s investiture as Pontiff. The ongoing trial in Buenos Aires is: “to consider the totality of crimes carried out under Operation Condor, a coordinated campaign by various US-backed Latin American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s to hunt down, torture and murder tens of thousands of opponents of those regimes.”

The military junta led by General Jorge Videla (left) was responsible for countless assassinations, including priests and nuns who opposed military rule following the CIA sponsored March 24, 1976 coup which overthrew the government of Isabel Peron:

 “Videla was among the generals convicted of human rights crimes, including “disappearances”, torture, murders and kidnappings. In 1985, Videla was sentenced to life imprisonment at the military prison of Magdalena.”

Wall Street and the Neoliberal Economic Agenda

One of the key appointments of the military junta (on the instructions of Wall Street) was the Minister of Economy, Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz, a member of Argentina’s business establishment and a close friend of David Rockefeller.

The neoliberal macro-economic policy package adopted under Martinez de Hoz was a “carbon copy” of that imposed in October 1973 in Chile by the Pinochet dictatorship under advice from the  “Chicago Boys”, following the September 11, 1973 coup d’Etat and the assassination of president Salvador Allende.

Wages were immediately frozen by decree. Real purchasing power collapsed by more than 30 percent in the 3 months following the March 24, 1976 military coup. (Author’s estimates, Cordoba, Argentina, July 1976). The Argentinean population was impoverished.

Under the helm of Minister of Economy Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz, central bank monetary policy was largely determined by Wall Street and the IMF. The currency market was manipulated. The Peso was deliberately overvalued leading to an insurmountable external debt. The entire national economy was precipitated into bankruptcy.

(See Image right: From left to right: Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz, David Rockefeller and General Jorge Videla)

Wall Street and the Catholic Church Hierarchy

Wall Street was firmly behind the military Junta which waged “The Dirty War” on its behalf. In turn, the Catholic Church hierarchy played a central role in sustaining the legitimacy of the military Junta.

The Order of Jesus –which represented the Conservative yet most influential faction within the Catholic Church, closely associated with Argentina’s economic elites– was firmly behind the military Junta, against so-called “Leftists” in the Peronista movement.

“The Dirty War”: Allegations directed Against Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio

Condemning the military dictatorship (including its human rights violations) was a taboo within the Catholic Church.  While the upper echelons of the Church were supportive of the military Junta, the grassroots of the Church was firmly opposed to the imposition of military rule.

In 2005, human rights lawyer Myriam Bregman filed a criminal suit against Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, accusing him of conspiring with the military junta in the 1976 kidnapping of two Jesuit priests.

Several years later, the survivors of the “Dirty War” openly accused Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of complicity in the kidnapping of  priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio as well six members of their parish,  (El Mundo, 8 November 2010)

(Image right: Jorge Mario Bergoglio and General Jorge Videla)

Bergoglio, who at the time was “Provincial” for the Society of Jesus, had ordered the two “Leftist” Jesuit priests and opponents of military rule  “to leave their pastoral work” (i.e. they were fired) following divisions within the Society of Jesus regarding the role of the Catholic Church and its relations to the military Junta.

While the two priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio, kidnapped by the death squads in May 1976 were released five months later. after having been tortured, six other people associated with their parish kidnapped as part of the same operation were “disappeared” (desaparecidos). These included four teachers associated with the parish and two of their husbands.

Upon his release, Priest Orlando Yorio “accused Bergoglio of effectively handing them over [including six other people] to the death squads … Jalics refused to discuss the complaint after moving into seclusion in a German monastery.” (Associated Press, March 13, 2013, emphasis added),

“During the first trial of leaders of the military junta in 1985, Yorio declared, “I am sure that he himself gave over the list with our names to the Navy.” The two were taken to the notorious Navy School of Mechanics (ESMA) torture center and held for over five months before being drugged and dumped in a town outside the city. (See Bill van Auken, “The Dirty War” Pope, World Socialist Website and Global Research, March 14, 2013

Among those “disappeared” by the death squads were Mónica Candelaria Mignone and María Marta Vázquez Ocampo, respectively daughter of the founder of of the CELS (Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales) Emilio Mignone and daughter of the president of Madres de Plaza de Mayo, Martha Ocampo de Vázquez. (El Periodista Online, March 2013).

María Marta Vásquez, her husband César Lugones (see picture right) and Mónica Candelaria Mignone allegedly “handed over to the death squads” by Jesuit “Provincial” Jorge Mario Bergoglio are among the thousands of “desaparecidos” (disappeared) of Argentina’s “Dirty War”, which was supported covertly by Washington under “Operation Condor”. (See memorialmagro.com.ar)

In the course of the trial initiated in 2005:

“Bergoglio [Pope Francis I] twice invoked his right under Argentine law to refuse to appear in open court, and when he eventually did testify in 2010, his answers were evasive”: “At least two cases directly involved Bergoglio. One examined the torture of two of his Jesuit priests — Orlando Yorio and Francisco Jalics — who were kidnapped in 1976 from the slums where they advocated liberation theology. Yorio accused Bergoglio of effectively handing them over to the death squads... by declining to tell the regime that he endorsed their work. Jalics refused to discuss it after moving into seclusion in a German monastery.” (Los Angeles Times, April 1, 2005 emphasis added)

The Secret Memorandum

The military government acknowledged in a Secret Memo (see below) that Father Bergoglio had accused the two priests of having established contacts with the guerilleros, and for having disobeyed the orders of the Church hierarchy (Conflictos de obedecencia). It also stated that the Jesuit order had demanded the dissolution of  their group and that they had refused to abide by Bergoglio’s instructions.

The document acknowledges that the “arrest” of the two priests, who were taken to the torture and detention center at the Naval School of Mechanics, ESMA, was based on information transmitted by Father Bergoglio to the military authorities. (signed by Mr. Orcoyen)

(see below).

While a former member of  the priests group had joined the insurgency, there was no evidence of the priests having contacts with the guerrilla movement.

“Holy Communion for the Dictators” 

The accusations directed against Bergoglio regarding the two kidnapped Jesuit priests and six members of their parish are but the tip of the iceberg. While Bergoglio was an important figure in the Catholic Church,  he was certainly not alone in supporting the Military Junta.

According to lawyer Myriam Bregman:  “Bergoglio’s own statements proved church officials knew from early on that the junta was torturing and killing its citizens”, and yet publicly endorsed the dictators. “The dictatorship could not have operated this way without this key support,” (Los Angeles Times, April 1, 2005 emphasis added)

(Image right: General Jorge Videla takes communion. Date and name of priest unconfirmed)

The entire Catholic hierarchy was behind the US sponsored military dictatorship.  It is worth recalling that on March 23, 1976, on the eve of the military coup:

“Videla and other plotters received the blessing of the Archbishop of Paraná, Adolfo Tortolo, who also served as vicar of the armed forces. The day of the takeover itself, the military leaders had a lengthy meeting with the leaders of the bishop’s conference. As he emerged from that meeting, Archbishop Tortolo stated that although “the church has its own specific mission . . . there are circumstances in which it cannot refrain from participating even when it is a matter of problems related to the specific order of the state.” He urged Argentinians to “cooperate in a positive way” with the new government.” (The Humanist.org, January 2011, emphasis added)

In an interview conducted with El Sur, General Jorge Videla, who is now [passed away in May 2013] serving a life sentence for crimes against humanity confirmed that:

“He kept the country’s Catholic hierarchy informed about his regime’s policy of “disappearing” political opponents, and that Catholic leaders offered advice on how to “manage” the policy. 

Jorge Videla said he had “many conversations” with Argentina’s primate, Cardinal Raúl Francisco Primatesta, about his regime’s dirty war against left-wing activists. He said there were also conversations with other leading bishops from Argentina’s episcopal conference as well as with the country’s papal nuncio at the time, Pio Laghi.

“They advised us about the manner in which to deal with the situation,” said Videla” (Tom Henningan, Former Argentinian dictator says he told Catholic Church of disappeared,  Irish Times, July 24, 2012, emphasis added)

It is worth noting that according to a 1976 statement by Archbishop Adolfo Tortolo, the military would always consult with a member of the Catholic hierarchy in the case of the “arrest” of a grassroots member of  the clergy. This statement was made specifically in relation to the two kidnapped Jesuit priests, whose pastoral activities were under the authority of Society of Jesus “provincial” Jorge Mario Bergoglio. (El Periodista Online, March 2013).

In endorsing the military Junta, the Catholic hierarchy was complicit in torture and mass killings, an estimated “22,000 dead and disappeared, from 1976 to  1978  … Thousands of additional victims were killed between 1978 and 1983 when the military was forced from power.” (National Security Archive, March 23, 2006).

The Role of the Vatican

The Vatican under Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II played a central  role in supporting the Argentinian military Junta.

Pio Laghi, the Vatican’s apostolic nuncio to Argentina admitted “turning a blind eye” to the torture and massacres.

Laghi had personal ties to members of the ruling military junta including  General Jorge Videla and Admiral Emilio Eduardo Massera.

(See image left. Vatican’s Nuncio Pio Laghi and General Jorge Videla)

Admiral Emilio Massera in close liaison with his US handlers, was the mastermind of “La Guerra Sucia” (The Dirty War). Under the auspices of the military regime, he established:

“an interrogation and torture centre in the Naval School of Mechanics, ESMA [close to Buenos Aires], … It was a sophisticated, multi-purpose establishment, vital in the military plan to assassinate an estimated 30,000 “enemies of the state”. …  Many thousands of ESMA’s inmates, including, for instance, two French nuns, were routinely tortured mercilessly before being killed or dropped from aircraft into the River Plata.

Massera, the most forceful member of the triumvirate, did his best to maintain his links with Washington. He assisted in the development of Plan Cóndor, a collaborative scheme to co-ordinate the terrorism being practised by South American military régimes. (Hugh O’Shaughnessy, Admiral Emilio Massera: Naval officer who took part in the 1976 coup in Argentina and was later jailed for his part in the junta’s crimes, The Independent, November 10, 2010, emphasis added)

Reports confirm that the Vatican’s representative Pio Laghi and Admiral Emilio Massera were friends.

(right: Admiral Emilio Massera, architect of “The Dirty War” received by Pope Paul VI at the Vatican)

The Catholic Church: Chile versus Argentina

It is worth noting that  in the wake of the military coup in Chile on September 11,1973, the Cardinal of Santiago de Chile, Raul Silva Henriquez openly condemned the military junta led by General Augusto Pinochet. In marked contrast to Argentina, this stance of the Catholic hierarchy in Chile was instrumental in curbing the tide of political assassinations and human rights violations directed against supporters of Salvador Allende  and opponents of the military regime.

The man behind the interfaith Comité Pro-Paz was Cardinal Raúl Silva Henríquez. Shortly after the coup, Silva, … stepped into the role of “upstander,”a term the author and activist Samantha Power coined to distinguish people who stand up to injustice—often at great personal risk—from “bystanders.”

… Soon after the coup, Silva and other church leaders published a declaration condemning and expressing sorrow for the bloodshed. This was a fundamental turning point for many members of the Chilean clergy… The cardinal visited the National Stadium and, shocked by the scale of the government crackdown, instructed his aides to begin collecting information from the thousands flocking to the church for refuge.

Silva’s actions led to an open conflict with Pinochet, who did not hesitate to threaten the church and the Comité  Pro-Paz. (Taking a Stand Against Pinochet: The Catholic Church and the Disappeared pdf)

Had the Catholic hierarchy in Argentina  and Jorge Mario Bergoglio taken a similar stance to that of Cardinal Raul Silva Henriquez, thousands of lives would have been saved.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was not, in the words of Samantha Power, a “bystander”. He was complicit in extensive crimes against humanity.

Neither is Pope Francis “a Man of the People” committed to “helping the poor” in the footsteps of Saint Francis of Assisi, as portrayed in chorus by the Western media mantra. Quite the opposite: his endeavors under the military Junta, consistently targeted progressive members of the Catholic clergy as well as committed human rights activists involved in grassroots anti-poverty programs.

In supporting Argentina’s “Dirty War”, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has blatantly violated the very tenets of Christian morality which cherish  the value of human life.  Author’s message to Pope Francis: “Thou shalt not kill”

“Operation Condor” and the Catholic Church

The election of Cardinal Bergoglio by the Vatican conclave to serve as Pope Francis I will have immediate repercussions regarding the ongoing “Operation Condor” Trial in Buenos Aires.

The Church was involved in supporting the military Junta.  This is something which will emerge in the course of the trial proceedings.  No doubt, there will be attempts to obfuscate the role of the Catholic hierarchy and the newly appointed Pope Francis I,  who served as head of Argentina’s Jesuit order during the military dictatorship.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio:  “Washington’s Pope in the Vatican”? 

The election of Pope Francis I has broad geopolitical implications for the entire Latin American  region.

In the 1970s, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was supportive of a US sponsored military dictatorship.

The Catholic hierarchy in Argentina supported the military government. The Junta’s program of torture, assassinations and ‘disappearances” of thousands of political opponents was coordinated and supported by Washington under the CIA’s “Operation Condor”.

Wall Street’s interests were sustained through Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz’ office at the Ministry of Economy.

The Catholic Church in Latin America is politically influential. It also has a grip on public opinion. This is known and understood by the architects of US foreign policy as well as US intelligence.

In Latin America, where a number of governments are now challenging US hegemony, one would expect –given Bergoglio’s track record–  that the new Pontiff Francis I as leader of the Catholic Church, will play de facto, a discrete “undercover” political role on behalf of Washington.

With Jorge Bergoglio, Pope Francis I  in the Vatican –who faithfully served US interests in the heyday of General Jorge Videla and Admiral Emilio Massera–  the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Latin America can once again be effectively manipulated to undermine “progressive” (Leftist) governments, not only in Argentina (in relation to the government of Cristina Kirschner) but throughout the entire region, including Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.

The instatement of  “a pro-US pope” occurred a week following the death of  president Hugo Chavez.

“Regime Change” at the Vatican

The US State Department routinely pressures members of the United Nations Security Council with a view to influencing the vote pertaining to Security Council resolutions.

US covert operations and propaganda campaigns are routinely applied with a view to influencing national elections in different countries around the World.

Similarly, the CIA has a longstanding covert relationship with the Vatican.

Did the US government attempt to influence the outcome of the election of the new pontiff?

Firmly committed to serving US foreign policy interests in Latin America, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was Washington’s preferred candidate.

Were undercover pressures discretely exerted by Washington, within the Catholic Church, directly or indirectly, on the 115 cardinals who are members of the Vatican conclave?

Who is Pope Francis I, Interview of Michel Chossudovsky with Bonnie Faulkner, Guns and Butter, KPFA Pacifica

Global Research TV (GRTV) Interview with Michel Chossudovsky

Author’s Note

From the outset of the military regime in 1976, I was Visiting Professor at the Social Policy Institute of the Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, Argentina. My major research focus at the time was to investigate the social impacts of the deadly macroeconomic reforms adopted by the military Junta. 

I was teaching at the University of Cordoba during the initial wave of assassinations which also targeted progressive grassroots members of the Catholic clergy.

The Northern industrial city of Cordoba was the center of the resistance movement. I witnessed how the Catholic hierarchy actively and routinely supported the military junta, creating an atmosphere of  intimidation and fear throughout the country. The general feeling at the time was that Argentinians had been betrayed by the upper echelons of the Catholic Church.

Three years earlier, at the time of Chile’s September 11, 1973 military coup, leading to the overthrow of the Popular Unity government of Salvador Allende,  I was Visiting Professor at the Institute of Economics, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago de Chile.

In the immediate wake of the coup in Chile,  I witnessed how the Cardinal of Santiago, Raul Silva Henriquez –acting on behalf of the Catholic Church– courageously confronted the military dictatorship of general Augusto Pinochet.

First published in January 2016

***

Trees are a very important part of world culture and have been at the centre of ideological conflict for hundreds of years. Over this time they have taken the form of Sacred trees, Christmas trees and New Year trees.

In the current debates over climate change, trees have an immensely important role to play on material and symbolical levels both now and in the future. With the rising awareness of climate change, climate resilience i.e. the ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change, has become the focus of groups from local community action to global treaties. The planting of trees is an important action that everyone from the local to the global can engage in. Trees act as carbon stores and carbon sinks, and on a cultural level they have been used to represent nature itself the world over.

As symbols, trees have been imbued with different meanings over time and I suggest here that they should continue to hold that central role as a prime symbol of our respect for nature, and not just at Christmas time but the whole year round in the form of a central community tree for adults and children alike. In an uncertain future, the absolute necessity of developing a society that harks back to much earlier forms of engagement with nature in a sustainable way will have to have a focal point. Trees as important symbols of our respect for nature have a long and elemental past.

The Tree of Life

From earliest times trees have had a profound effect on the human psyche:

“Human beings, observing the growth and death of trees, and the annual death and revival of their foliage, have often seen them as powerful symbols of growth, death and rebirth. Evergreen trees, which largely stay green throughout these cycles, are sometimes considered symbols of the eternal, immortality or fertility. The image of the Tree of life or world tree occurs in many mythologies.”

In Norse mythology the tree Yggdrasil, “with its branches reaching up into the sky, and roots deep into the earth, can be seen to dwell in three worlds – a link between heaven, the earth, and the underworld, uniting above and below. This great tree acts as an Axis mundi, supporting or holding up the cosmos, and providing a link between the heavens, earth and underworld.”

Yggdrasil, the World Ash (Norse)

Sacred Trees

However, both Christianity and Islam treated the worship of trees as idolatry and this led to sacred trees being destroyed in Europe and most of West Asia. An early representation of the ideological conflict between paganism (polytheistic beliefs) and Christianity (resulting in the cutting down of a sacred tree) can be seen in the manuscript illumination (illustration) of Saint Stephan of Perm cutting down a birch tree sacred to the Komi people as part of his proselytizing among them in the years after 1383.

Stefan of Perm takes an axe to a birch hung with pelts and cloths that is sacred to the Komi of Great Perm (a medieval Komi state in what is now the Perm Krai of the Russian Federation.)

Christian missionaries targeted sacred groves and sacred trees during the Christianization of the Germanic peoples. According to the 8th century Vita Bonifatii auctore Willibaldi, the Anglo-Saxon missionary Saint Boniface and his retinue cut down Donar’s Oak (a sacred tree of the Germanic pagans) earlier the same century and then used the wood to build a church.

“Bonifacius” (1905) by Emil Doepler. 

Christmas Trees

Over time the pagan world tree became christened as a Christmas tree. It was believed that evil influences were warded off by fir or spruce branches and “between December 25 and January 6, when evil spirits were feared most, green branches were hung, candles lit – and all these things were used as a means of defense. Later on, the treesthemselves were used for the same purpose; and candles were hung on them. The church retained these old customs, and gave them a new meaning as a symbol of Christ.’(p20) While there are records of this practice dating from 1604 of a decorated fir tree in Strasbourg, it was in Germany that the Christmas tree took hold in the early 19th century. It then “became popular among the nobility and spread to royal courts as far as Russia.”

 Father and son with their dog collecting a tree in the forest, painting by Franz Krüger (1797–1857) 

The Russian Revolution

In Russia the tradition of installing and decorating a Yolka (tr: spruce tree) for Christmas was very popular but fell into disfavor (as a  tradition originating in Germany – Russia’s enemy during World War I) and was subsequently banned by the Synod in 1916. After the Russian Revolution in 1917 Christmas celebrations and other religious holidays were prohibited under the Marxist-Leninist policy of state atheism in the Soviet Union.

A 1931 edition of the Soviet magazine Bezbozhnik, distributed by the League of Militant Atheists, depicting an Orthodox Christian priest being forbidden to cut down a tree for Christmas

New Year’s trees

Although the Christmas tree was banned people continued the tradition with New Year trees which eventually gained acceptance in 1935: “The New Year tree was encouraged in the USSR after the famous letter by Pavel Postyshev, published in Pravda on 28 December 1935, in which he asked for trees to be installed in schools, children’s homes, Young Pioneer Palaces, children’s clubs, children’s theaters and cinemas.” They remain an essential part of the Russian New Year traditions when Grandfather Frost, like Santa Claus, brings presents for children to put under the tree or to distribute them directly to the children on New Year’s morning performances.

Trees in public places

In many public places around the world Christmas trees are displayed prominently since the early 20th century. The lighting up of the tree has become a public event signaling the beginning of the Christmas season. This is now usual even in small towns whereby a large fir is chopped down and displayed prominently in a central part of the town or village. While fir trees are now grown expressly for sale and display, in the past the cutting down of whole trees (maien or meyen) was forbidden: “Because of the pagan origin, and the depletion of the forest, there were numerous regulations that forbid, or put restrictions on, the cutting down of fir greens throughout the Christmas season.”(p20)

Bringing Home the Tree by Norman Rockwell. 12/18/1920.

Not cutting down trees

However if we look at the origins of sacred trees the important point was that they were not to be cut down, as respect for nature took precedence. The cutting down and destruction of so many trees today has become an important part in the commercialization of Christmas. However, growing a tree in the centre of villages, towns and cities as the focal point of our relationship with nature could be a year round celebration for adults and children and another aspect of the call for climate resilience policies the world over. The tree could then be decorated at Christmas or New Year. The decorations can be removed from the tree afterwards, allowing it to become a focal point for other festivities throughout the year. The educational value of this strategy for children would also be as an object lesson in the importance of sustainability and conservation.

Celebrating nature by chopping down the material reality of nature in the form of a tree every year is a contradiction in terms and could be remedied by encouraging people to grow trees or buying potted fir trees instead. Our ancestors from all over the world knew the importance of the balance of nature and tried to keep that balance through rites and prayers before the sacred trees. Now, in an era of climate change, rapidly becoming climate chaos, it is incumbent on us more than ever to develop a new appreciation and respect for nature and especially for trees as a primary symbol of that relationship.

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist who has exhibited widely around Ireland. His work consists of paintings based on cityscapes of Dublin, Irish history and geopolitical themes. His critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country on his blog.

«Cinquanta testate nucleari sarebbero pronte a traslocare dalla base turca di Incirlik, in Anatolia, alla base Usaf di Aviano, in Friuli Venezia Giulia, in quanto gli Usa diffiderebbero sempre più della fedeltà alla Nato del presidente turco Erdogan»: lo riporta l’Ansa citando quanto dichiarato dal generale a riposo Chuck Wald della US Air Force in una intervista all’agenzia Bloomberg il 16 novembre. Il fatto che l’Ansa e alcuni giornali ne parlino, anche se in ritardo, è comunque positivo. Ciò conferma quanto documenta da tempo il manifesto. «Appare probabile – scrivevamo il 22 ottobre (ma l’Ansa allora ignorò la notizia) – che, tra le opzioni considerate a Washington, vi sia quella del trasferimento delle armi nucleari Usa dalla Turchia in un altro paese più affidabile. Secondo l’autorevole Bollettino degli Scienziati Atomici (Usa), la base aerea di Aviano può essere la migliore opzione europea dal punto di vista politico, ma probabilmente non ha abbastanza spazio per ricevere tutte le armi nucleari di Incirlik. Lo spazio si potrebbe però ricavare, dato che ad Aviano sono già iniziati lavori di ristrutturazione per accogliere le bombe nucleari B61-12».

In base a quanto riportato dall’Ansa il coordinatore nazionale dei Verdi, Angelo Bonelli, chiede al governo se conferma la notizia e di portare immediatamente il problema alla valutazione del parlamento, poiché l’Italia verrebbe «trasformata nel maggiore deposito di armi nucleari d’Europa e questo silenzio del governo italiano è inaccettabile». Il governo intanto fa sapere che «la notizia è priva di fondamento». Non spiega però perché i maggiori esperti Usa di armi nucleari ritengano la base di Aviano «la migliore opzione europea dal punto di vista politico» per il trasferimento delle bombe da Incirlik. Il governo continua quindi a tacere e lo stesso fa il parlamento, perché la questione delle armi nucleari Usa in Italia è tabù. Sollevarla vorrebbe dire mettere in discussione il rapporto di sudditanza dell’Italia nei confronti degli Stati uniti.

L’Italia continua così ad essere base avanzata delle forze nucleari Usa. Secondo le ultime stime della Federazione degli scienziati americani, in ciascuna delle due basi italiane e in quelle in Germania, Belgio e Paesi Bassi vi sarebbero attualmente 20 B-61, per un totale di 100 più 50 a Incirlik in Turchia. Nessuno però può verificare quante siano in realtà. Dalle stime risulta che gli Usa stiano diminuendo il loro numero, fatto tutt’altro che tranquillizzante. Essi si preparano infatti a sostituirle con le nuove bombe nucleari B61-12. A differenza della B61 sganciata in verticale, la B61-12 si dirige verso l’obiettivo guidata da un sistema satellitare ed ha inoltre la capacità di penetrare nel sottosuolo, esplodendo in profondità per distruggere i bunker dei centri di comando. Il programma del Pentagono prevede la costruzione a partire dal 2021 di 500 B61-12, con un costo di circa 10 miliardi di dollari. Non si sa quante B61-12 verranno schierate in Italia né in quali basi, probabilmente non solo ad Aviano e Ghedi. Come risulta dallo stesso bando di progettazione pubblicato dal ministero della Difesa, i nuovi hangar di Ghedi potranno ospitare 30 caccia F-35 con 60 bombe nucleari B61-12, il triplo delle attuali B-61 (il manifesto, 28 novembre 2017).

Allo stesso tempo, gli Usa si preparano a schierare in Italia e altri paesi europei missili nucleari a gittata intermedia (tra 500 e 5500 km) con base a terra, analoghi agli euromissili eliminati dal Trattato Inf firmato nel 1987 da Usa e Urss. Accusando la Russia (senza alcuna prova) di averlo violato, gli Usa si sono ritirati dal Trattato, cominciando a costruire missili della categoria prima proibita: il 18 agosto hanno testato un nuovo missile da crociera e il 12 dicembre un nuovo missile balistico, quest’ultimo in grado di raggiungere l’obiettivo in pochi minuti. Contemporaneamente stanno rafforzando lo «scudo anti-missili» sull’Europa. Nella sua «risposta asimmetrica» la Russia comincia a schierare missili ipersonici che, in grado di raggiungere una velocità di 33.000 km/h e di manovrare, possono forare qualsiasi «scudo».

La situazione in cui ci troviamo è quindi molto più pericolosa di quanto dimostri la già allarmante notizia del probabile trasferimento delle bombe nucleari Usa da Incirlik ad Aviano. In tale situazione domina il silenzio imposto dal vasto schieramento politico bipartisan responsabile del fatto che l’Italia, paese non-nucleare, ospiti e sia preparata a usare armi nucleari, violando il Trattato di non-proliferazione che ha ratificato. Responsabilità resa ancora più grave dal fatto che l’Italia, quale membro della Nato, si rifiuta di aderire al Trattato sulla proibizione delle armi nucleari votato a grande maggioranza dall’Assemblea Generale delle Nazioni Unite.

Manlio Dinucci

Dear Readers,

As we’re sure most of you will agree, 2019 has been a tough year for a lot of people for many different reasons. Undeniably, this has been another year of crisis, characterized by the plight of war, economic dislocation and environmental degradation to name but a few.

We still believe that access to information is a key element in understanding and navigating the world today. Every day of 2019 we have provided you with articles that report, break down and analyze the pressing issues of our times by authors from all over the globe.

We have kept access to the site free of charge so as to get the articles to as many people as possible. Global Research also remains fully independent by not accepting money from public or private foundations. As the internet becomes a less friendly space for independent media, we have seen our revenue from advertising and book sales drop dramatically over the past year.

We really will need a big boost in donations and membership subscriptions from our readership if we are to make it through 2020 and beyond. We would not be here without your support. We wish you and your loved ones Peace for the New Year.

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

Thank you for your support!

With kind regards from the staff, writers and countless volunteers of The Centre for Research on Globalization

On Friday, the New York Times published leaked videos and photos documenting US war crimes in Iraq. The material included a photo of a dozen US Special Operations soldiers posing with the corpse of a teenager they had just murdered.

Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher, holding up the teenager’s head as if he were a slaughtered deer, had moments before killed the injured and captive teenager by repeatedly stabbing him.

Gallagher was exonerated for the murder of the teenager by a military court and then pardoned by President Donald Trump for a string of other crimes that were part of a homicidal rampage during his deployment.

The photo and accompanying videos are reminiscent of the shocking 2004 photos of torture at the Abu Ghraib prison. But while 15 years ago the White House, Congress and the media made pronouncements deploring the depraved treatment of Iraqi prisoners—while suppressing the bulk of the incriminating photos and covering up for the masterminds of torture such as President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld—today the lead perpetrator of this war crime is praised as a “hero” by the American president.

The military brass and the Times object to Trump’s glorification of Gallagher in large part because it illuminates the fact that the mass murder and destruction carried out in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and other countries targeted by Washington are not the deeds of “bad apples,” but rather crimes of US imperialism.

In an appearance Sunday on ABC News’ “This Week” program, National Security Advisor Robert C. O’Brien defended Trump’s intervention in the Gallagher case.

“Ultimately, the president as commander in chief has said that he’s got the back of our men and women in uniform,” O’Brien said. “Look,” he continued, “it’s very troubling that we send folks out that have to make split-second decisions dealing with terrorists… And what the president has said is we’re going to stand behind our warriors.”

The Times report, based on a leak of internal Navy investigative materials, gives a grisly picture of the activities of Gallagher, one of a trio of war criminals who were pardoned by Trump in November.

Gallagher was not making a “split-second decision” when he used his hunting knife to execute a teenage prisoner. He escaped conviction on murder charges only after a dubious military trial in which a medic in his unit unexpectedly took responsibility for the death, after having been given immunity from prosecution. Gallagher was convicted only of posing for a photograph with the body of the victim, a trophy-taking action that is a crime under the Geneva Conventions.

Video recordings of interviews conducted during the investigation into Gallagher by the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) give a harrowing portrait of his war-zone conduct over a lengthy period. Hardened soldiers and veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan describe their former unit chief as “freaking evil,” “toxic” and “perfectly OK with killing anybody that was moving.” They recount Gallagher killing civilians, including children, and prisoners, culminating in the incident for which he was prosecuted.

The Times was given access to both investigative interviews and thousands of text messages exchanged by many of the 22 members of Alpha Platoon, Seal Team Seven. The scale of the leak demonstrates the widespread opposition within the military brass itself to Trump’s intervention to overturn any administrative punishment of Gallagher, a clear case of illegal “command influence” to rig the outcome of a military judicial proceeding.

Trump stepped in with an order on November 15 that pardoned two Army officers accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, Captain Matt Golsteyn and First Lieutenant Clint Lorance, as well as Gallagher, and reversed the decision of the Navy to penalize Gallagher, who has now retired, by reducing his rank and stripping him of his Seal pin. When Navy Secretary Richard Spencer objected to this interference in the military chain of command, Trump fired him.

Trump’s critics within the ruling elite particularly objected to his statement, in an October tweet announcing that he would review the three war crimes cases, “We train our boys to be killing machines, then prosecute them when they kill!”

They opposed this statement only because it is too bald an admission of the real role of the American military, particularly the tens of thousands of Special Forces troops like the Seals and the Army’s Delta Force, recruited and trained to be ruthless assassins. Prosecutions are extremely rare, and likely to be nonexistent going forward based on the precedent set by Trump.

Trump expects to enlist Gallagher, Golsteyn and Lorance in his reelection campaign. He paraded the war criminals at a campaign donors’ function this month, and Gallagher was photographed with Donald Trump Jr. at the Turning Point USA Student Action Conference, an assemblage of fascist-minded youth addressed by the president on December 21. This is part of his effort to base his reelection on appeals to the most violent and reactionary elements of the state apparatus, including the police, Border Patrol, and military Special Forces, and to fascistic elements and disoriented social layers within the electorate.

Gallagher and his wife Andrea also posed for photos with the president during the visit, and reportedly gave him a gift to express their appreciation for the pardon—a black-and-white flag of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) captured in Mosul, Iraq. The gift certainly symbolized the connection between the war criminal in chief, Donald Trump, and his accomplice and instrument, Gallagher. Mosul was targeted for nonstop bombardment by US artillery, rockets and warplanes, which reduced the city to rubble and killed tens of thousands of people.

Gallagher may be the personification of homicidal violence, an individual for whom killing became an obsession. But Trump took incalculably more innocent lives through his orders as “commander in chief” to destroy cities like Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria.

And Trump is not an aberration. He follows a long series of presidents who could and should have stood trial for war crimes. These include, to name only the most recent, the elder George Bush for the Persian Gulf War and the US invasions of Panama and Somalia; Bill Clinton for military intervention in the former Yugoslavia and bomb and missile attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan; Bush junior for the Iraq War and the invasion of Afghanistan; Barack Obama for continuing these wars and launching new attacks in Libya and Syria and drone warfare around the world.

Gallagher too is in no way exceptional. Crimes like his, and even worse, are the hallmark of all imperialist wars of conquest against impoverished and oppressed nations. From the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, to the atrocities at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, to the murder of 16 Afghan civilians by Sergeant Robert Bales in 2012, the US military has demonstrated its capacity for brutality and wanton violence.

These war crimes were carried out on a bipartisan basis, under Democratic and Republican presidents, supported and generally covered up by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. It is worth pointing out that the House Democrats have not impeached Trump for pardoning war criminals, let alone for ordering mass murder in Iraq and Syria, and in the ongoing drone warfare across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. They have chosen, instead, to impeach Trump for not sufficiently backing war crimes in Ukraine and undermining the longstanding US operation to arm Ukraine and turn it into a military spearhead against Russia.

*

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

This article was first published by Sott.net and Global Research in December 2016.

The simmering tit-for-tat has kept the issue of election meddling burning bright in the national spotlight, fueled even further by the belief among U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia wanted to help Donald Trump capture the presidency. Yet neither country is a stranger when it comes to directly trying to sway the election of other nations. In fact, the U.S. has a long and stunning history of attempting to influence foreign presidential elections, recent research by political scientist Dov Levin shows. 

Levin, a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie-Mellon University, found that the U.S. attempted to influence the elections of foreign countries as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000.

Comment: That’s just till 2000! The US has gone nuts since then.

Often covert in their execution, these efforts included everything from CIA operatives running successful presidential campaigns in the Philippines during the 1950s to leaking damaging information on Marxist Sandanistas in order to sway Nicaraguan voters in 1990. All told, the U.S. allegedly targeted the elections of 45 nations across the globe during this period, Levin’s research shows. In the case of some countries, such as Italy and Japan, the U.S. attempted to intervene in four or more separate elections.

Levin’s figures do not include military coups or regime change attempts following the election of a candidate the U.S. opposed, such as when the CIA helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddeq, Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, in 1953.

Comment: If we add those in, we’re looking at the entire Earth having suffered from US meddling.

He defines an electoral intervention as “a costly act which is designed to determine the election results [in favor of] one of the two sides.” According to Levin’s research, that includes: peddling misinformation or propaganda; creating campaign material for preferred candidates or parties; providing or withdrawing foreign aid, and; making public announcements that threaten or favor certain candidates. Often, it also includes the U.S. covertly delivering large sums of cash, as was the case in elections in Japan, Lebanon, Italy, and other countries.

To build his database, Levin says he relied on declassified U.S. intelligence as well as a number of Congressional reports on CIA activity. He also combed through what he considered reliable histories of the CIA and covert American activity, as well as academic research on U.S. intelligence, diplomatic histories of the Cold War, and memoirs of former CIA officials. Much of America’s meddling in foreign elections has been well-documented – Chile in the 1960s, Haiti in the 1990s. But Malta in 1971? According to Levin’s study, the U.S. attempted to “goose” the tiny Mediterranean island’s economy in the months leading up to its election that year.

Much of the America’s electoral meddling occurred throughout the Cold War as a response to containing Soviet influence through the spread of supposed leftist proxies, the findings suggest. And to be clear, the U.S. wasn’t the only one trying to sway foreign elections. By Levin’s count, Russia attempted to interfere in other countries’ elections 36 times between the end of World War II and the end of the 20th century, bringing the total number of electoral interventions by the two countries to 117 during that period.

Comment: That’s why it was cunningly smart of the US deep state to take this tack when it became apparent to them this time last year that Trump was going to win and their globalist agenda was going to take a hit: Russia (the USSR) has a track record of doing this, so it’s sort of plausible-ish that Putin has revived the practice (he hasn’t – he doesn’t need to).

Yet even after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the U.S. continued its interventions abroad, including elections in Israel, former Czechoslovakia, and even Russia in 1996, Levin found. Since 2000, the U.S. has attempted to sway elections in Ukraine, Kenya, Lebanon, and Afghanistan, among others.

This writer is a manufacturer’s rep for various products, one of which is selling sanding belts to Mom and Pop cabinetmakers nationwide. I do most of my sales via the phone, the ‘old fashioned way’.

Yesterday I was speaking to a former customer of mine in Iowa. He owns a small cabinet shop for over 30 years. I asked him how he liked having all those Democratic presidential contenders ascending onto his turf. The first response he made was ‘Well, they all have lots of promises, but how will they pay for them?’

Figuring he was focusing on the ‘Medicare for All’ idea that is resounding throughout our nation, I explained how Sanders’ plan was different from all the other candidates’ ones, who still have the private insurers running the show. I gave the anecdote of when I originally signed up Medicare, that being Humana’s Advantage PPO.

My Ear Nose and Throat doctor wanted to do a deviated septum procedure. He assured me that I would be home the same day and that it was an easy surgery. Having had this nasal problem since Clarence Davis, Brooklyn College’s star defensive end,  damaged it with a forearm during a blocking drill in 1970, I wanted to be able to ‘breathe again’ through my left nostril. Humana turned down my doc’s request, not once… but twice! I then  explained to my customer how the very people who oppose such progressive ideas, like the big corporations and small business ‘Trump thumpers’, would actually benefit from Sanders’ plan. Think about it, I said, businesses won’t have to cover their employees’ health insurance, even if they currently only pay perhaps 50% of the premiums. Maybe some of them would actually use a portion of those savings to offer higher pay or other perks. In  our current  so called ‘free market’ world, I said, maybe the businesses who did NOT pass on the savings to their employees might lose those workers to firms that did so. Food for thought.

Of course, as with all great and creative ideas, the Military Industrial Empire’s media and corporate Think Tank lackeys always harp on what this fellow said: How can we afford it?  I gave him but two easy to comprehend (Was I wrong) solutions: Cut the obscene military spending and tax the super rich. Now, this is where I, as a socialist, part company with even good and decent folks like Bernie Sanders. I told my customer that we currently are seeing 50% of our federal taxes go toward military spending. He had no knowledge of that fact. Then I discussed how all of our so called ‘wars’ since WW2 were phony ones. Since he was around my age group, I focused on Vietnam and the disgrace of that phony war. He remained silent, more so  I believe for never being aware of the reasons for it… the REAL reasons. He agreed with me on ‘Fake news’ and then I informed him of a bit of history surrounding WW2 that we high school students never were taught. He had NO idea that the Soviet Union won the war with Germany, beginning with the German defeat at Stalingrad in February of 1943. Sadly, the guy never knew what in the hell I was referring to! He did not realize that the Soviets lost over 25 million people in WW2, while we lost 300+ thousand .

Finally, I asked him if he was what may be called a ‘religious or spiritual’ man.

He affirmed his faith in God and considered himself a ‘Christian’ man. I asked him, with all the small farmers and businessmen in his own state going under, and all the indigent around, if it was just that people earning mega millions pay so little in taxes compared to years previous. Sadly, when I informed him that our current TOP federal tax bracket (37%) is  about half of what it was in 1980 (70%), and really low compared to that in 1960 (91%) he just remained silent… as if what we have now is OK with him. Is it OK, I asked, that the CEOs of United Health Care’s two units, who I have my supplemental insurance with, earned $ 18 and $ 21 million respectively last year, when millions of our fellow Americans have no coverage or shitty coverage? He agreed with me… but… he said this is a ‘ Free market’.

So, what this current two party/one party system has done, while acting as spokespersons for the empire, is like the old joke of Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. When good and decent people like my customer in Iowa, who has clocked in years of his whole adult life working hard…. should remember the wise words of Frederick Douglass: “Power concedes NOTHING without demand. It never has. It never 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.

Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn , NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his work posted on sites like Global Research, Greanville Post, Off Guardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust., whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘ It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected].

It is much more than what you are allowed to see. The Hong Kong police force are heroically fighting both the rioters and a complex and extremely dangerous international network which is aiming at destabilizing the People’s Republic of China.

I never saw such cynicism before; such a vulgar media set up as in Hong Kong. I am talking in general, but also about what took place particularly on Sunday December 22, 2019. Rioters, waving blue Uyghur, Taiwanese, British and U.S. flags were shouting “independence” and “China is terrorist” slogans, in the middle of the city, just two blocks away from the International Financial Center. While the police stood by, peacefully, in their full protective gear.

Journalists, real and fake, foreign and local, were there, in full force, clearly setting the stage for the ugly confrontations ahead. I observed “media outlets” working, and I ended up photographing and filming their involvement.

The truth is, they were nor reporting; not at all. They were participating, arranging things, provoking and manipulating actions.

All camera lenses, and all lenses of mobile phones, were pointed directly at the police, never at the rioters. Meanwhile, the rioters were shouting at the police, brutally insulting the men and women in uniform. This part was, of course, edited out; never shown in New York, Paris, Berlin and London. Often not even shown in Taipei or Hong Kong itself.

“Media” people were clearly advising the rioters what action to take and when, from which angle to throw things, from where to attack; how to make things “effective”.

At one point, rioters started charging, throwing bottles and other objects at the police.

Eventually, the police would have little choice but to react; they would begin moving against the rioters. And that is when all cameras would begin to roll. That was the moment to start “reporting”.

As a professional, I could clearly imagine how the results of such twisted “coverage” would look like on television screens and on the front pages of Western newspapers: “An unprovoked, brutal police force charging at poor, peaceful, freedom and democracy-loving protesters”.

The insanity, madness of all this had no boundaries. Next to me, just two meters away, several members of the “press corps” were “helping each other from teargas poisoning”. They were frantically washing their faces with water, kneeling in the middle of the street, pretending that they were sick. I felt no teargas effects at first, and only after few minutes, I detected something very, very mild in the air. I photographed journalists, and then I photographed my own face, to show that my eyes were not affected.

It was all a great setup, perfectly polished, designed to manipulate public opinion in the West and in Hong Kong itself.

Of recent I felt real combat tear gas in places like France, Chile, Bolivia and Colombia. That stuff breaks you in half; makes you fall to your knees, shout, fight for your life. In Hong Kong, the police force has been using the mildest gas I have ever detected anywhere in the world. But police actions here have been described as “outrageous” by individuals such as Benedict Rogers, a so-called human rights activist and chairman of the UK-based non-governmental organization “Hong Kong Watch”.

As in the past, Mr. Rogers has been calling Hong Kong police force actions, which are aimed at defending the city against the multi-national hostile coalition, as “police brutality”. Carrie Lam, Chief Executive of Hong Kong, fired back, declaring that “Christmas in Hong Kong was ruined by protesters”. The Hong Kong government said that there had been arson and police had been attacked with petrol bombs.

*

During my recent work in Hong Kong I realized that the situation has been dramatically deteriorating, and the police force is now facing much greater challenges than it did in September and October, 2019. While the number of rioters is decreasing, those who remain on the streets (and in the underground cells) are much better organized, and better funded, particularly from abroad. Both the funding channels and propaganda support for the rioters are functioning professionally, and they are amazingly well coordinated. The funding from the West is massive.

For Hong Kong and its police force, the situation is increasingly dangerous.

The external forces operating on the Hong Kong territory are diverse and often very brutal. They include Taiwanese right-wing organizations, Japanese religious sects, Western-backed Uyghurs, fascist Ukrainian militant groupings, as well as European and North American propagandists, posing as press corps. There are several Western anti-PRC NGOs stirring hatred towards Beijing, all around Hong Kong and the region.

The rioters themselves are more and more radicalized, now often resembling extremist Islamic groups in the Middle East. They are thoroughly brainwashed, they use comfort women, and they are consuming narcotics, including “ice”, amphetamines and certain so-called “combat drugs”, which have been already injected into places such as Syria and Yemen, by the West and its Saudi allies.

As a war correspondent who regularly works in such places as Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (all these countries have been damaged and later destroyed by Western assaults or occupations), I am shocked to see the West using the same destabilizing strategies in Hong Kong; strategies which have been used in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is obvious that the desire of Washington, London and others to harm China is too great, and will not stop, no matter what the price.

The hidden truth is that the Hong Kong police force is now facing a tremendous and extremely dangerous group of adversaries. It is not just a bunch of hooligans with black scarves covering their faces that are threatening the safety of the city and the entire People’s Republic of China. Those are only a vanguard – what you are allowed to see. Behind them, there are complex and diverse international right-wing forces: political, religious and yes, terrorist.

At this moment, the heroic Hong Kong police force is the only thin blue line which separates the city from anarchy, and possibly from imminent collapse.

*

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 first published by China Daily Hong Kong.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Five of his latest books are “China Belt and Road Initiative”,“China and Ecological Civilization”with John B. Cobb, Jr., “Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism”, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and Latin America, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website, his Twitter and his Patreon. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Images are from the author

With the defeat of ISIS and Nusra, the exposure of the ‘White Helmets’ and the various Chemical Weapons stunts, and with the collapse of ‘Rojava’, Washington is fast running out of options in Syria. Syria is winning, but the big power has not yet given up. Knowing that it is losing, it still acts to prolong the endgame and punish the Syrian people.

***

We are sitting at a joint military command center in Arima (northern Syria, just west of Manbij) with three Syrian Arab Army (SAA) colonels and two uniformed Kurd SDF ‘koval’ (comrades). There are Russians here too, but they do not enter our conversation. Yet even in the friendly chat, as we wait for permission to travel on to Manbij and Ayn al Arab (Kobane), some tensions are apparent.

Sharing coffee and food, both the SAA officers and the SDF comrades acknowledge they are fighting and dying together against an invading Turkish army and its proxy militias. The frontline is just a few kilometers away.

When I ask what differences there are between DAESH, Nusra and the ‘Free Army’, they all respond derisively.  “There is no difference, it is a money game, the fighters go back and forwards depending on the pay rates”. “Any difference between groups in the numbers of foreigners?” I suggest. “No difference”, they repeat. SDF Comrade B passes me a recent video of ‘Free Army’ fighters at Tal Abiad, to the north-east, protesting conditions and demanding their return to HTS/Nusra controlled Idlib.

But we all know they fight for a different cause. The SAA officers are fighting for a liberated and united Syria, while the SDF comrades still dream of an independent ‘Kurdistan’ by cutting out parts of contemporary Turkey, Syria and Iraq.

Separatist Kurds collaborated with US occupation forces in pursuit of their ‘Rojava’ dream (western Kurdistan), even though Washington never really supported the project. Many Syrians see them as traitors. But the SAA is patient, dealing with one enemy at a time, and at the moment the enemy in north Syria is Erdogan.

The ‘Rojava’ dream is effectively dead. As both Afrin (in March 2018) and Manbij (in October 2019) demonstrated, no Kurdish militia can defend itself from Ankara, which correctly sees any ‘Rojava’ statelet as a stepping stone for the bigger game, a large slice of Turkey. Protection by US occupation forces could not last forever. Moreover, Kurdish groups have no exclusive historical claims over any parts of northern Syria. Many others live there. In much of north Syria Kurds are a small minority.

Despite these tensions a close, even affectionate relationship remains in the room. The SAA colonels are all older men, in their 40s and 50s, while the SDF comrades are younger men, around 30 years old. Colonel H offers more coffee to Comrade A while Comrade B tells of Kurdish conquests. “We lost 850 martyrs liberating Manbij”, he says, and “2,000 in Kobane”. And what about all those in your prisons? one of the colonels asks. “They are reformatories”, Comrade B replies.

*(Between Aleppo and Manbij there is a switch from checkpoints controlled by the Syrian Arab Army to those controlled by the Kurdish SDF, even though the SAA and Russia now secure most of these ‘SDF controlled’ areas)

What Comrade B does not say about the “liberation” of Manbij is that (1) the 2016 battle was effectively a transfer of the city from one US proxy (ISIS/DAESH) to another (SDF), and (2) there were very few Kurds in that mostly Arab city. After the major battles, many from surrounding areas fled to the city, swelling its population. A recent estimate puts its population at 700,000, of which 80% are Arab (Najjar 2019). Of the rest there are other non-Arab minorities, including Assyrians, Circassians and Armenians. There is no real social base for a separatist Kurd regime in Manbij.

Yet even after the departure of US occupation forces from this part of northern Syria, and even though the Syrian and Russian presence constrains Turkish ambitions, the SDF has been allowed to maintain its former administration of both the city and the region.

The bizarre and unsustainable nature of this regime is made apparent when Nihad Roumieh, my Syrian journalist colleague, asks one of the colonels to show us where we are. Colonel A happily rolls out a military map, with friend and enemy troop placements. The first thing apparent is that six Syrian armored units protect Manbij, to the north. Second, although Syrian forces have resumed control of more than 200km of the northern border, it is depressing to see how much of northern Syria remains occupied by Erdogan and his proxies.

The picture seemed even more grim when we later spoke with a Manbij councilor and his lawyer friend. They complained of many held in prison and tortured, under the SDF regime. They said there were only two Kurd villages in Manbij.

Nevertheless, it seems that a transition is taking place. Over November-December both Syrian and Russian flags were raised over previous SDF positions in Hassakah, Ayn al Arab, Jarablus and Tal Jemaa (Syrian Observer 2019; Semenov 2019; SOHR 2019), with suggestions that the SDF was involved in negotiations with Damascus “to reach conclusive solutions”. However, SDF leader Mazloum Abadi said that the group wanted “Syrian unity … [with] decentralized self-administration” including maintenance of the separate SDF militia (Syrian Observer 2019). Damascus is unlikely to accept such terms.

*

The claim for a Kurdish homeland in Syria is no indigenous movement, claiming the return of ancestral lands. Nor does the debate over Kurds as historical migrants (in Yildiz 2005) or long-standing inhabitants (Hennerbichler 2012: 77-78) resolve the question. While Kurdish languages are of Iranian origin, and the longer history passes through Mesopotamia (Iraq) and the Ottoman Empire, Kurds are certainly part of the native Syrian population.  However at 1.5 million Syria hosts the smallest group in the region, with around 20 million in Turkey (Gürbüz 2016: 31) and another 6-8 million each in Iran and Iraq.

The idea of a ‘Rojava’ statelet in Syria has been compromised in three ways. First, the Kurdish groups in the north and north-east Syria are only one of several groups (amongst Assyrians, Circassians, Armenians and Arabs), and in some areas small minorities. Second, the Kurdish separatist movement in Syria has been over-determined by the politics of and migration from Turkey. ‘Rojava’ was seen as the stepping stone for a larger ‘Kurdistan’ project, driven from the north. Third, intervention by the imperial power raised separatist expectations and has damaged Kurdish relations with other Syrian groups.

In the longer history of Syria, a traditional refuge for minorities, there have been many Kurds, including famous personalities, who did not buy into the separatist dream. Two of them are buried inside the grounds of the Ummayad Mosque in Damascus: the 12th-century ruler Sala’addin and the Quranic scholar Sheikh Mohammad al Bouti (murdered by Jabhat al Nusra in 2013). Many Syrians of Kurdish origin embraced the idea of a wider identity. Before the 2011 conflict Tejel (2009: 39-46) classified Syrian Kurdish identities as comprising Arab nationalist, communist and Kurdish nationalist, with Syrian Kurd leaders Husni Za’im and Adib al-Shishakli campaigning for a non-sectarian ‘Greater Syria’.

The Turkish Kurd influence began early in the 20^th century, as Kurdish culture was repressed by the post-Ottoman Turkish state. Turkish Kurds first took refuge in Syria, including in Damascus, after their failed rebellion in 1925. The very idea of a Syrian Kurdish party first came in 1956 from the Turkish refugee Osman Sabri; and another Turkish refugee Nûredîn Zaza, became president of that party (al Kati 2019: 45, 47).

There were multiple splits in subsequent years. The Democratic Union Party (PYD) emerged in the 1980s as a branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), loyal to its leader Abdallah Öcalan, who in 1996 acknowledged that “most of the Kurds of Syria were refugees and migrants from Turkey and they would benefit from returning there” (in Allsop 2014: 231). Many of the claims about ‘stateless’ Kurds in Syria have to be read in light of this Turkish influx. However, Öcalan departed in 1998, as part of Syria’s Adana agreement with Turkey (al Kati 2019: 49-52).

The big powers, conscious of the potentially divisive role of separatist Kurds, have used them for decades, to divide and weaken Arab governments. US regional allies Israel and Iran (pre-1979) joined in, with the Shah in 1962 ordering his SAVAK secret police to help finance the Kurdish insurgency in northern Iraq, so as to undermine Baghdad. The Israelis joined in two years later. The CIA offered further help to the Barzani-led Kurds in 1972. One result was that Iraq was unable to join the Arab resistance against Israeli expansion in 1967 and 1973 because a large part of its military was deployed in northern Iraq (Gibson 2019).

The US-led war on Syria in 2011 presented new separatist opportunities. Peoples Protection Units (YPG) were reactivated in 2012, at first with support from Damascus so that Syrians in the north could fight ISIS. However, the US occupation of parts of north and east Syria in late 2015 led to the reorganization of many YPG units into the US-sponsored ‘Syrian Democratic Forces’ (SDF) (Martin 2018: 96). These were sometimes referred to as a ‘Rojava’ force, while at other times the Kurdish component was played down.

According to one US military report in 2017 the SDF in Manbij was only 40% Kurd (Townsend in Humud, Blanchard and Nikitin 2017: 12), addressing the embarrassing reality that Manbij had a very small Kurdish population. In late 2016 US Col. John Dorrian, gave a higher overall Kurd estimate, saying that the SDF “consists of approximately 45,000 fighters, more than 13,000 of which are Arab” (USDOD 2016). Many of the latter came from the fragments of earlier US proxy militia in Syria.

Syrian Colonel Malek from Aleppo confirmed to me that the bulk of SDF members were always Kurdish, including many from Iraq and Turkey. The size of the non-Kurd and foreigner contingents varied according to the money on offer. A report from the London based International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR) recognized that both the YPG and SDF ground forces remained largely arms of the Turkish PKK (Holland-McCowan 2017: 10).

The failure of the September 2017 separatist referendum in Iraq dealt a serious blow to the regional project. The KDP and PUK put aside their rivalry to hold an independence referendum (having already pushed for and gained federal status) even though it was not authorized by Baghdad. The proposal was said to have gained 92% approval, but was immediately rejected by the Iraqi Government and Army, which drove Peshmerga forces out of Kirkuk in just a few hours (Gabreldar 2018; ICG 2019). For the first time in decades the Iraqi Army took control of the NE region. Baghdad was showing a political will that had been lacking for many years.

In Syria, US forces did nothing to stop the YPG’s ethnic cleansing of non-Kurds in areas to which they laid claim. In October 2015, the western aligned group Amnesty International accused the YPG (just before the US rebranded them as the ‘Syrian Democratic Forces’) of forcibly evicting Arabs and Turkmens from areas they took after displacing ISIS. Amnesty produced evidence to show instances of forced displacement, and the demolition and confiscation of civilian property, which constituted war crimes (AI 2015). Similar accusations had come from Turkish government sources (Pamuk and Bektas 2015) but also from refugees who said that ‘YPG fighters evicted Arabs and Turkmens from their homes and burned their personal documents’ (Sehmer 2015; Al Masri 2015).

However, after the US forces became direct patrons of the SDF in late 2015, a UN commission, co-chaired by US diplomat Karen Koning AbuZayd, continued its quest to place most of the blame for abuses on Syrian Government forces. The Commission accused the YPG/SDF of forcibly displacing communities “[but only] in order to clear areas mined by ISIL”, and of forcible conscription, but “found no evidence to substantiate claims that YPG or SDF forces ever targeted Arab communities on the basis of ethnicity, nor that YPG cantonal authorities systematically sought to change the demographic composition of territories” (IICISAR 2017: 111 and 93).

Nevertheless, in 2018 there were ongoing reports of the ethnic cleansing of Assyrian Christians from US-SDF held areas in NE Syria. Young men in the Qamishli area were reported to have been arrested and forcibly conscripted into Kurdish militia, alongside property theft by those same militias (Abed 2018). In 2019 the SDF were reported to have closed more than 2,000 Arabic-teaching schools in the Hasaka region (Syria Times 2019) and to have shot, killed, wounded and jailed displaced people who were trying to escape from al-Hawl Refugee Camp in South-Eastern Hasaka (FNA 2019). Nevertheless, once US forces created and adopted the Kurdish-led ‘SDF’, Amnesty International and the western media muted their earlier criticisms.

Washington in 2012 had looked favorably on the ISIS plan for a “Salafist principality”, so as to weaken Damascus (DIA 2012). In September 2016 US air power was used to attack and kill more than 120 Syrian soldiers at Mount Tharda behind Deir Ezzor airport, to help the terrorist group’s (failed) efforts to take over and threaten the city (Anderson 2017). But when Russia, Syria and Iraq began wiping out these Saudi clones, USA forces simply rescued their best commanders and replaced ISIS with a Kurdish-led ‘SDF’ (Anderson 2019: Chapters 5 and 7), once again to undermine and weaken Damascus.

But US occupation forces did not wait around to sponsor the ill-fated Rojava project. In October 2019 President Trump gave the order for a partial withdrawal from northern Syria. Former US diplomat Robert Ford had warned in 2017 that the US would abandon the SDF (O’Connor 2017). So, stripped of US military protection and their main source of arms and finance, the SDF was forced to rapidly put together a new alliance with Damascus and Russia, to prevent annihilation by Erdogan’s forces. The Turkish leader saw the Öcalan-led YPG/SDF as a stepping stone to its larger project in Turkey (Demircan 2019).

Western liberals complained the US was ‘betraying’ its Kurdish allies; but they placed too much faith in romantic myths. Ünver (2016), for example, presented separatist Kurds as recipients of unplanned opportunities in Syria’s “civil war” in an “age of shifting borders”, as though the big power were not once again using the ‘Kurdish card’ to divide and weaken both Iraq and Syria. Schmidinger (2018: 13, 16-17) tried to twist Syria’s historic diversity into an argument for the ‘Rojava’ sectarian division – instead of an inclusive unitary state. But, as has been said many times before, imperial powers never have real allies, only interests. Lebanese Resistance leader Hassan Nasrallah told Kurdish separatists in February 2018: “In the end they will work according to their interests, they will abandon you and they will sell you in a slave market.”

Meanwhile, with Washington’s blessing, Erdogan persists with his plan to control large parts of northern Syria, with the aim of settling many of the refugees in Turkey under a Muslim Brotherhood style regime, controlled by sectarian Islamist militia. Retired Syrian Major General Mohammad Abbas Mohammad told me that Turkey’s leader has not given up his ambition of becoming a modern-day ‘Caliph’ of Muslim nations, and is working to colonise Syrian minds with his constant Islamist slogans.

*

Nevertheless, with the help of its allies, Syria is winning the war. ISIS/DAESH and Nusra are virtually defeated, the ‘White Helmets’ and the Chemical Weapons stunts have been exposed and the Rojava myth has collapsed. But a Washington-driven economic war now targets all the independent countries of the region, aggravating the occupation and the terrorism.

Director of the Syrian Arab Army’s Political Department Major General Hassan Hassan, tells us that the US “has the power to destroy the world, many times over, but it has not been able to turn that power into capabilities.” That is why US wars are failing across the region.

While we are indeed heading for a multi-polar world, he says, we are not there yet. “Syria still faces the unipolar regime”. Erdogan, ISIS, Israel and the SDF are all “puppets” of this dying world order. Authorized by the US, Erdogan still wants to set up a Muslim Brotherhood region in north and east Syria. This is a dying and a “most dangerous” order, General Hassan says. “The US deep state knows that its unipolarity is failing, but that has not yet been announced. The new world system is born, but is not yet recognized. The US wants to prolong this conflict as long as possible, and to punish the Syrian people”.

(Crossing the huge Furat (Euphrates) river, from rural Manbij to rural Raqqa, north Syria)

In that transitional phase we see collaboration between the SAA and the SDF, the extraordinary anomaly of an SDF-run Manbij and the ongoing experiment of ‘Kobane’, the SDF controlled border town which Syrians call Ayn al Arab.

Traveling from rural Aleppo to rural Raqqa on the M4 highway we cross the Furat (Euphrates) river, a huge, semi-dammed expanse of fresh water which appears particularly sweet between two deserts. Turning north we arrive in Ayn al Arab, at the Turkish border, in less than an hour. Although Erdogan’s gangs are attacking Ayn al Issa, deeper inside Syria on the M4, there is no sign of fighting near Ayn al Arab itself. Major General Abbas says that Erdogan is aiming at narrow incursions, which can later be widened.

This small city of perhaps 45,000 people was evacuated during earlier fighting and still shows signs of great destruction, especially on the eastern and northern sides. Less than a tenth of the size of Manbij it is now said to have a majority of Kurds and the SDF comrades seem well organized. We are taken to their small headquarters, a three-story building, to await further security checks and an escort to one of their schools and one of their hospitals.

At the secondary school, as in the headquarters, they seem wary of a foreigner accompanied by an SAA Colonel and a Syrian journalist. That breaks down a little as I ask about their curriculum and the children, who have clearly gone through substantial trauma. The headmaster says they are developing programs to help students deal with their war experiences. The threat is not over, as Erdogan’s troops, including sectarian Islamist gangs, are only a few kilometers to the north.

The Kurdish nationalist curriculum has made a break with the centralized Arabic-based system set in Damascus. The headmaster explains that their syllabus is carried out 60% in the Kurdish language, 20% in Arabic and 20% in English. For children from Arab families the syllabus is 60% Arabic, 20% Kurdish and 20% English. They speak of four ‘nationalities’ in Kobane: Kurd, Arab, Yazidi and Christian. That is how they see it.

The management of the small hospital is also strongly Kurd nationalist. I ask where they get their support and they mention the Americans and some international NGOs. Of course, there is nothing from Ankara. “What about Damascus?” I ask. “Nothing and we want nothing”, says one of the managers.

That may be true for this hospital. However Syrian colleagues tell that most of the health centers in SDF controlled areas still get finance and supplies from Damascus. So not only is their security guaranteed by the Syrian state, so are most of their social services.

It remains to be seen how much Kurdish autonomy will remain, under a final political settlement. Federation is not part of the discussion, it is clear that Damascus sees that as a path which would dismember and weaken the country. While the SAA and the SDF jointly fight Erdogan’s gangs, Damascus has been calling on Arab leaders in the north and north east, who had collaborated with the US occupation force and the SDF, to return to the Syrian Arab Army. On the other side, SDF Commander General Mazloum Abdi opposes incorporation of the SDF into the SAA (Van Wilgenburg 2019) and wants to hold onto as much local administration as possible (Syrian Observer 2019). The continued US presence and sponsorship of SDF units in Hasaka, Qamishli and Deir Ezzor (Ahval 2019), serves to maintain the illusions of autonomy.

In the Russian media there is some pessimism about an SDF-Damascus reconciliation. One observer suggests that “Russia will eventually force most (if not all) of Turkey’s forces to leave Syria … [but Damascus] and the Syrian Kurds have opposing political and military goals that will not be easily reconciled” (Stein 2019).

However, Damascus has some other cards. The YPG/PKK/SDF grew its influence through US sponsorship and, as that declines, other voices in the north, including Kurdish voices, are likely to re-emerge, especially through the constitutional process in Geneva. Major General Abbas points out that there are now dozens of Kurdish parties in the north east (Syria Times 2018). Given the intransigence of the US-dependent SDF, Russia is said to be recruiting Syrian Kurd youth to a rival group (Duvar 2019), which is likely to be incorporated into the SAA.

In my view, there will likely be some accommodation of Kurdish nationalist demands at the cultural and local administrative levels, but alongside efforts to ensure this does not privilege Kurds above other Syrian groups. That should appear in the amended constitution. The old world order is dying and the new one is still being born. In this transitional world, Washington persists with its losing war, to divide and punish the Syrian people.

*

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. Tim Anderson is Director of the Sydney-based Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies. He has worked at Australian universities for more than 30 years, teaching, researching and publishing on development, human rights and self-determination in the Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Middle East. In 2014 he was awarded Cuba’s medal of friendship. He is Australia and Pacific representative for the Latin America based Network in Defence of Humanity. His most recent books are: Land and Livelihoods in Papua New Guinea (2015), The Dirty War on Syria (2016), Global Research, 2015, now published in ten languages; Countering War Propaganda of the Dirty War on Syria (2017) and Axis of Resistance: towards an independent Middle East (2019).

Sources

Abed, Sarah (2018) ‘Kurdish Militias in Northeastern Syria Turn to Kidnapping, Conscription, ISIS-like Tactics’, MintPress, 12 February, online: https://www.mintpressnews.com/kurds-in-conflict-ridden-northeastern-syria-turn-to-kidnapping-conscription-isis-like-tactics/237466/

Ahval (2019) ‘Syrian Kurdish military commander announces SDF deal with Russia’, 2 December, online: https://ahvalnews.com/northern-syria/syrian-kurdish-military-commander-announces-sdf-deal-russia

AI (2015) ‘Syria: ‘We had nowhere to go’ – Forced displacement and demolitions in Northern Syria’, Amnesty International, London, October, online: https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE2425032015ENGLISH.PDF

Al Masri, Abdulrahman (2015) ‘Is there ‘systematic ethnic cleansing’ by Kurds in north-east Syria?’, Middle East Monitor, 21 June, online: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20150621-is-there-systematic-ethnic-cleansing-by-kurds-in-north-east-syria/

Allsop, Harriet (2014) The Kurds of Syria: Political Parties and Identity in the Middle East, I.B. Tauris, New York

Anderson, Tim (2017) ‘Implausible Denials: The Crime at Jabal al Tharda’, Global Research, 17 December, online: https://www.globalresearch.ca/implausible-denials-the-crime-at-jabal-al-tharda-us-led-air-raid-on-behalf-of-isis-daesh-against-syrian-forces/5623056

Chomani, Kamal (2019) ‘Oil dispute reignites Baghdad-Erbil tensions’, al Monitor, 29 May, online: https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/05/iraq-kurdistan-oil-kirkuk.html

Demircan, Davut (2019) ‘Evidence points to nexus between YPG/PKK’, Andalou Agency 23 October, online: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/evidence-points-to-nexus-between-ypg-pkk/1624238#

DIA (2012) ‘14-L-0552/DIA/288’, Defence Intelligence Agency, Washington, 12 August, online: https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

Duvar (2019) ‘Russia ‘seeks to build local force from ethnic Kurds to replace SDF’, 24 december, online: https://www.duvarenglish.com/world/2019/12/24/russia-seeks-to-build-local-force-from-ethnic-kurds-in-syrias-northeast-report/

FNA (2019) ‘US-Backed SDF Kills Civilians Trying to Escape Hasaka Refugee Camp’, Fars News Agency, 24 May, online: https://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13980303000377

Gabreldar, Bushra (2018) ‘Kurdish independence in Iraq’, Harvard International Review , Vol. 39, No. 1, Athletic Diplomacy: the intersection of sports and culture (Winter 2018), pp. 7-9

Galbraith, Peter (2019) ‘The Betrayal of the Kurds’, New York Review of Books, 21 November, online: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/11/21/betrayal-of-the-kurds/

Gibson, Bryan (2019) ‘The Secret Origins of the U.S.-Kurdish Relationship Explain Today’s Disaster’, Foreign Policy, 14 October, online: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/14/us-kurdish-relationship-history-syria-turkey-betrayal-kissinger/

Gunter, Michael (1996) ‘The KDP-PUK Conflict in Northern Iraq’, Middle East Journal, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Spring, 1996), pp. 224-241

Gürbüz, Mustafa (2016) Rival Kurdish Movements in Turkey, Amsterdam University Press

Hennerbichler, Ferdinand (2012) ‘The Origin of Kurds, Advances in Anthropology, Vol 2 No 2 64-79

Hoffman, Sophia (2016) The Politics of Iraqi Migration to Syria, Syracuse University Press, New York

Holland-McCowan, John (2017) ‘War of Shadows: How Turkey’s Conflict with the PKK Shapes the Syrian Civil War and Iraqi Kurdistan’, International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR), online: https://icsr.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/ICSR-Report-War-of-Shadows-How-Turkey’s-Conflict-with-the-PKK-Shapes-the-Syrian-Civil-War-and-Iraqi-Kurdistan.pdf

Humud, Carla E.; Christopher M. Blanchard and Mary Beth D. Nikitin (2017) ‘Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response’, Congressional Research Service, April 26, online: https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/591c08bc4.pdf

Ibrahim, Shivan (2019) ‘Syria’s Kurdish parties do not see eye to eye’, Al Monitor, December 9, online : https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/12/kurds-syria-pyd-national-council-russia-syrian-regime.html

ICG (2019) ‘After Iraqi Kurdistan’s Thwarted Independence Bid’, International Crisis Group, Report 199 / Middle East & North Africa 27 March, online: https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/gulf-and-arabian-peninsula/iraq/199-after-iraqi-kurdistans-thwarted-independence-bid

IICISAR (2017) ‘Human rights abuses and international humanitarian law violations in the Syrian Arab Republic, 21 July 2016’, Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, ‘Conference room paper’, 10 March 2017, online: https://www.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Documents/Countries/SY/A_HRC_34_CRP.3_E.docx&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1

Kutschera, Chris (1994) ‘Mad Dreams of Independence: The Kurds of Turkey and the PKK’, Middle East Report, No. 189, The Kurdish Experience (Jul. – Aug., 1994), pp. 12-15

Martin, Kevin (2018) ‘Syria and Iraq ISIS and Other Actors in Historical Context’, in Feisal al-Istrabadi and Sumit Ganguly (2018) The Future of ISIS: Regional and International Implications, Brookings Institution Press

Mohannad Al-Kati (2019) ‘The Kurdish Movement in the Arab World: The Syrian Kurds as a Case Study’, AlMuntaqa , Arab Center for Research & Policy Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1 (April/May 2019), pp. 45-61

Najjar, Faray (2019) ‘New front in Syria’s war: Why Manbij matters’, Al Jazzera 16 October, online: www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2019/10/front-syria-war-manbij-matters-191015143157365.html

O’Connor, Tom (2017) ‘’U.S. will lose Syria to Iran and abandon Kurdish allies, former Ambassador says’, Newsweek, 19 June, online: https://www.newsweek.com/us-military-kurds-lose-iran-syria-former-ambassador-627395

Pamuk, Humeyra and Umit Bektas (2015) ‘Turkey sees signs of ‘ethnic cleansing’ by Kurdish fighters in Syria’, Reuters, 17 June, online: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-kurds-turkey-idUSKBN0OW1SA20150616

Schmidinger, Thomas (2018) Rojava: Revolution, War and the Future of Syria’s Kurds, Pluto, London

Sehmer, Alexander (2015) ‘Thousands of Arabs flee from Kurdish fighters in Syria’s north’, The Independent, 1 June, online: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/thousand-of-arabs-flee-from-kurdish-fighters-in-syrias-north-10289475.html

Semenov, Kirill (2019) ‘Russia faces Dilemmas in northeastern Syria’, Al Monitor, 21 November, online: https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/11/russia-syria-us-turkey-kurds.html

SOHR (2019) ‘Lens of SOHR monitors the rise of the Syrian flag and the flag of Syriac Military Council affiliated to “SDF”, in Tal Jemma north of Tal Tamr town’, 4 December, Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, online: http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=149576

Stein, Aaron (2019) ‘Temporary and Transactional: The Syrian Regime and SDF Alliance’, Valdai Club, 29 November, online: https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/temporary-and-transactional-the-syrian-regime/

Syrian Observer (2019) Russia takes over SDF Base in northern Hassakeh, 2 December, online: https://syrianobserver.com/EN/news/54623/russia-takes-over-sdf-in-northern-hassakeh.html

Syria Times (2018) ‘Syrian officer to ST: forces in Syria’, 31 December, online: http://syriatimes.sy/index.php/editorials/opinion/39606-syrian-officer-to-st-forces-in-syria

Syria Times (2019) ‘SDF militia closes 2154 Syrian schools and gives some of them to US occupation army’, 27 September, online: http://syriatimes.sy/index.php/news/local/43878-sdf-militia-closes-2154-syrian-schools-and-gives-some-of-them-to-us-occupation-army

Tejel, Jordi (2009) Syria’s Kurds: History, Politics and Society, Routledge, New York

Ünver, H. Akin (2016) Schrödinger’s Kurds: Transnational Kurdish Geopolitics in the Age of Shifting Borders, Journal of International Affairs , Vol. 69, No. 2, Shifting Sands: The Middle East in the 21st Century (SPRING/SUMMER 2016), pp. 65-100

USDOD (2016) ‘Department of Defense Press Briefing by Col. Dorrian via teleconference from Baghdad, Iraq’, U.S. Department of Defense, 8 December, online:

https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/1025099/department-of-defensepress-briefing-by-col-dorrian-via-teleconference-from-bag

Van Wilgenburg, Wladimir (2019) ‘SDF leadership meets with Arab tribes in response to Damascus call to defect’, Kurdistan24, 11 December, online: https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/09be9fde-3988-4307-be32-ab161da48412

Yildiz, Kerim (2005) The Kurds in Syria: the forgotten people, Ann Arbor, London

All images in this article are from the AHT

The Dirty War on Syria

by Tim Anderson

240 pages

Order the print version here

ISBN Number:

978-0-9737147-8-4

List Price: $23.95

Special Price: $15.00

Mobile users, click here to order your copy.

To order the PDF version of the Dirty War on Syria, click here, sent directly to your email.

What’s most likely is more of the same, how the US operates under both right wings of its war party — at war on humanity at home and abroad, its killing machine making everyone unsafe everywhere.

Continued US aggression in the new year is virtually certain in current and maybe new war theaters.

Advancing the US imperium depends on combatting enemies. Since none exist, they’re invented, what’s gone on throughout the post-WW II period.

It’s especially what happened following the state-sponsored/mother of all 9/11 false flag attacks — opening the gates of hell for multiple forever wars.

Sunday Pentagon terror-bombing of Iraqi and Syrian sites escalated US regional aggression.

On Monday, the State Department falsely called them “defensive action designed to protect American forces and American citizens in Iraq, (along with) deterring Iran (sic)” — a nonbelligerent nation threatening no one.

The State Department turned truth on its head, claiming Tehran used the JCPOA “to run and finance an expansionist foreign policy (sic)” — a bald-faced Big Lie.

Fact: Iran is the region’s leading proponent of peace and stability, seeking cooperative relations with other countries, opposed to revanchism and unilateralism — its foreign policy polar opposite how aggressor USA operates.

The Islamic Republic had nothing to do with with attacks on regional “American interests,” no evidence suggesting it.

The State Department falsely claimed otherwise, typical of how the US blames others for its own high crimes.

State Department: “(W)e are not going to let Iran get away with using a proxy force to attack American interests (sic), and we will hold Iran accountable for these attacks (sic), which we have done.”

“We are standing with the Iraqi people (sic)” — by smashing the country for decades, massacring its people, occupying its territory, and using it as platform for other regional wars of aggression.

The US bears full responsibility for terrorizing Middle East nations and their people, seeking control over their territory and resources, what the scourge of imperialism is all about.

On Monday in Moscow during a joint press conference with his Iranian foreign minister counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif, Sergey Lavrov said the following:

“We are highly concerned about the escalation of tensions in the Persian Gulf region. We can see that some of our Western colleagues (sic) are trying to aggravate the situation,” adding:

“Russia and Iran oppose such attempts by calling for equal and mutually beneficial cooperation in this important region” — a notion the US categorically rejects, seeking regional domination, not cooperative relations with other nations.

Lavrov also stressed that the JCPOA nuclear deal is close to collapse because of the Trump regime’s May 2018 pullout and Europe’s failure to fulfill its mandated obligations.

“We are certain that if this policy of defaulting on UN Security Council resolutions, which Washington dictates to all countries around the world without an exception, continues, all this may result in serious negative consequences for the whole region and international relations in general,” Lavrov added, further stressing:

“We will demand that our Western partners (sic) accept reality.”

“Either the US and the EU return to full adherence to their obligations under the JCPOA, which will lead to Iran returning to its voluntary obligations under the deal, as it has stated repeatedly.”

Otherwise, “the JCPOA will be as good as gone. It will not exist anymore. And then we won’t be bound by any obligations” — heightening the risk of greater regional wars.

The Trump regime “contradict(ed) all possible norms of international law.”

“When an agreement has been negotiated and deemed obligatory by the UN Security Council, exiting this agreement is a blatant violation of all possible and impossible norms, principles and rules.”

“At the same time, the US is forcing everyone else to violate the obligations they undertook in exchange for Iran adhering to the reached agreements.”

“Iran is expected to adhere to these agreements fully, which violates the very terms that this agreement was based on and that were approved by the UN Security Council.”

Zarif called for world community cooperation against hostile US unilateralism, adding:

The Trump regime “attempts to dictate its intentions to other countries, and Russia and Iran have confronted this approach through the JCPOA and other fields.”

Instead of fulfilling their mandated obligations, Britain, France, Germany, and the EU bowed to US diktats by “fail(ing) to adopt practical measures to counter the US sanctions and fulfill their commitments.”

Separately Zarif tweeted: “Fruitful talks with FM Lavrov in Russia.”

“Unlike others who embark on ‘defensive’ warmongering 1000s of miles from their own shores, Iran and Russia have cooperated for peace in Syria and are now presenting important proposals for peace in the Persian Gulf.”

Next stop: China” — where Zarif met Tuesday with Wang Yi, his Beijing counterpart.

At a joint news conference in Beijing, Wang slammed US “bullying,” adding: “We need to stand together against (unacceptable US) unilateralism.”

Zarif said Iran and China are united in “our common effort to fight unilateralism and to promote multilateralism.”

Separately on Tuesday, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang accused the Trump regime of “shirk(ing) its due international obligations, and imposed extreme pressure on Iran,” adding:

“This is the root cause of the current tension in the Iranian nuclear issue.”

“We hope that all participants in the agreement will adhere to the correct direction, withstand external pressures, resolve differences through dialogue and negotiation, and continue to maintain and implement the comprehensive agreement.”

Clearly the Trump regime rejects this approach.

China, Russia and Iran are allied for Middle East peace and stability, their agenda polar opposite US rage for endless aggression.

Despite rolling back its voluntary JCPOA commitments, Iran remains fully compliant with the agreement’s provisions. Zarif stressed it.

US/European violators flagrantly breached international law.

Separately, Tehran debunked the US Big Lie claim of Iranian involvement in attacks on its regional personnel and interests, calling it baseless.

On Tuesday, Iran’s IRGC said Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces are legally entitled to retaliate against Sunday’s US aggression in self-defense, as the UN Charter and other international law permit, adding:

Evicting “American occupier terrorists” from Iraq will enhance the country’s stability and security.

Sadly it’s not true. US forces infest the Middle East along with ISIS and other jihadists it created and supports.

All regional nations unsubmissive to its will risk being victimized by its aggression and/or other hostile actions.

Regional peace, stability and security are only possible if all US forces and its proxies are withdrawn or otherwise eliminated from Middle East and nearby countries.

Following US aggression last Sunday, Iraq’s National Security Council said the following:

“The Iraqi government condemns these actions and considers them a violation of the sovereignty of Iraq and a serious abuse of the working norms of the international coalition forces, including American troops, who are single-handedly conducting operations without the consent of the Iraqi government,” adding:

“This attack, contrary to the goals and principles for which the international coalition was created, is pushing Iraq to revise its relations (with the US) to protect the sovereignty of the country, its security, the lives of citizens and strengthen mutual interests.”

Will Baghdad expel US occupying forces from the country. Or will it continue operating as a client state while maintaining good relations with neighboring Iran?

Iraq’s future as a sovereign state depends on no longer tolerating a hostile US presence, demanding Pentagon forces leave and not return.

The risk of Pentagon, CIA, Israeli Mossad violence remains. Russia earlier offered to aid Iraq combat ISIS in the country.

Moscow is a reliable ally. It’s in Baghdad’s interests to seek its help if the scourge of US-supported terrorism, likely aided by Pentagon terror-bombing, rears its ugly head again.

If necessary, Moscow can aid Iraq the way it helped Syria liberate most of the country.

Iraqi authorities should take full advantage of a trusted ally against the scourge of US state-sponsored terrorism.

A Final Comment

In his yearend greeting to Trump, Vladimir Putin urged “normalizing bilateral relations and establishing an equal dialogue based on the mutual respect of interests” — an agenda Republicans and undemocratic Dems reject.

Separately, Putin invited Trump “to visit Moscow to take part in the celebrations of the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War.”

Soviet Russia’s involvement in WW II defeated the scourge of Nazism, the US operating as a junior partner on the western front.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The three top wireless safety stories in 2019 were …

1) widespread public opposition to the rollout of 5G;
2) revision of national and international radio frequency radiation exposure limits, and 
3) cell phones that exceed the safety limits.

5G Deployment

The fifth generation of cellphone technology, 5G, was launched this year with fanfare and considerable hype. Hundreds of scientists and medical doctors opposed the rollout of this new technology due to the absence of safety testing.

Thousands of wireless safety advocates in the U.S. and many other nations have organized opposition to the deployment of this technology which requires installation of millions of “small cell” antennas.

In addition to microwaves, in many countries 5G for the first time will expose the population and environment to millimeter waves from cell antennas in their neighborhoods as well as a new generation of wireless devices.

Devra Davis. 5G: The Unreported Global Threat. Medium, May 18, 2019.

Joel Moskowitz. We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe. Scientific American, October 17, 2019.

Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure Limits Revised by the ICNIRP and the FCC

This year the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed revised safety limits for radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure that ignore or dismiss most of the research published since the original guidelines were adopted in the 1990’s. The revised exposure limits fail to regulate low intensity RFR exposures that have been found to cause harm to humans and other species in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies.

ICNIRP and the FCC have long-standing conflicts of interest with the telecommunications industry.

More than 240 scientists who have published over 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals on electromagnetic fields believe that national and international RFR exposure limits are inadequate to protect human health.

As part of a project called, “The 5G Mass Experiment,” Investigate Europe, a team of investigative journalists from the European Union (EU), examined the risks of deployment of 5G and the adequacy of electromagnetic field (EMF) safety guidelines promoted by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

The journalists published sixteen articles about the ICNIRP “cartel” in newspapers and magazines in eight EU countries including France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. The articles reported conflicts of interest among members of the ICNIRP and efforts to bias national reviews of the health effects of RFR.

Investigate Europe. The 5G mass experiment. January 13, 2019.

Joel Moskowitz.The ICNIRP cartel and the 5G mass experiment. March 15, 2019.

Investigate Europe. Mobile phones and health: Is 5G being rolled out too fast? Computer Weekly, April 2019.

Louis Slesin. Will WHO Kick Its ICNIRP Habit? Non-Thermal Effects Hang in the Balance. Microwave News, November 4, 2019.

Cell Phone Testing in the U.S. and France

A year-long investigation by the Chicago Tribune found that some popular cell phones purchased over-the-counter including the iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 failed the FCC’s safety test when tested following the manufacturers’ recommended separation distance from the body of 5-15 millimeters. Many phones failed the test when kept close to the body resembling how most people use their phones. Following the publication of this study, three legal firms filed a class action lawsuit against Apple and Samsung.

In December, the FCC completed an investigation which found that the phones it sampled passed the FCC safety test. However, the FCC used different procedures than the Tribune. Most of the FCC’s phones were provided by the manufacturers along with software and ancillary equipment for testing. Moreover, the FCC did not test phones next to the body.

Marc Arazi, Devra Davis, Annie Sasco. Scientists call for the recall of millions of mobile phones. Press release. Paris, June 28, 2018

Sam Roe. We tested popular cellphones for radiofrequency radiation. Now the FCC is investigating. Chicago Tribune, August 21, 2019.

Joe Mahr. Lawsuit filed against Apple, Samsung after Chicago Tribune tests cellphones for radiofrequency radiation. Chicago Tribune, August 29, 2019.

FCC. Resolution of notice of inquiry, second report and order, notice of proposed rulemaking, and memorandum opinion and order. FCC 19-126. December 4, 2019.

FCC. Results of Tests on Cell Phone RF Exposure Compliance. Office of Engineering and Technology. December 19, 2019.

Joe Mahr. FCC says tests find cellphones comply with federal limits on radiofrequency radiation. Chicago Tribune, December 20, 2019.

*

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 Greek City Times

It was perhaps fitting that five days before Christmas, in the final parliamentary sitting of the decade, the House of Commons, flaunting a newly minted Conservative majority, saw fit to declare war on the country it professed to love. By a margin of 358 votes to 234, MPs approved the new Withdrawal Agreement Bill at its second reading. In a subsequent vote, they approved a timetable of just three days for its parliamentary passage in the new year.

There is no surprise that parliament has enjoined a political, social and economic campaign against the people. The people – or rather, the less than 48% who voted for outwardly Brexit-supporting parties last week – have voted for that, and will now get it good and hard. But it does not make it any less regrettable or easier to accept.

The debate passed predictably. Boris Johnson and his gormless sidekick Steve Barclay trotted out the usual mind-rotting boilerplate about “moving on from divisions” and “getting Brexit done”, throwing in the grotesquely offensive and ahistorical reference to the “United Kingdom’s independence”. Naturally the prime minister couldn’t resist a lie about his ‘oven-ready’ deal, quipping that “we can have it done by lunch”. The problem with this ‘lunch’ is that we have less than eleven months to prepare the most eye-wateringly complex banquet in our nation’s history and have just spent four years tearing ourselves apart over the green salad hors d’oeuvre. Johnson either doesn’t know or doesn’t care how complex and divisive this process will be, and the worst part is it doesn’t even matter.

Members of the opposition gamely attempted to inject some reality and compassion into the proceedings. Lisa Nandy begged Johnson to show ‘decency’ on unaccompanied child refugees, who may not be allowed into the country under the amended bill. Jeremy Corbyn (who has masochistically opted to remain as interim leader for this gruesome period) echoed that sentiment and noted, pointlessly, the impending need for checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Hilary Benn pointed out the lack of even the most basic economic assessment about the misadventure parliament was sanctioning. Keir Starmer emphasised that the loss of the general election did not make a bad deal good. But it changed nothing.

In the end, six Labour MPs voted for the motion – some of the usual suspects from the last parliament, plus Easington’s Grahame Morris and Chesterfield’s Toby Perkins – but it scarcely mattered. The time to defeat this bill was during the election campaign, and during that campaign Labour barely mentioned it. Needless to say, there were no Tory rebels.

We are quickly learning the key lesson of Brexit: it is a game of winner takes all. We will now find out what happens when the Brexiters face no restraint. The withdrawal agreement bill has been hardened in key ways since October, when Johnson faced a hostile parliament.

First, commitments to workers’ rights have been removed. Downing Street claims that it will address them separately, but cannot explain why it was necessary to instil doubt at such an early stage. The people of Blyth Valley and North West Durham were not voting to reduce their labour rights or destroy their jobs, but it is characteristic of the government’s arrogance that it doesn’t care how much those people could now worry.

Second, judges in the lower courts will find it easier to challenge EU rulings. That could create significantly more conflict with Brussels in the years ahead.

Third, and most significantly, MPs have effectively had their rights taken from them. They will now have no right to force a request to extend the transition period after December 2020, and will not be able to approve the negotiating mandate. The government will not even commit to preserving the negotiating aims of the political declaration. We are exiting the transition period in December, ready or not, and that is that.

Let us be quite clear. This really is taking back control: but for one man only. The new bill affords Johnson almost unlimited power to do whatever he pleases, unchecked by even the most basic parliamentary scrutiny. It is a hard-right manifesto of cruelty, as exemplified by the removal of provisions for childhood refugees. And it opens up the road for a catastrophic cliff-edge at the end of the process, with absolutely nothing anyone else can do to stop it. By contrast Theresa May’s old deal looks like something that could have been drafted by the European Movement.

The government couldn’t even resist trolling. This withdrawal agreement, the most significant and far-reaching legislation in our recent history, will be granted just three days of scrutiny in January – less time than was allocated to the Wild Animals in Circuses Act. It is commensurate with the style and pace of this new government. Just one week after the election, the Tories are moving at breakneck speed to confuse, overwhelm, and subdue their opponents. The aim is to stop us interrogating the most destructive piece of legislation in this country’s recent history at the moment we are most liable to roll over. The worst aspect is that even now, there is no evidence that this is the will of the British people. Over 52% of voters last week backed parties supporting a referendum or Remain. Nobody will ever know if the people wanted Brexit, and nobody will now bother to ask.

And yet nothing will change the essential truth. Today was not the end of Brexit, but its poisonous beginning. The trade-offs we have warned about for the last four years will now have to be made. For the first time, we replace speculation with reality: ‘Project Fear’ is no longer something we argue about but experience. Boris Johnson may think himself omnipotent but he has no power over the EU and cannot avoid disaster just by declaring it will not come. Either we mitigate some (not all) of the damage by remaining closely aligned to the EU’s instruments, or we erect concrete barriers with our closest trading partners in the hope of breaking other ones down with more minor allies further away. This is our inescapable choice and no amount of rhetoric will make it disappear. Britain will have to decide if it prefers to hammer itself economically or democratically.

There is now no more hiding for Boris Johnson. Armed with the majority of his dreams, he will have no more Remainers or doomsters or gloomsters to blame for the carnage he will now likely unleash. Everything that will shortly come to pass, he will own.

During the election campaign, the Conservatives openly paraded their ambition to govern as hard-right nationalists prepared to over-ride democratic norms and drive the economy into the wall. One week after the election, they are simply confirming it. Today MPs drilled the first real wounds into our country’s economy and social contract. The scars will take generations to heal, and may never.

*

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.

Jonathan Lis is deputy director of the pro-EU think tank British Influence and a political writer and commentator.

For Venezuelans, the start of 2019 was perhaps the tensest moment in the past seventeen years. Unlike the political violence of 2017 and the electoral abstention drama of 2018, we faced a real scenario of foreign military intervention in Venezuela. And for the first time, Washington’s long repeated threats to use military force, like in Iraq, Libya, Panama, etc., appeared credible.

As the year wore on, the errors and miscalculations implicit in the US strategy became increasingly evident. A “parallel government” headed by Juan Guaido was created, but it had minimal capacity to shape events inside the country, let alone actually govern. Guaido’s only power base was in the international corporate media, yet he needed military backing. And so arrived April 30.

That day, there was a mobilization by mutinous soldiers, who despite being very few in number had strong international media backing which fueled the impression that Maduro might fall. The contingent, led by Guaido, took over an overpass across from the La Carlota airbase in east Caracas and called on the military to rise up against Maduro. A few hours later, the weakness of the movement became patently obvious and US National Security Advisor John Bolton revealed that top military and civilian officials allegedly implicated in the putsch had “turned off their phones.”

Following this failure to flip the Venezuelan military, which once again demonstrated its loyalty to the government, Washington doubled down on sanctions, especially in all areas related to the oil trade.

During the first six months of the year, there was no way to describe Venezuela beyond the vocabulary of calamity.

The second semester was something else entirely.

Hitting rock bottom?

The tension hanging over Venezuela fanned out across the continent. In Puerto Rico, Panama, Haiti, Ecuador, Chile, Bolivia, and Colombia, popular upheavals rattled one government after another, which are now fighting for their political survival.

While Latin America boils over, Venezuela has returned to calm. Despite the severe economic crisis that has lasted at least six years and the collapse of basic public services, political strife has waned. Opposition supporters did not return to the streets en masse and the political instability was displaced to the opposition’s own camp.

At the close of 2019, Guaido’s leadership does not inspire unanimity. He has suffered several scandals, including the alleged embezzlement of aid funds by his handpicked envoys, his ties to paramilitary drug trafficking outfit Los Rastrojos, and most recently an illicit lobbying scheme involving deputies from his own National Assembly, among them members of his political party. The governments most radically opposed to Venezuela like Chile and Colombia have had to tend to their domestic matters. The activation of the Inter-American Reciprocal Action Treaty (TIAR) has not advanced in the direction of a direct military intervention, and in the US and international media, Venezuela’s “humanitarian crisis” has been moved to the backburner. It would seem that Venezuela is no longer at the center of the international agenda as it was at the start of 2019.

And, beyond all that, the Venezuelan economy is beginning to stabilize.

Economic stability?

Unlike various other countries in the region, Venezuela’s economy appears to be stabilizing for several reasons. First, the migratory wave has had the salutary side-effect of flooding the country with remittances that reach millions of families, even the poorest. There are even many cases in which financial support from abroad has changed the socioeconomic status of many families amid the severe crisis.

There have also been several [contradictory] economic measures taken by Maduro, such as the derogation of the Illicit Exchange Law, the de facto elimination of price controls, and allowing the free circulation of dollars. All this has opened up new economic scenarios going into 2020, including the end of shortages of essential goods – the bane of the 2012-2016 period –, the creation of new business opportunities, as well as the repatriation of some capitals, however marginal, which are stimulating some commercial activity in a terribly impoverished economy.

At the end of November, Reuters revealed that oil production in Venezuela had increased 20 percent relative to the month before, which could indicate a definitive reversal of the free fall experienced during the first half of the year. This news raises positive expectations for 2020 with the possibility of increasing Venezuelan crude exports in the coming year.

Indeed, according to Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodriguez, Venezuela’s economy could even grow by 4 percent in 2020.

It might be concluded that if Maduro did not fall due to the grave economic crisis during 2019, it’s less likely that he will be ousted now, at least on this account. We will have to wait to see if Trump, in the course of his reelection campaign, opts to impose harsher measures on Venezuela that damage the economy even more severely .

But for now, and while Trump appears to rule out military intervention in Venezuela, all eyes turn to the Venezuelan opposition. Will they manage to consummate their coup by themselves?

Venezuela’s opposition post-2019: A definitive fracture?

Regardless of whether Guaido can secure reelection as president of the National Assembly (AN) in 2020, the opposition does not have a credible strategy for ousting Maduro. And this impotence fuels an internal debate that not only divides the opposition publicly but also demobilizes its supporters. The opposition, as it stands now, appears politically bankrupt given the massive expectations it created in 2019 and the utter failure that ensued.

Today’s opposition is divided between those holding out for a US invasion and those who favor a political solution. The bulk of the first group is based in the United States, while the majority of the second is still in Venezuela. This rift will likely continue to widen in 2020 when elections are slated for the National Assembly, the only branch of government the opposition currently controls. Of the four large opposition parties that control the AN, Democratic Action (AD) and A New Era (UNT) have their leadership in Venezuela and, as such, abstention would mean surrendering their seats. For the radical sectors, especially those based in the US and Colombia, their power base is mainly the international corporate media, and they will not accept an electoral solution. Therefore, 2020 could be the year of definitive fracture within the opposition. Popular Will (VP) and First Justice (PJ) still don’t know how to tell their supporters to vote in the elections without having fulfilled their oft-repeated “end of the usurpation” promise, because the alternative is to lose the National Assembly.

And the opposition defeat is not limited to the political and military arenas. The mounting list of corruption scandals and political debacles runs in parallel to the popular uprising shaking the neighboring right-wing governments allied with the Venezuelan opposition. That is, the opposition is being routed on several fronts.

If the opposition began 2019 with extremely high expectations around which it united and rallied its supporters, it ends the year severely divided, atomized, and demobilized. The careful public relations campaign that went into promoting Guaido was powerless to stop the political novice from squandering his political capital without achieving any notable gains.

Maduro, on the other hand, has experienced a similar process but in reverse.

Maduro, survivor of 2019

At the start of the year, Maduro had the profile of a weak president on the verge of being overthrown at any moment. The opposition flooded the streets in January. Over fifty countries refused to recognize Maduro and backed Guaido following his self-proclamation. Washington practically put a price on Maduro’s head, with Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio threatening to sodomize and murder him like NATO-backed rebels did to Libya’s Muamar Gaddaffi.

Venezuela’s future appeared to be one of bloody conflict if not outright dismemberment by Colombia, Brazil, and Guyana.

Chile’s Sebastian Piñera and Colombia’s Ivan Duque gathered alongside Guaido in Cucuta on February 23 in what was hailed as the final thrust to oust Maduro by forcing so-called “humanitarian aid” across the Venezuelan border. By December, neither of these right-wing presidents attend meetings of the Lima Group, preferring to focus their energy on putting down the mass anti-neoliberal revolts occurring within their borders.

At the end of 2019, Venezuela looks much more stable than its right-wing neighbors, who just months ago were fixated on regime change in lieu of their domestic problems.

The Venezuelan government is no longer on the defensive, moving to take the political initiative by calling 2020 legislative elections in a bid to seize the opposition’s last political bastion. These elections could be held as early as the start of the year. The armed forces remain firmly behind Maduro, who has succeeded in opening up avenues for negotiation with minority opposition factions, with whom the ruling party can work during a new legislative period.

Politics is a clash of opposing forces and, as Venezuela demonstrates, the balance can shift radically in the course of a year.

*

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.

Ociel Alí López is a Venezuelan researcher who has published numerous written and multimedia works. He is dedicated to analyzing Venezuelan society for several European and Latin American media outlets. He is a co-founder of alternative Venezuelan state television station Avila TV in 2006. He is the recipient of the CLACSO/ASDI researcher prize and the Britto Garcia literature award.

Vladimir Putin assumed office as Russia’s Acting President 20 years ago on 31 December, 1999, after which he speedily proceeded to transform both his country and the rest of the world in the two decades since.

Iraqis suffered from direct and indirect US aggression since Jimmy Carter’s orchestrated Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s.

Eight years of bloody fighting produced stalemate. Then came GHW Bush’s 1991 Gulf War on Iraq, followed by years of genocidal sanctions, Bush II/Cheney’s 2003 aggression, and its violent/chaotic aftermath to the present day.

US war in Syria has been ongoing for nearly nine years with no prospect for near-term resolution because bipartisan hardliners in Washington reject peace and stability in all US war theaters — endless aggression and chaos serving their imperial objectives.

Iranians have long memories, well aware of US imperial designs on their country, beginning post-WW II with Operation Ajax in 1953, the CIA’s first coup.

It replaced democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh with a generation of fascist tyranny.

Iran’s 1979 revolution restored the country’s sovereign independence, free from US control, targeted for regime change from then to now.

The curse of oil and US rage to control these resources made the Middle East boil, new millennium resource wars raging, a modern-day great game.

Oil is the most valued commodity. Controlling it enables control over nations, Henry Kissinger explained.

Middle East countries have around half of the world’s proved reserves. In November, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced the discovery of a new oil field that contains an estimated 53 billion barrels of crude.

On December 24, Press TV reported that the “National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) expects to announce the discovery of a new oil field in Khuzestan province before the end of the current Persian year in March 2020” — the 2nd major discovery in the past two months.

In October, the NIOC said a large-scale gas field was discovered in southern Iran.

Last year, Iran’s NIOC exploration head Saleh Hendi said 35 – 40 hydrocarbon reservoirs were discovered that need development, claiming:

“We are now ranked first in the world for oil and gas reserves.” Earlier this month he said oil and gas is likely to be discovered in 12 new areas, five prioritized, seven others being evaluated for their potential.

All of the above is why the US seeks control of the country, along with wanting an Israeli rival transformed into a US vassal state, advancing Washington’s aim for regional dominance, the Jewish state its Middle East junior partner.

On Sunday, US warplanes terror-bombed sites in Iraq and Syria. It followed a rocket attack, killing a US private military contractor on a base where Pentagon troops are based near Kirkuk, Iraq, wounding US military personnel.

Iran had nothing to do with what happened. The US blamed Iraqi militants falsely linked to Iran.

In mid-December, Pompeo falsely blamed Iran for earlier rocket attacks on Pentagon bases in Iraq, threatening retaliation if US personnel and allies are killed or injured.

No evidence links Iran to hostile regional actions — US, NATO, Israeli, Saudi, UAE specialties, along with terrorist proxies they support.

Following Sunday’s terror-bombing strikes, a Pentagon statement blamed “Kata’ib Hezbollah (KH) attacks on Iraqi bases that host” US troops.

The Shia paramilitary group is part of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces that operate with the country’s military.

According to Baghdad authorities, around two dozen militia fighters were killed, dozens more wounded.

Weapons storage facilities, along with command and control locations were struck.

In response, Kata’ib Hezbollah reportedly fired rockets at Camp Taji where US forces are based.

According to the Iraqi News Agency, Iraq President Barham Salih condemned US Sunday airstrikes on the country.

So did Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, saying: “Bombing PMU (Popular Mobilization Units) bases is a dangerous aggravation which endangers the security of Iraq and the region.”

He reportedly ordered Iraq’s Joint Operations Command to prevent air and ground operations in the country without Baghdad’s approval.

Kata’ib Hezbollah issued a statement, saying Pentagon airstrikes “disregard(ed) and humiliat(ed) the sovereignty and honor of the Iraqi nation,” adding:

They killed and wounded “our sons which were defending our country’s western border,” calling on Baghdad to “prepare for a new page (of) honor and dignity” by expelling US forces from the country.

Iraq’s Asaib Ahl al-Haq group, affiliated with the PMU, denounced the “cowardly (US) attack.”

It called for “ending (Washington’s) military presence in Iraq…by all means necessary before it lasts any longer.”

Earlier, the Fatah Coalition bloc in Iraq’s parliament called for an end to US occupation of the country.

Deputy Speaker Hasan al-Kaabi said legislation was being drafted to terminate Baghdad’s so-called security agreement with Washington, a measure to force withdrawal of its troops.

Fatah bloc parliamentarian Falih Khazali called Sunday’s Pentagon terror-bombing incident “a clear (US) war with Iraq.”

Senior cleric/political leader Ammar al-Hakin denounced the US raid as a flagrant breach of Iraq’s sovereignty and security agreement with the US.

Press TV reported that the Trump regime withdrew dozens of US personnel from its Baghdad embassy.

US war secretary Mark Esper falsely called Sunday’s aggression “defensive airstrikes,” saying F-15 warplanes conducted them.

Pompeo ignored reality, saying  they were carried out “in response to the threat against the American forces (by) the Islamic Republic” — threatening no one.

Kata’ib Hezbollah is an Iraqi Shia paramilitary force unconnected to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Sunday’s incident is further evidence of the menace posed by the presence of US forces wherever they’re based.

A Final Comment

Months earlier, Iraqi anti-terror groups Kata’ib Hezbollah and Asaib Ahl al-Haq called for resistance against the presence of US forces in the region because of the menace they pose to peace and stability.

Kata’ib Hezbollah said the term “state sponsor of terrorism” describes how Washington operates, leaving no choice but to resist its regional presence.

The group’s leadership expressed solidarity with Iran because of unacceptable US economic terrorism, harming the nation and its people.

Separately last week, Iraq-based Muslim Clerics Union head Jabbar al-Ma’amouri said the Trump regime pressured Baghdad to block the Mandali border crossing with Iran “because…of its importance to…trade and economic ties” between both countries.

In the 12-month period ending March 20, 2019, non-oil trade between both countries was around $10 billion, he said, adding:

In January through July 2019, it was about $6 billion. Iran and Iraq are allies. The US aims to undermine their political and economic ties.

*

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 Silent Crow News

The Syrian Army is preparing for a ground operation against radical militants in western Aleppo, sources close to the Damascus government claim. According to reports, the Syrian military was preparing for this operation during the past two months.

The operation in western Aleppo will complement the recent advance in southeast Idlib. Both of them are aimed at reopening the M5 highway that passes though western Syria.

Earlier in December, government forces liberated over 40 towns and villages in southeast Aleppo deploying in a striking distance from the militant-held city of Maarat al-Numan. The Syrian Army halted the advance in late December once again giving so-called moderate rebels a chance to separate from al-Qaeda-linked terrorists. Nonetheless, this move found no understanding among Idlib armed groups.

On December 28, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its Turkish-backed allies launched a large attack on Syrian Army positions in the recently-liberated towns of Al-Teh and Jarjanaz. However, they failed to break the army defense. At least two suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices launched by militants were destroyed before they were able to reach army positions.

Turkey is redeploying large groups of members of its proxy groups in Syria to Libya in order to support the pro-Turkish Government of National Accord (GNA) that is involved in the battle for Tripoli against the Libyan National Army (LNA). Videos from the ground show that Turkish-backed Syrian militants are already involved in the fighting on the ground. One of the groups involved in this operation is the al-Mu’tasim Division based in Syria’s northern Aleppo.

The deployment of Turkish-backed Syrian groups in Libya is another confirmation that the so-called Syrian opposition is just a batch of mercenaries and radicals that do not link their future with the territory of Syria and the Syrian state.

*

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

In warfare, the False Flag is a ruse, used to legitimize the abandonment of military rules of engagement. Its name derives from ancient cheaters in nautical warfare. The Nazi Reichstag fire and the US Gulf of Tonkin are two infamous examples of false flags. The US has used false flag cover for yet another round of bombings.

On Friday, 27 December, one or more rockets were fired at an Iraqi base in Kirkuk, which hosts “Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) coalition forces,” reportedly killing one “U.S. citizen [contractor] and [which reportedly] injured four U.S. service members and two members of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF).” Though not even ISIS claimed responsibility, the US declared the Iraqi Hezb Allah group and Iran’s Quds Forces — because of “linkage” –culpable.”

The US has continuously said blatantly earlier that it doesn’t want any Iraqi forces near the borders with Syria, in a clear signal to allow ISIS to resurface in that vital Tehran – Baghdad – Damascus Highway.

The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense — who has “linkage” to Secretary of State Michael ‘Lied-Cheated-Stole’ Pompeo — issued a statement on 29 December. Claiming to have bombed “three…locations in Iraq and two in Syria.”

The Ass. to the Secretary of Defense offered no explanation for why the US would bomb Syria, given the alleged attack occurred in Iraq, which is not Syria.

He did, however, feign righteous adherence to International Law, stating that “The OIR coalition is in Iraq and the invitation of the Iraqi government…[which] fully respect Iraqi sovereignty…”.

Though it is difficult to imagine how a country that was invaded, and bombed, whose population was slaughtered, and which then submitted to long-term occupation, could have the capacity to consent to being re-bombed, Syria never consented to being bombed, nor to having terrorists be armed against it, nor did Syria ever invite US / OIR occupation forces in.

The statement continued in Orwellian, war criminal, Newspeak, that the US would “not be deterred from exercising its right to self-defense.”

An invader has no claim to defend itself when breaching International Law regarding sovereignty.

But the US is notorious for its torquing of military truth. In September 2014, after Obama announced the establishment of the War Criminal Coalition to Bomb Syria, press liaison Jen Psaki told the media that the US had given Syria the courtesy of knowing the bombing would begin, and the warning that if Syria dared to shoot down war criminal bomber jets in Syria, the US would claim such action as an act of war.

In the wake of this aggression, a number of political blocks in the Iraqi Parliament are now calling to activate a once shelved draft resolution calling on the US forces to withdraw from Iraq, especially that Trump has declared more than once that ISIS is defeated, thus the presence of the US forces there has no justification to stay.

Israel and Bahrain are the only parties who welcomed this latest aggression. The Iraqis are anticipating such escalation since last October when Israel started its air raids against the Iraqi PMU warehouses with facilitation from the US forces in Iraq. This aggression was carried out by US F15 fighter jets from within Iraq itself.

This official statement came shortly after the news that Syria had found another several million of dollars of NATO and Israeli weapons left behind by terrorists fleeing the Syrian Arab Army.

*

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

“The people have the power, all we have to do is awaken that power in the people. The people are unaware. They’re not educated to realize that they have power. The system is so geared that everyone believes the government will fix everything. We are the government.”—John Lennon

Twenty years into the 21^st century, and what do we have to show for it?

Government corruption, tyranny and abuse have propelled us at warp speed towards a full-blown police state in which egregious surveillance, roadside strip searches, police shootings of unarmed citizens, censorship, retaliatory arrests, the criminalization of lawful activities, warmongering, indefinite detentions, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, police brutality, profit-driven prisons, and pay-to-play politicians have become the new normal.

Here’s just a small sampling of the laundry list of abuses—cruel, brutal, immoral, unconstitutional and unacceptable—that have been heaped upon us by the government over the past two decades.

The government failed to protect our lives, liberty and happiness. The predators of the police state wreaked havoc on our freedoms, our communities, and our lives. The government didn’t listen to the citizenry, refused to abide by the Constitution, and treated the citizenry as a source of funding and little else. Police officers shot unarmed citizens and their household pets. Government agents—including local police—were armed to the teeth and encouraged to act like soldiers on a battlefield. Bloated government agencies were allowed to fleece taxpayers. Government technicians spied on our emails and phone calls. And government contractors made a killing by waging endless wars abroad.

The American President became more imperial. Although the Constitution invests the President with very specific, limited powers, in recent years, American presidents (Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.) claimed the power to completely and almost unilaterally alter the landscape of this country for good or for ill. The powers that have been amassed by each successive president through the negligence of Congress and the courts—powers which add up to a toolbox of terror for an imperial ruler—empower whomever occupies the Oval Office to act as a dictator, above the law and beyond any real accountability. The presidency itself has become an imperial one with permanent powers.

Militarized police became a power unto themselves, 911 calls turned deadly, and traffic stops took a turn for the worse. Lacking in transparency and accountability, protected by the courts and legislators, and rife with misconduct, America’s police forces became a growing menace to the citizenry and the rule of law. Despite concerns about the government’s steady transformation of local police into a standing military army, local police agencies acquired even more weaponry, training and equipment suited for the battlefield. Police officers were also given free range to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons and subject them to forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases.

The courts failed to uphold justice. With every ruling handed down, it becomes more apparent that we live in an age of hollow justice, with government courts more concerned with protecting government agents than upholding the rights of “we the people.” This is true at all levels of the judiciary, but especially so in the highest court of the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, which is seemingly more concerned with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution. A review of critical court rulings over the past two decades, including some ominous ones by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting the ruling class and government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

The Surveillance State rendered Americans vulnerable to threats from government spies, police, hackers and power failures. Thanks to the government’s ongoing efforts to build massive databases using emerging surveillance, DNA and biometrics technologies, Americans have become sitting ducks for hackers and government spies alike. Billions of people have been affected by data breaches and cyberattacks. On a daily basis, Americans have been made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to navigate an increasingly technologically-enabled world.

Mass shootings claimed more lives. Mass shootings have taken place in virtually every venue, including at churches, in nightclubs, on college campuses, on military bases, in elementary schools, in government offices, and at concerts. However, studies make clear that the government’s gun violence—inflicted on unarmed individuals by battlefield-trained SWAT teams, militarized police, and bureaucratic government agents trained to shoot first and ask questions later—poses a greater threat to the safety and security of the nation than any mass shooter.

Debtors’ prisons made a comeback. Not content to expand the police state’s power to search, strip, seize, raid, steal from, arrest and jail Americans for any infraction, no matter how insignificant, state courts were given the green light to resume their practice of jailing individuals who are unable to pay the hefty fines imposed by the American police state. These debtors’ prisons play right into the hands of the corporations that make a profit by jailing Americans. This is no longer a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” It has become a government “of the rich, by the elite, for the corporations,” and its rise to power has been predicated on shackling the American taxpayer to a debtors’ prison guarded by a phalanx of politicians, bureaucrats and militarized police with no hope of parole and no chance for escape.

The cost of endless wars drove the nation deeper into debt. America’s war spending has already bankrupted the nation to the tune of more than $20 trillion dollars. Policing the globe and waging endless wars abroad hasn’t made America—or the rest of the world—any safer, but it has made the military industrial complex rich at taxpayer expense. Approximately 200,000 US troops are stationed in 177 countries throughout the world, including Africa, where troops reportedly carry out an average of 10 military exercises and engagements daily. Meanwhile, America’s infrastructure is falling apart. The interest on the money America has borrowed to wage its wars will cost an estimated $8 trillion.

“Show your papers” incidents skyrocketed. We are not supposed to be living in a “show me your papers” society. Despite this, the U.S. government has introduced measures allowing police and other law enforcement officials to stop individuals (citizens and noncitizens alike), demand they identify themselves, and subject them to patdowns, warrantless searches, and interrogations. These actions fly in the face of longstanding constitutional safeguards forbidding such police state tactics.

The government waged war on military veterans. The government has done a pitiful job of respecting the freedoms of military veterans and caring for their needs once out of uniform. Despite the fact that the U.S. boasts more than 20 million veterans who have served in World War II through the present day, the plight of veterans today is America’s badge of shame, with large numbers of veterans impoverished, unemployed, traumatized mentally and physically, struggling with depression, suicide, and marital stress, homeless, subjected to sub-par treatment at clinics and hospitals, left to molder while their paperwork piles up within Veterans Administration offices, and increasingly treated like criminals—targeted for surveillance, censorship, threatened with incarceration or involuntary commitment, labeled as extremists and/or mentally ill, and stripped of their Second Amendment rights—for daring to speak out against government misconduct.

Free speech was dealt one knock-out punch after another. Protest laws, free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws, shadow banning on the Internet, and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors (and championed by those who want to suppress speech with which they might disagree) conspired to corrode our core freedoms, purportedly for our own good. On paper—at least according to the U.S. Constitution—we are technically free to speak. In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official—or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube—may allow. The reasons for such censorshipvaried widely from political correctness, so-called safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remained the same: the complete eradication of free speech.

The government waged a renewed war on private property. The battle to protect our private property has become the final constitutional frontier, the last holdout against our freedoms being usurped. We no longer have any real property rights. That house you live in, the car you drive, the small (or not so small) acreage of land that has been passed down through your family or that you scrimped and saved to acquire, whatever money you manage to keep in your bank account after the government and its cronies have taken their first and second and third cut…none of it is safe from the government’s greedy grasp. At no point do you ever have any real ownership in anything other than the clothes on your back. Everything else can be seized by the government under one pretext or another (civil asset forfeiture, unpaid taxes, eminent domain, public interest, etc.).

Schools became even more like prisons. So-called school “safety” policies—which run the gamut from zero tolerance policies that punish all infractions harshly to surveillance cameras, metal detectors, random searches, drug-sniffing dogs, school-wide lockdowns, active-shooter drills and militarized police officers—have turned schools into prisons and young people into prisoners. From the moment a child enters one of the nation’s 98,000 public schools to the moment she graduates, she will be exposed to a steady diet of draconian zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior, overreaching anti-bullying statutes that criminalize speech, school resource officers (police) tasked with disciplining and/or arresting so-called “disorderly” students, standardized testing that emphasizes rote answers over critical thinking, politically correct mindsets that teach young people to censor themselves and those around them, and extensive biometric and surveillance systems that, coupled with the rest, acclimate young people to a world in which they have no freedom of thought, speech or movement.

The Deep State took over. The American system of representative government was overthrown by the Deep State—a.k.a. the police state a.k.a. the military/corporate industrial complex—a profit-driven, militaristic corporate state bent on total control and global domination through the imposition of martial law here at home and by fomenting wars abroad. The “government of the people, by the people, for the people” has perished. In its place is a shadow government, a corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country and calling the shots in Washington DC, no matter who sits in the White House. Mind you, by “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats. Rather, I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law. This is the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry. This shadow government, which “operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power,” makes a mockery of elections and the entire concept of a representative government.

The takeaway: Everything the founders of this country feared has come to dominate in modern America. “We the people” have been saddled with a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics.

So how do you balance the scales of justice at a time when Americans are being tasered, tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed, hit with batons, shot with rubber bullets and real bullets, blasted with sound cannons, detained in cages and kennels, sicced by police dogs, arrested and jailed for challenging the government’s excesses, abuses and power-grabs?

No matter who sits in the White House, politics won’t fix a system that is broken beyond repair.

For that matter, protests and populist movements also haven’t done much to push back against an authoritarian regime that is deaf to our cries, dumb to our troubles, blind to our needs, and accountable to no one.

So how do you not only push back against the police state’s bureaucracy, corruption and cruelty but also launch a counterrevolution aimed at reclaiming control over the government using nonviolent means?

You start by changing the rules and engaging in some (nonviolent) guerilla tactics.

Take part in grassroots activism, which takes a trickle-up approach to governmental reform by implementing change at the local level (in other words, think nationally, but act locally).

And then, nullify everything the government does that flies in the face of the principles on which this nation was founded.

If there is any means left to us for thwarting the government in its relentless march towards outright dictatorship, it may rest with the power of juries and local governments to invalidate governmental laws, tactics and policies that are illegitimate, egregious or blatantly unconstitutional.

In an age in which government officials accused of wrongdoing—police officers, elected officials, etc.—are treated with general leniency, while the average citizen is prosecuted to the full extent of the law, nullification is a powerful reminder that, as the Constitution tells us, “we the people” are the government.

For too long we’ve allowed our so-called “representatives” to call the shots. Now it’s time to restore the citizenry to their rightful place in the republic: as the masters, not the servants.

Nullification is one way of doing so.

Various cities and states have been using this historic doctrine with mixed results on issues as wide ranging as gun control and healthcare to “claim freedom from federal laws they find onerous or wrongheaded.” Most recently, a growing number of communities—including more than a 100 counties, cities and towns in Virginia—have declared themselves to be Second Amendment sanctuaries and adopted resolutions opposing any “unconstitutional restrictions” on the right to keep and bear arms. It is mass movements such as these that the government fears most.

Indeed, any hope of freeing ourselves rests—as it always has—at the local level, with “we the people.” One of the most important contributions an individual citizen can make is to become actively involved in local community affairs, politics and legal battles. As the adage goes, “Think globally, act locally.”

America was meant to be primarily a system of local governments, which is a far cry from the colossal federal bureaucracy we have today. Yet if our freedoms are to be restored, understanding what is transpiring practically in your own backyard—in one’s home, neighborhood, school district, town council—and taking action at that local level must be the starting point.

Responding to unmet local needs and reacting to injustices is what grassroots activism is all about. Attend local city council meetings, speak up at town hall meetings, organize protests and letter-writing campaigns, employ “militant nonviolent resistance” and civil disobedience, which Martin Luther King Jr. used to great effect through the use of sit-ins, boycotts and marches.

Let’s not take the mistakes, carnage, toxicity and abuse of this past decade into 2020.

As long as we continue to allow callousness, cruelty, meanness, immorality, ignorance, hatred, intolerance, racism, militarism, materialism, meanness and injustice—magnified by an echo chamber of nasty tweets and government-sanctioned brutality—to trump justice, fairness and equality, there can be no hope of prevailing against the police state.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we could transform this nation if only Americans would work together to harness the power of their discontent and push back against the government’s overreach, excesses and abuse.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

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

The Turkish Army has shelled Syrian Army positions near the town of Bir Issa in northern Raqqa. Local Kurdish sources claimed that several Syrian soldiers were injured and three vehicles were destroyed in the incident that took place on December 29. On the same day, sources close the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) reported that the SDF had destroyed a Turkish military vehicle and killed 3 persons abroad in the same area.

Despite these developments, the situation in the area remained relatively calm thanks to the ceasefire regime agreed by Ankara and Moscow. However, if such incidents continue to appear, northeastern Syria will once again became a hot point of the conflict.

According to the Russian side, one of the destabilizing factors is the US support to Kurdish separatism on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov addressed this issue on December 30 following talks with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif.

In southeastern Idlib, the Syrian Army secured the town of al-Halba after a series of clashes with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its allies. After a series of setbacks in the battle against government forces, Idlib militant groups are now regrouping and resupplying their forces. The army is also not conducting large offensive 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.

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

I have long been troubled by the way so many believing Christians in the West have either been ignorant of or turned their backs on the plight of Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim. Right-wing Evangelicals, under the sway of heretical theology, are so blinded by their obsession with Israel that they cannot see Israel’s victims. Other Western Christians simply just do not know or about the people of Palestine.

I find this state of affairs to always be distressing, but especially so at Christmas time, since the Christmas story we celebrate not only took place in that land, it continues to define the lives of the Palestinians who live in places like Bethlehem and Nazareth.

When Western Christians think of those communities, the pictures that come to mind are the mythologised images that are the product of our movies, artists, songs and stories. That Bethlehem is a real place with real people is lost on them.

It was with this thought in mind, that several years ago I wrote a reflection on the importance of knowing the real Bethlehem.

Bethlehem has always loomed large in our imagination. For generations, the feelings evoked by this town have been captured in multiple art forms, serving to inspire both believers and non-believers with its message of hope and the joyful promise of new life.

For those who do not know the place, Bethlehem possesses a timeless quality, derived from these artistic creations. It is a place of mystery and contradictions. It is the peaceful little town that played an out-sized role in history; the birthplace of Jesus, the child born in a cave, heralded by angels and visited by shepherds and kings. For hundreds of millions of Christians world-wide, these are the images that define Bethlehem. Sadly, in reality, all of this is but a fantasy, since the pressures of contemporary daily life in this historic community paint a remarkably different portrait.

Suffering under Israeli military occupation since 1967, Bethlehem has slowly been strangled. It has lost most of its land to settlement construction. It is hemmed in by a 30-foot-high concrete wall, stripped of its resources and denied access to external markets. As a result, 25 per cent of Bethlehem’s people are unemployed, while 35 per cent live below the poverty level.

Before the occupation, for example, a few thousand Palestinians in Bethlehem were employed as craftsmen known worldwide for their olive-wood and mother-of-pearl artifacts. Today, denied the ability to freely export and hurt by the instability of military rule, that industry employs only a few hundred. Similarly, Bethlehem’s tourism has suffered. Israeli companies that dominate the industry bring tourists to stay in hotels in areas they control, making only day trips to Bethlehem’s holy places. The crowds come to the town for a few hours, but their revenue disproportionately goes to the Israelis.

Bethlehem has lost so much land to Israeli confiscation for settlement construction that it can no longer expand. Now it can only build vertically. As a result, what is left of Bethlehem has become overcrowded, with traffic congesting its narrow streets.

Israeli leaders often complain that they must expand their settlements further so that their youth can find housing. And they insist that they must continue to build their wall, in order to protect the residents of these illegal colonies. What they do not say is that the wall is built through Palestinian-owned lands, cutting villages from their properties, and the expansion of the mammoth settlement colonies at Har Homa, Gilo, Har Gilo, Betar Ilit, Giva’ot and more are occurring at the expense of Palestinians living in the Bethlehem region.

The Israelis call these colonies “neighbourhoods of Jerusalem”. This is but a crude effort to obfuscate the reality that they are all built on Bethlehem area land–illegally confiscated by Israel and then unilaterally annexed to what they call “Greater Jerusalem”. As a result, Palestinians now retain only tenuous control of 13 per cent of the Bethlehem region, with the Israelis still threatening to take more. In fact, the 22 Israeli settlements built in the Bethlehem region, the roads that connect them and the wall that protects them were all built on land taken from Palestinians. And the new expansion plans for Jewish-only housing and the extension of the wall simply means that more land will be taken, leaving less for Palestinians.

Look at a map and you will see that Bethlehem is but a few miles from Jerusalem. As late as 20 years ago, standing near Manger Square, one could look out over a green space, the hill of Jabal Abu Ghnaim, and see the Holy City. The trip, by car, was only 15 minutes. Today that view has been obliterated by the 30-foot wall, and that green space, where Palestinian families once picnicked, is now the site of the monstrous concrete settlement of Har Homa, home to 25,000 Israelis. As a result of the settlements, Jewish-only roads and the wall, an entire generation of young Palestinians have grown up never having been to Jerusalem. Not only that, but the entire population has been cut off from the city that was their metropole, the hub that provided them medical, social, educational services, markets and sources of employment, and venues for cultural and spiritual enrichment. All that is now beyond their reach.

Today, the Palestinian population of the Bethlehem region is 210,000. At the same time, there are over 165,000 Israeli settlers, with plans to significantly increase that number in the near future. Facing this human onslaught, Palestinians have taken their case to the World Court, which ruled that the settlements and the wall are illegal, in clear violation of international laws designed after World War II to protect the rights of people living in territories occupied in time of war. In response, Israel, with the backing of the US, has acted with impunity continuing to build, to move its people into Palestinian areas, and to take more land.

All this is happening while Christians in the West blissfully sing of the “peaceful little town”, not hearing the cries of its people. More disturbing is the degree to which policymakers and those who should know better deliberately turn a deaf ear to Palestinian appeals for recognition of their plight, thereby enabling the continuation of this injustice.

Meanwhile, in Bethlehem, hope gives way to despair and thoughts of peace to feelings of anger. Attention must be paid to this tragedy.

Just for a moment, think of Bethlehem and instead of imagining the shepherds and the angels, think of life as it is in that town today. Imagine what you would feel if you lived in Bethlehem and saw your land taken to make way for homes and roads for another people. And imagine how you would feel if your sons and daughters were forced into exile to find employment, to make way for the sons and daughters of another people who have come to live on your land. Then listen carefully and hear the cry of the people of that little town.

*

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

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

We have a vast global communication network at our fingertips, a significant part of which has long since been hijacked by the purveyors of ‘the daily matrix’. But another part of which still manages to operate within a spectrum that gives a possibility for what we refer to as ‘freedom of speech’.

Used intelligently, this spectrum can substantially increase one’s knowledge and raise one’s awareness. But used unintelligently and indiscriminately it can act as a hypnotic sponge and conveyor of false ideologies; a direct extension of  ‘the daily matrix’s’ mass conveyance of state and corporate indoctrination. But the choice of what information is sought – and what technology is used to convey it – is, of course, the prerogative of the individual. 

However, one first has to be an individual. One cannot make a rational choice unless one has identified one’s self as having the ability to recognise realities outside the standard prevailing influences of the day. Outside those conditions imposed by the state and corporate propaganda machine. To be ‘an individual’ means to be discerning; and that is the starting point of all true decision making. 

Most reading this article will no doubt class themselves as individuals, and therefore accustomed to utilising the power of discernment in their daily thoughts and actions. Which is all well and good. However, being in possession of this quality does not guarantee that some – probably many – will not retain an unquestioning attachment to the more subtly subversive news and views transmitted across the airwaves by that which we call ‘mainstream media’. 

Many thoughtful supposed ‘individuals’ in Britain and indeed all around the world, still tune in to the BBC and religiously listen to what appear to be serious conversations about the state of society and the world. Many more seek to find satisfaction via the seemingly erudite commentaries of traditional newspapers like The Times, Telegraph, Guardian and Independent. Likewise in the USA, via The New York Times, Washington Post etc. 

Therefore of critical significance to what happens in 2020, is how many of those currently content to sup at the table of these subversive masters of spin, will wake-up and realise that they have been taken-in and have lost their power of individual discernment. Lost it to the deceptive messages being conveyed by the soothing ‘educated’ tones of carefully trained ‘voices of authority’. 

I use the BBC descriptively, all countries state radio and TV stations have their trained ‘voices’ to convey the spin of the day in a manner carefully programmed to mesmerize the listener via a form of authoritative beguilement, which in turn elicits a kind of reverie of submission to the content. 

In order to be able to change the nature and way of society ‘purposefully, deliberately and deeply’  a critical mass of individuals has to break-out of their state of being mesmerized and seduced by demons. To break-out of being willing victims of state sponsored mind control. 

In 2020 we will face this test square-on, because this is a pivotal year for overcoming such failings and achieving a number of victories that weigh-in on the side of  ‘we – the discerning – people’. Vital victories in the long battle to save and nurture back into full health the frayed yet fundamental values of civilized life on planet Earth. 

Pivotal, because the ‘smart’ tools of communication we have adopted in recent decades, have – particularly with role-out of 5G electro magnetic microwave frequencies – now reached a point of near saturation of the human nervous system and its/our ability to retain a properly earthed sense of balance. 

In 2020, many more must recognise that it is not enough to isolate just one particularly poisonous microwave radiation weapon (known as 5G) and ignore the toxic contribution made by the slightly less poisonous frequency weapons, known as 3 and 4G, that continue to undermine the quality of life of millions of living beings on a daily basis. 

That would be the same as ruling against child pornography but continuing to accept the authority of the BBC and those heads of state who continue to indulge in indefensible acts of child abuse. Acts of abuse which we now have very little excuse for not knowing about, in spite of massive attempts to hide them. 

In many respects the future of our planet now depends upon the willingness of those who can discern the difference between life supporting and life stripping activities, to make that crucial next step of actingupon this knowledge – and ceasing to hide behind the convenient illusions of what is touted as ‘acceptable’ or ‘normal’. There is nothing remotely acceptable or normal about such behaviour.

That which is unacceptable is allowed to continue its reign due to the hypocrisy of those who prefer not to question their acts of needless indulgence in the play things of convenience; including the clever toxic toys of the falsely privileged. 

2020 is the year to take a deliberate and decisive step back from the nihilistic and often outright destructive consequences of needless self indulgence; and instead put one’s best foot forward so as to put into practice what one knows to be necessary – and thereby to practice what one preaches. Fully embracing this positive step could make the difference between life and death. Not just for one’s self, but for humanity as a whole and all the sentient and non sentient expressions of our living environment. 

It’s time to act on behalf of the health and welfare of Gaia – in honour of all her subtle and exquisite offerings – rather than for the retention of the narcissistic conveniences of the crass self-consuming consumer society. Conveniences that stultify and suffocate these priceless offerings. 

Never has making truly discerning life affirmative choices been more important. 

*

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

Julian Rose is author of  ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through,   now available from independent book stores and Amazon. See www.julianrose.info for more information. Julian is an international activist, writer, broadcaster, organic farming pioneer and actor.  In 1987 and 1998, he led a campaign that saved unpasteurized milk from being banned in the UK; and, with Jadwiga Lopata, a ‘Say No to GMO’ campaign in Poland which led to a national ban of GM seeds and plants in that country in 2006. Julian is currently campaigning to ‘Stop 5G’ WiFi.

Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid Muallem recently described the US as using the so-called “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” (ISIS) as “a scarecrow” the US uses to menace targeted nations all while secretly encouraging, protecting, and helping them “move from one area to another.”

Maullum’s comments perfectly encapsulate the twenty-plus year so-called “War on Terror” the US has used to expand itself across the globe militarily and to serve as a stand-in for legitimate economic and political development both within the United States and between the United States and the international community.

Maullum’s comments come at a time when – despite Washington’s collapsing machinations in Syria – the US is still working to undermine, divide, and destroy the Syrian nation by aiding its enemies while using all political, economic, and military options available to pressure Syria itself.

Muallem was also quoted as saying:

All nations that were victimized by this system need to join forces and resist those sanctions.

In many ways, this is already happening. Russia’s intervention in Syria from 2015 onward is part of growing international momentum working against US special interests, their collective hegemony, and the toxic impact it has had not only on international relations and development, but also on the US itself.

From Convincing Pretext to Obvious State-Sponsored Terrorism 

Following the events of September 11, 2001 the United States embarked on a multi-decade “War on Terror.” Its invasion of Afghanistan was seen and supported by many nations and their respective populations as a necessary and justified means of combating the scourge that allegedly carried out the deadly attacks on 9/11.

By 2003 – after a time of reflection and in the face of an America eager to spread its “War on Terror” across the globe – it became clear that this “War on Terror” was merely a stand-in to continue America’s hegemonic designs pursued during the now concluded Cold War. This included a pretext for NATO’s continued existence and the alliance’s use by Washington as a means of exerting control over Europe as well as using Europe, its people, and resources to exert influence and control across Africa and Eurasia.

By 2011 and the US interventions in Libya and Syria – it was abundantly clear that not only was the “War on Terror” a false pretext, but it was one artificially created and deliberately perpetuated by Washington itself.

This included revelations that the US had been arming and directing the very Al Qaeda terror network and its affiliates allegedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks – using them as a virtual mercenary force to target nations the US sought regime change within.

The so-called “rebels” in Libya were little more than Al Qaeda affiliates – poorly dressed as freedom fighters seeking “democracy.” These same literal terrorists the US armed and aided in overthrowing the Libyan government in 2011 would be shipped to Syria where the US sought to replicate its “success” in Libya against Damascus.

The war in Syria however failed to produce Washington’s desired results – and as the conflict dragged on – through the growth and influence of alternative media – the true nature of America’s “War on Terror” emerged.

It is now common knowledge that the United States and its Saudi, Turkish, and Qatari allies deliberately armed Al Qaeda militants and their affiliates in a bid to destabilize and overthrow the Syrian government. It is now also common knowledge that when this bid failed – the US and its allies created ISIS to serve as both an additional pressure point against Damascus as well as a pretext for direct US military intervention.

Today, the US “War on Terror” exists as a mostly empty narrative long-since exposed. Washington’s continued efforts against Syria have resulted in even its own allies during the early stages of the war abandoning them – including Turkey – a key NATO member – which now is working closer with Russia and increasingly pursuing a foreign policy independently of Washington.

What Lies in the Future

For Washington – a lack of of a better alternative and its insistence on doubling down on a now exposed and impotent narrative reveals to the world a circle of special interests that are desperately and dangerously spiraling out of control.

Nations eager to do business with the United States as a nation are increasingly frustrated by the handful of special interests occupying Wall Street and Washington – preferring to create an alternative global order that either excludes the US or at the very least – leaves it behind as the rest of the world moves on without it.

For nations like Syria – their decision to stand by their allies – including Russia and Iran – has paid off. And because it has – other nations facing similar threats from Washington’s belligerent foreign policy are faced with the easy choice of likewise building ties with reemerging powers like Russia or rising powers like China rather than continuing to capitulate to US pressure.

Growing global momentum means that not only will current US foreign policy continue to fail to produce positive results for the interests directing it – it will fail at an increasingly expotential rate.

For nations like Russia and China who serve as alternative focal points of global power – their success owed to a different forumla of creating and brokering a global balance of power should serve as encouragement to continue in a multipolar direction rather than cave in to the temptation of seizing a hegemonic position as the US did both after the conclusion of World War 2 and again at the end of the Cold War.

The world finds itself at yet another critical juncture where the very face of global relations and international order stand to be redefined. This time it is not Washington who gets to decide – but rather those who have long suffered under US hegemony.

Only time will tell if this alternative global order will learn from America’s mistakes – or merely repeat them.

The collapse of America’s “War on Terror” is a microcosm within the greater collapse of American global hegemony in general. It is a collapse that will cost the US as a nation dearly. It should serve as a stark warning and example driving emerging global powers to learn from America’s mistakes rather than repeat them.

*

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.

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO

The Commission (an appendage of OAS) explained that since the (forced) resignation of Evo Morales, the accounts have supported hashtags such as #BoliviaLibreyDemocratica and #NoHayGolpeEnBolivia.

***

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) detected, as part of the campaign to support the president of the Civic Committee of Santa Cruz, Luis Fernando Camacho, and the interim government of Jeanine Añez, that in Bolivia there has been a resort to the use of thousands of fake Twitter accounts since the resignation of Evo Morales.

“The data would show about 68 thousand accounts created, which shared 14 hashtags, that have been shared by 252,090 different accounts, which made 1,048,575 tweets from November 9 to 17,” the IACHR detailed in its report on the observational visit to Bolivia held at the end of November and published on December 10.

The IACHR noted that some of the hashtags used as part of the campaign are: #BoliviaLibreyDemocratica, #NoHayGolpeEnBolivia, #EvoEsFraude, #BoliviaUnida, among others.

“The IACHR is an OAS appendage and they might be trying to present a “nicer face” in view of the grotesque role of the OAS as promoter of the coup. It is also interesting they talk about free journalism and do not mention the assassination of the Argentinian journalist Sebastian Moro at the early hours of the coup,” an analyst said to OT.

Mujer valiente que desde su posición de Senadora luchaba por la democracia y contra la corrupción del movimiento al socialismo que dirigía @evoespueblo, esa es mi Presi @JeanineAnez admirable mujer. 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽#Bolivia ♥️💛💚#BoliviaLibreyDemocraticahttps://t.co/ZyjLqt7P2t

— Faviola Padilla Nuñez (@faviola_nunez) December 21, 2019

Roban millones, los detienen… discriminación.
Incumplen normas, los sancionan… discriminación.
Nunca tienen argumentos válidos.#EvoNarcoterrorista#BoliviaLibreyDemocratica https://t.co/4QECEzCETw

— Clau Nepo (@clau_nepo) December 20, 2019

Excelente palabras de #jheanisseVaca !! Donde estaba la comunidad internacional?! Cuando @evoespueblo se re re re reeligia y se limpiaba con la CPE, cuando la #AmazoniaBoliviana ardia!! Hoy gritan por #EvoDictador y donde estaban antes? #BoliviaLibreyDemocratica https://t.co/VbEQxQVGtW

— Alejandra H Parada (@AleHPE0204) December 12, 2019

In the observations made by the IACHR, they also lodge complaints by independent and community journalists who, due to the alleged absence of national media in the coverage of the conflicts, have decided to report through social networks and blogs.

According to the allegations, said journalists received death and intimidation threats from private shock groups, such as the so-called “Cochala Youth Resistance”.

In its report, the IACHR reminds the State that the role of the press in a democratic society is fundamental, especially in situations of high social tension and violence, in which the exercise of the journalistic profession constitutes a way of denouncing human rights violations and guarantees the collective dimension of freedom of expression, that is, the right of society as a whole to be informed.

“The role of the press in the course of social protests is equally important, and the State must ensure that they can carry out their journalistic work without being subject to detentions, threats, aggressions or limitations in any form,” the report reads.

*

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: From left to right. Paulo Abrão, Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Luis Almagro, OAS Secretary General. Date: September 19, 2016, Place: Washington, DC, Credit: Juan Manuel Herrera/OAS

The Cuban government is prepared for United States President Donald Trump to break off diplomatic relations, although it hopes that this will not occur, a senior Cuban diplomat said Monday.

During an annual academic conference between Cuba and the United States in Havana, Cuban Foreign Ministry’s General Director for the U.S., Carlos Fernandez de Cossio, expressed that

“nowadays there are powerful people in the government of the U.S. who want to apply more and more hostile and severe measures in our bilateral relation.”

The diplomat added that if that were the case Cuba is “willing to face that reality, but it is not what the people of Cuba want and not what the government of Cuba seeks.” The comments come as this week marks the fifth anniversary of the restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries, after half a century of hostility.

Expertos y académicos de #Cuba🇨🇺 y #EEUU🇺🇸 dialogan desde este lunes en La Habana para “buscar estrategias, soluciones y proyectos que impacten en los vínculos entre ambos países”. | Más información vía 👉 https://t.co/fbkQ1Jkbvn pic.twitter.com/exzGYeTuCk

— Cancillería de Cuba (@CubaMINREX) December 16, 2019

Experts and academics from Cuba and the U.S. dialogued this Monday in Havana to “seek strategies, solutions, and projects that impact the links between the two countries.”

Trump’s administration has tried to put pressure on Cuba to stop the alleged violations of human rights like the persecution of the opposition and has vigorously campaigned for the release of dissident Jose Daniel Ferrer.

Havana said that the United States does not have the moral authority to lecture anyone on human rights and should not intervene in the internal affairs of other countries.

It was under former Democratic President Barack Obama that the two countries renewed their relations. Washington relaxed restrictions on trade and travel, Obama visited Havana and the old Cold War enemies looked for ways to completely normalize their relationship.

But under the Republican government all that has changed.  Washington’s aggressiveness is part of the application of its economic, commercial and financial blockade, a policy in force for 60 years, strengthened by U.S. President Donald Trump.

This upsurge has also implied a more intense and punitive application of extraterritorial measures, such as the full activation of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act of 1996.

The article allows U.S. citizens, including Cubans who acquired their nationality, to file lawsuits against foreign companies linked to properties nationalized after the Cuban Revolution in 1959, but it has never been activated. While the Helms-Burton Act’s Title IV prohibits entry into U.S territory people being sued under Title III.

The most likely short-term effect is the large-scale withdrawal of foreign investors from Cuba, a country whose economy has around US$2 billion in foreign investments.

*

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.

Thousands of protesters attacked the US embassy in the Iraqi capital on Tuesday in anger at American air strikes in Iraq and Syria that killed more than two dozen Iran-backed militia fighters at the weekend.

The demonstrators marched through checkpoints that usually restrict access to Baghdad’s high-security Green Zone, chanting “Death to America”, burning US flags and and holding posters calling for the embassy to be shut down.

The protesters and militia men stormed and burnt a security kiosk at the entrance to the embassy but did not breach the main compound as security forces and embassy guards fired tear gas and stun grenades, Reuters witnesses said.

Twelve militia men were wounded by tear gas and stun grenades, according to medical sources.

Blood could be seen on the face of one militia men and on the stomach of another as their colleagues carried them away from the scene, a witness said.

US President Donald Trump said that Iran was “orchestrating” the attack and would be held responsible for it.

“Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded, and always will. Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. They will be held fully responsible. In addition, we expect Iraq to use its forces to protect the Embassy, and so notified,” he said in a tweet.

US forces carried out air strikes on Sunday against the Kataib Hezbollah (KH) militia in response to the killing of a US civilian contractor in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base in Kirkuk on Friday.

Iraq’s caretaker premier Adel Abdul Mahdi said that the protesters at the embassy should leave the compound “immediately”.

“We recall that any aggression or harassment of foreign embassies will be firmly prohibited by the security forces,” Abdul Mahdi’s office said several hours after the attack began.

‘No, no, Trump!’

The US ambassador and other staff have been evacuated from the embassy, two Iraqi foreign ministry officials told Reuters.

The ambassador and staff left out of security concerns, they said. One official said a few embassy protection staff remained.

However, the Reuters information was disputed by Alhurra, the US-based Arabic-language channel.

BREAKING:

The @Reuters claim that the American embassy was evacuated was false and embassy staff are still inside the building while the ambassador is currently out of #Iraq, according to @AlhurraIraq.

— H. Sumeri (@IraqiSecurity) December 31, 2019

The US State Department and White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether the ambassador and other embassy staff had been evacuated from the embassy compound, Reuters said.

The US air strikes risk drawing Iraq further into a proxy conflict between the US and Iran at a time when it is being rocked by mass protests against the political system.

Some protesters threw stones at the gate of the embassy while others chanted, “No, no, America! … No, no, Trump!” Iraqi special forces were deployed around the main gate to prevent them entering the embassy.

Qais al-Khazali, leader of the Iranian-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq militia, and many other senior militia leaders were among the protesters.

KH flags were hung on the fence surrounding the building.

Iraqis are taking to the streets in their thousands almost daily to condemn, among other things, militias such as KH and their Iranian patrons that support Abdul Mahdi’s government.

Abdul Mahdi condemned the strikes, which killed at least 25 fighters and wounded 55.

*

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 Geopolitics Alert

The scam was and remains all about more greatly enriching corporate America and high-net worth households.

It’s also part of bipartisan policy to destroy social justice, essential programs eroded to fund tax cuts for the rich and pay for endless wars on humanity at home and abroad.

According to Americans for Tax Justice (ATJ), Trump’s 2017 promise of delivering a middle-class tax cut was willful deception.

A year earlier and in December, ATJ debunked the Big Lie, exposing his false promises.

ATJ: America’s richest 1% “will get an average tax cut of $50,000 in 2020, over 75 times more than the tax cut for the bottom 80%, which will average $645.”

Corporate giants are benefitting most — 91 Fortune 500 companies paying no federal income taxes last year, another 379 paying “an effective tax rate of 11.3%.”

Trump falsely claimed wealthy Americans like himself wouldn’t benefit from the 2017 tax cut, saying the following before its enactment into law:

“Our framework ensures that the benefits of tax reform go to the middle class, not to the highest earners.”

“The rich will not be gaining at all with this plan.”

“This is going to cost me a fortune, this thing, believe me. This is not good for me…I have some very wealthy friends. Not so happy with me…”

Fact: Trump benefitted from the top rate cut from 39 – 37%. He benefitted hugely from stock market gains.

He saved from “$11 – 22 million from the cut in the business ‘pass-through’ tax rate,” ATJ explained, adding:

His family “could save $4 million from weakening of the estate tax.”

He’s profiting “from real estate loopholes the new law failed to close, plus a few it added.”

DJT and his family members benefitted “by millions of (windfall) dollars.”

He falsely claimed average working families would get $4,000 to $9,000 raises from the tax cut.

ATJ: “Median family income barely budged—up $514 in 2018…That’s much slower growth than occurred in each of the last three years under Obama,” adding:

“The acceleration in wage growth is up just 0.4% over the roughly two years since the tax law was enacted.”

Wage growth in Obama’s last two years in office was 0.7% — increases since the neoliberal 90s failing to keep pace with rising inflation.

Trump promised small businesses would get big tax cuts.

ATJ: “Almost half the benefits of this supposed ‘small’ business tax cut (is) going to the tiny sliver of businesses with over $1 million in annual income. Less than a quarter is going to firms with income of $200,000 or less.”

Amounts to small businesses pale compared to how greatly corporate giants benefitted.

Trump falsely promised that tax cuts would spur 4 – 6% annual growth, saying “(t)his huge tax cut will be rocket fuel for our economy.”

Tax cuts for corporations and high-net worth households don’t stimulate economic growth or create jobs — what more money in the pockets of ordinary people can do.

With greater income, they spend it. When it stagnates like what’s gone on for decades, economic growth is weak, notably in the new millennium, depressed wages failing to keep pace with rising inflation — around 6% annualized today, according to Shadowstats economist John Williams.

Throughout Trump’s near-three years in office, growth never reached 3%. In FY 2019 so far, it’s averaging 2.4%. The Fed estimates 2.2% growth next year.

According to Williams, wages are stagnant, Q IV retail sales likely contracting.

There’s “no sustainable moderate economic growth…Financial and economic crises may be at hand.”

No main street recovery from the 2008/09 financial crisis occurred. Banker bailouts only “bought time.”

Manufacturing and durable goods orders are down, the risk of recession in 2020 growing.

Trump falsely promised that the 2017 tax cuts would pay for themselves, saying when it “kicks in, we’ll start paying off that debt like water.”

ATJ: Since enacted, “the deficit has exploded” by nearly $2 trillion in the past two years — “up more than 70% since Obama’s last year in office.”

Trump falsely promised that jobs growth would increase, calling the tax cut “a bill for jobs.” In the last two years, it’s less than in Obama’s last two years in office.

Most jobs created monthly are rotten part-time or temp service ones with few or no benefits — because millions of high-pay manufacturing and other good jobs were offshored to low-wage countries, the US thirdworldized in the process.

Business investment will boom, Trump promised. In 2019, it declined by 2.7%, said ATJ, adding:

Except for one quarter in 2018, it declined quarterly since December 2017.

“Corporations are mostly using their tax cuts to further enrich their wealthy CEOs and shareholders through record stock buybacks.”

ATJ highlighted the following facts:

The 2017 “tax cut for (the) richest 1% (of Americans) dwarfed (what) others” got.

The “Trump-GOP tax cuts mostly benefit(ted) the wealthy.”

“Racial minorities (got) little of the Trump-GOP tax cuts.”

“91 (corporate giants) paid (no) federal income taxes,” including:

Amazon, Chevron, Delta Air Lines, John Deere, Fex Ex, John Deere, Netflix, Prudential, Eli Lilly, Whirlpool, IBM, GM, DowDupont, Celanese, Gannett, Murphy Oil, First Data, Duke Energy, Pitney Bowes, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Levi Strauss, Ryder System, US Steel, Rockwell Collins, Goodyear, Honeywell, Tenet Healthcare, Halliburton, Molson Coors, Starbucks, Owens Corning, Hartford Financial Services, McKesson, Occidental Petroleum, Chesapeake Energy, and many others.

ATJ stressed that “Trump-GOP tax cuts were focused first and foremost on cutting corporate income taxes” — on domestic profits from 35 – 21%, on foreign profits to about 10%.

The law let hundreds of US corporations pay an effective federal income tax of 11.3% in 2018, almost half the official 21% rate.

ATJ: “Corporate profits (are) way up, corporate taxes way down” — the vast majority of ordinary Americans not so fortunate.

ATJ: “Corporate tax revenues have shrunk.”

Instead of Trump regime rosy scenario income growth by the tax cut for ordinary Americans, it “barely budged,” said ATJ.

Bonuses for private sector workers, because of windfall corporate profits, declined as a percent of total compensation following the 2017 tax cut, ATJ explained.

Promised “small business tax cuts largely (went) to the wealthy,” it said.

David Stockman believes the great GOP tax cut heist will increase the federal debt to around $35 trillion by 2028.

Today, it’s $23.2 and rising exponentially. In 2000, it was $5.7 trillion, $19.6 trillion in 2016, over $3 trillion higher today — increasing by around a trillion dollars or more annually.

Corporate America and high-net worth households never had things better.

Ordinary Americans struggle to get by, benefitting little from the great GOP tax cut heist.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The hit squad that went about its deadly business with varying degrees of competence in Istanbul last year is set to be thinned.  Five members of the group tasked with strangling and carving up the Saudi journalist and out-of-favour Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate on October 2, 2018 are now facing the generous justice of their employers.  As this process takes place, there is gleeful hand washing taking place in the highest quarters of the kingdom.

The finding behind sentencing five members of the squad to death is inconsistent and even idiosyncratic.  (Three others were given prison sentences.)  The proceedings were closed, save for a few diplomats gagged by undertakings not to reveal anything.  Despite lacking any intent to kill (forget the presence of a forensic specialist, a bone saw or a body double intended to mimic the slain journalist), death sentences were still seen as appropriate.  State responsibility was to be eschewed; the entire matter, it seemed, had been an act of unwise adventurism.  According to the prosecutors, the killing took place in a “spur of the moment”.

The odds were always going to be stacked in favour of a premature adjudication.  For one, witness testimonies were not sought, making any credible gathering of evidence impossible.  Cross-examination as a method tends to be shunned in such criminal proceedings.

What was clear in this theatre of the non-event was that any big fish found in the net were going to be let free.  Two other figures linked to the killing, Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri and the close adviser to crown prince Mohammed bin Salman and social media fiend, Saud al-Qahtani, were given the necessary institutional acquittals for a lack of evidence.

To have found them guilty would have drawn a thick line of accountability to the crown prince himself, a darling of dissembling and venality.  Finding scapegoats in the low rung of the chain served the stretched illusion of cleaning the stables.  It also had another external purpose: to give such administrations as those in Washington the false impression that something was being done.  President Donald J. Trump has tended to look upon the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with moneyed keenness.  Lucrative arms deals are, and have been struck.

The human rights fraternity have been predictably scandalised if somewhat unsurprised.  Sarah Leah Whitson, Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Director, took issue with the absolute secrecy and lack of due process for either victim or the defendants.

“We don’t have information about the most basic facts on why Khashoggi was killed, who ordered the killing or what was done to his body.”

Human rights activist and blogger Omaima al-Najjar showed some weariness at the whole business; of course, there could be no expectation of due process in a political and judicial system hostile to a separation of powers.  It all begins, and ends, with the royal family.

The entire process has proved disorienting to the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary killings, Agnes Callamard.  The killers who had carried out the vile wishes of a regime had effectively become victims of that very same state apparatus geared to neutralise dissent.  “The executioners were found guilty and sentenced to death.  Opposed to the death sentence, this is a first shock to me.”  She observed how “those who ordered the executions not only walk free but have barely been touched by the investigation and the trial.  This is the second shock.”

Callamard’s approach to the killing of Khashoggi has been to regard it as a matter of international concern and jurisdiction.  The Saudis, she implies, cannot be trusted with the case and she has much to go on.  In June this year, she argued while presenting the conclusions of her six-month investigation that six violations of international law had taken place in the killing, ranging from the prohibition against arbitrary deprivation of life, the requirement that states use consular missions for official purposes and the violation of the protection of freedom of expression.  Seeing it as such, the death of Khashoggi “constitutes an international crime over which other States should claim universal jurisdiction.”

In her report, Callarmard concluded that whatever theory might lie behind the death of Khashoggi, state responsibility had to be attributed to Saudi Arabia.

“His killing was the result of elaborate planning involving extensive coordination and significant human and financial resources.  It was overseen, planned and endorsed by high-level officials.  It was premeditated.”

Once the shocks have worn off, Callamard and her band of legally interested observers will have to accept that the Khashoggi affair, from the start, was one of a bold if bungled assassination (in so far as it could not be concealed), one executed at the behest of a regime suffering from intense hubris.  The crown prince, who has found an ear in every significant forum of consequence on the world stage, had a hiccup, and has, since then, been trying to cure himself of it.  That it will take the deaths of another five men and prison sentences for three others says much about the man.

*

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]

Last May, the New York Times tried to take down David Carpenter, a public health physician and the country’s most prominent 5G critic. Veteran science writer William Broad painted Carpenter as a willing tool of a disinformation campaign promoted by RT America, a TV network which he described as “the cat’s paw of Russian president, Vladimir Putin.” The page-one story ran under the headline, “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You But Russia Wants You To Think Otherwise.”

Two months later, on July 16, Broad was back for another hit on Carpenter. This time, he was given most of the front page of the Times’ Tuesday science section, to portray Carpenter as a fringe player working “hard to revise established science.”

Much of what Broad wrote was fiction. (See “A Fact-Free Hit on a 5G Critic.”)

Now Scientific American has ambushed Joel Moskowitz, one of the few other academics willing to state the obvious: No one knows whether 5G is safe. Moskowitz, based at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, runs the widely read blog, Electromagnetic Radiation Safety. This new attack, written by David Grimes, an Irish physicist and science columnist, is vicious. Grimes labels Moskowitz a scaremonger —it’s in the headline: “Don’t Fall Prey to Scaremongering about 5G.”

But that’s just the beginning. Grimes goes on to portray Moskowitz as falling victim to “illusory truth,” accusing him of “alarming ignorance” and disseminating “groundless falsehoods.” Moskowitz’s outlook is “most certainly a fringe view” which pivots on “fatally flawed conjecture,” according to Grimes. He saves the worst for last, comparing Moskowitz and anti-5G activists to liars and anti-vaxxers:

“One need only look to the alarming renaissance of once-conquered diseases, driven by anti-vaccine disinformation online —the human cost when superstition and mendacity outpace science.”

But it’s Grimes who gets the science all wrong. He claims that the cancer findings of the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) are a “canard.” This is simply not so. We may argue about the strength of the link between cell phone radiation and cancer but not whether the NTP found one. The NTP concluded, without qualification, that its $30 million animal study found “clear evidence” of an association. Grimes calls this claim “profoundly misguided,” citing as backup only an isolated blog post from May 2016, two-and-a-half years before the final NTP report was released.

Grimes is also wrong about Interphone: this 13-country epidemiological study shows a link, according to an expert panel convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Grimes touts the Danish cohort study as a “most reliable” example of a study showing cell phones are safe, but, in fact, it’s of dubious quality, again according to the IARC panel, as well as just about everyone who has read beyond the abstract. Radar radiation has not been exonerated from cancer risks, as Grimes would have us believe —his claim is based on a literature review by a group of industry consultants.

On and on it goes, one distortion after another, most taken from industry’s propaganda playbook.

A Rebuttal to a Rebuttal to a Rebuttal

Grimes’s piece is the third on 5G radiation and health to appear in Scientific American in just the last few months. The first was by Ken Foster, an emeritus professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, in mid-September. Foster has long maintained that microwaves have not been shown to cause injury —including cancer— other than by heating tissue. Moskowitz wrote to Scientific American and asked for permission to reply. The editors agreed and his rebuttal was posted on October 17.

During the negotiations over his response to Foster, Moskowitz asked Mike Lemonick, the chief opinion editor at the magazine, whether anyone would be allowed to rebut him, and, if so, whether Lemonick would then give him, Moskowitz, the opportunity to respond. “Since your piece is already a rebuttal to an earlier piece,” Lemonick wrote back, “No, I don’t plan to publish a rebuttal to your rebuttal. And the idea that I would then publish a rebuttal to a rebuttal to a rebuttal is, frankly, absurd.”

Then Lemonick changed his plans and published Grimes’s hatchet job. While it took the editors close to a month to run Moskowitz’s rebuttal to Foster, Grimes’s piece appeared just 11 days after Moskowitz’s.

“I asked Lemonick what had changed his mind,” Moskowitz told me over Skype. “He replied that Grimes had contacted him and made what he called a persuasive case that my piece needed to be rebutted.”

Not long afterwards, I picked up the thread and asked Lemonick what Grimes had told him that he found so persuasive. “Grimes’s arguments were essentially the same as those that appeared in his essay,” Lemonick wrote back.

Grimes has a history of writing polemical attacks on those who reject the industry’s rosy picture that cell phone radiation is unquestionably safe. Last year, he went after two American journalists —Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie— who accused the cell phone industry of a coverup. Their story, “How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe,” originally ran as a “special investigation” in the Nation. A couple of months later, the U.K. Observer, a major Sunday newspaper, published an abridged version of their exposé. Grimes hit back in the Guardian, the Observer’s sister paper. There he covered much of the same ground as what he would later present in Scientific American, including accusations of scaremongering and the nightmare of “vaccine panic.”

Why Did Scientific American Publish Grimes’s Hit Piece?

The Foster and Moskowitz opinion pieces were a standard pro/con exchange. Neither wrote anything surprising. Each made his case in a civil, respectful manner. Indeed, Foster coauthored a similar argument about microwaves (but of course not 5G) in an article for Scientific American magazine more than 30 years ago! Anyone who follows Moskowitz’s blog would be familiar with his point of view.

Why did Lemonick cave to Grimes and allow the conversation to degenerate into name-calling and science fiction? Perhaps he couldn’t say no to someone who presents himself as a visiting cancer researcher at the University of Oxford, even if his day job is being a postdoc at Queen’s University, Belfast. Was it a lack of fact-checking? Maybe both?

I asked Lemonick again what made him do it. He quickly replied that he would take “another look,” adding, “I certainly don’t want to mislead our readers or give Dr. Moskowitz unfair treatment.”

As it happened, at the same time Lemonick and I were exchanging emails about Grimes and Moskowitz, Scientific American came under fire over another opinion piece. This one was on the subject of women’s health. The article criticized a gynecologist, Jennifer Gunter, the author of The Vagina Bible, who became a star on social media after taking on Gwyneth Paltrow and her Goop business empire. In this case, Scientific American buckled and, within four days, removed the piece from its website. (It is still accessible in the Internet Archive.)

In the press reports that followed, Lemonick was quoted as saying the magazine had “failed in our responsibility to do a thorough fact-check.” Whatever its faults, the now-deleted text is less strident than Grimes’s assault on Moskowitz. That Gunter has more than 270,000 politically active Twitter followers no doubt helped her side draw Scientific American’s attention. Moskowitz has fewer than 2,000 followers.

My best guess is that the decision to publish Grimes’s diatribe can be attributed to the success of the industry campaign to discredit anyone who even suggests that cell phone radiation may have negative effects. As a result, otherwise thoughtful editors are willing to spike the most vanilla statement that more research is needed. It appears that they don’t think it matters, because claims of microwave health effects are nothing more than junk science.

Still, that doesn’t explain why Scientific American, in an Orwellian move, deleted Moskowitz’s article from its listing of opinion pieces. If you search the magazine’s website for “Joel Moskowitz” all you get is Grimes’s attack on him.

Note: As I was finishing this story, Lemonick wrote to tell me that he is “going to reconsider” his decision about not running a rebuttal to a rebuttal to a rebuttal and might now allow Moskowitz to respond to Grimes.

As to whether Grimes had been fact-checked, Lemonick said, “Our fact-checking of opinion pieces has traditionally been less rigorous than that of reported pieces, but we’re reviewing that policy.”

*

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.

Humans are exterminating themselves by exterminating other life forms. As a person committed to free thought, I sometimes catch myself wondering if what is really needed is a form of Borg Star Trek mind control to stop us from destroying the planet for the sake of profits for the few.

External costs are neglected by economists, and the unintended consequences of laws and political decisions—indeed, any decision, even those that seem highly rational—can be surprising. I am convinced that the external costs of capitalist production exceed the profits and in instances exceed the value of the output. The most carefully considered law and the most carefully planned corporate undertaking can result in disastrous consequences. Essentially, when humans make decisions, they seldom have any idea of what they are doing.

The situation worsens when a financialized, jobs offshored economy multiplied by other economies doing the same thing finds that it is more profitable for public corporations to buy back their own stock, even indebting the corporations for the purpose of decapitalizing the corporations, than to invest in new plant, equipment, and labor. Buy-backs are the main use of corporate investment today in the US. In recent years, the entirety of corporate profits and borrowing has been used for stock buy-backs, which reward executives and shareholders. Central banks in Japan and the European Union now support equity prices by stock purchases. The Japanese central bank is the largest holder of Exchange Traded Funds (ETF). I am convinced that the Federal Reserve prevents crashes of the US stock market by purchasing S&P futures.

The loss of jobs destroys the ladders of upward mobility, thus increasing social and political instability, and the concentration of all wealth and income gains in corporate executives and shareholders skews the income distribution to that of the aristocracy and serfs in pre-modern times. The elevation of stock and bond prices from central banks injecting liquidity creates asset bubbles that are accidents waiting to happen.

As little attention as the external costs of production receives from economists, the external costs of human activity on the planet gets even less.

I was reminded of this when I received as a Christmas gift a copy of Joel Sartore’s magnificent photographs of Earth’s vanishing species. (See this) It is heartbreaking, and it makes one wonder why God gave dominion to humans who have no regard for the disastrous consequences of their actions. Consider the extinct and vanishing species of animals, insects, reptiles, birds. Why did we do this? For no other reason than a few rich people could be a bit richer. They didn’t need the money that erased animals, plants, forests, clean water, fish and marine life, birds, butterflies, bees and large numbers of insects.

Ever since Dick Cheney was US Vice President, effectively President, the Environmental Protection Agency has been an agent for mining, timber, and energy interests. Most other environmental and wildlife protections have also been set aside. National forests are being cut down, national monuments are being defaced, wolves are being slaughtered, and rare species are being poached and trophy hunted. It seems humans won’t be happy until every species is exterminated.

The private environmental organizations are now so dependent on corporate money and corporate trustees that they are largely ineffectual. They can’t effectively lobby against their corporate donors’ interests in Washington.

Consider the Pebble Mine. A Canadian mining company, Constantine Metal Resources, has, with US EPA approval, received a permit to begin a mining operation at the headquarters of Bristol Bay in Alaska, an American state. These waters are the place of salmon spawning and where Eagles and Grizzlies that exist on the salmon find their food. As the clothier, Orvis, makes clear in its ads, what is to be gained from the Pebble Mine is foreign company profits, 2,000 temporary jobs, and a measely 1,000 full-time jobs during opeartion. What is to be lost is a $1.5 billion fishing industry and the 14,000 associated jobs, 417 square miles of pristine habitat, 4 world-class fishing rivers, 60 lineal miles of prime salmon spawning habitat, and the destruction of pristine waters by 360,000 gallons of toxic effluent daily passing into the Chilkat River, bringing with it the destruction of salmon, eagle, and grizzly life along with that of 14,000 people.

This is the way capitalism makes decisions. Those who count for the life of the planet do not count. Those who count for profits are massive corporations who can lobby their will and their profits through the Congress and the regulatory agencies that are supposed to protect the environment and the life that depends on a protected environment.

When capitalism is seen in the real light of its operation and not in the romanticism that free market economics paints it, it is seen as a destructive force. The less regulated it is, the more destructive force it is. But can it be regulated? All efforts have failed. University of Chicago economist George Stigler said that all regulatory agencies become the captives of those they are supposed to regulate, and, thereby, the regulatory agencies become the agents of those they are supposed to control.

The Amazon rain forest is being destroyed by people who, in effect, are criminals destroying a world resource and only get in exchange one or two crops from the denuded land. The corrupt Brazilian government put into office by Washington to serve American interests is a party to the crime against life on earth. The same thing is happening in Indonesian forests thanks to Chinese timber corporations. Good-bye Sumatran Tiger. Good-bye native populations dependent on the forests.

In the Foreword to Santore’s Vanishing Animals Elizabeth Kolbert makes the point that humans today are the equilavent of the asteroid 66 million years ago that wiped out the dinosaurs, only we are wiping out everything, ourselves included.

When we wipe out an animal or an insect, a species’ genome is lost. In effect, we are wiping out libraries, making ourselves more ignorant.

It seems to me that the advocates of diversity could do much more good if they redirected their emphasis on replacing white people to saving the life of diversity on planet Earth. But this would require intelligence and empathy for all life, traits that are not abundant in the human population.

*

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.

Featured image is from Charleston’s TheDigitel | CC BY 2.0

So much confusion and bad faith prevails in the current global information chaos that getting back to basics sometimes seems impossible. But fundamentals never change and merit constant repetition. Above all, anti-imperialist defense of majority world peoples’ right to development against the fascist onslaught of the corporate and political power of the United States and Europe demands resolute unity. There is no third way in a global conflict between the rights of the world’s peoples to peace, justice and well-being and the all consuming militarist greed of the Western corporate elites and their allies. The acid test of this in Latin America is whether people support Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela against US sanctions and threats of military aggression.

We need to realize more clearly, that we are not in a “normal” context of relative peace but in a war context. The empire not only puts forward ideas denying the liberation of our peoples, but has openly declared war on us at all levels. We must be clear that empire (the power elites of the US and EU financial, economic and military complex) is not only opposed to our vision: It does not want that vision even to exist and seeks to annihilate it through so-called “full spectrum domination” (military, economic-financial, technological, cultural).

This situation of total media and cultural warfare today has similarities to that same phenomenon during the Cold War. At that time the world had been divided in two by the West using the “Iron Curtain”. We see this situation more and more clearly today, this time not as a contradiction between capitalism and socialism, but rather as the contradiction between an imaginary Western civilization and an imaginary menacing barbarism, especially represented by, among others, China, Russia, Iran, the ALBA countries. In synthesis, the media-cultural war today should be posed in the terms of totalitarian Western capitalist hegemony in terminal crisis, threatened by the emergence of a new, more democratic multi-polar world order.

A well established diagnosis

Key to the US and European Union onslaught attacking the majority world is their control of global digital media, especially via multinational monopolies like Google, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. But more traditional media, also extremely highly concentrated in a handful of global corporations, continue to play a key role, for example well established news agencies like Reuters, Associated Press, EFE or Agence France Press or undeservedly prestigious news outlets like CNN, the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Le Monde, Die Welt, El País, The Guardian, La Stampa and others. Over the last 20 years, that tightly controlled capitalist media network has been reinforced by misnamed alternative media, mainly funded one way or another by corporate interests to serve both as gatekeepers of permissible news and as disinformation saboteurs.

All these fake news and misinformation outlets feed the false belief that North America and Europe are bastions of freedom of expression. In fact, both mainstream and alternative media in the US and Europe apply heavy censorship especially to world news but also increasingly to domestic news. An extra component reinforcing this censorship has been government and corporate cooptation of non-governmental organizations especially in relation to human rights and the environment. NGOs funded by corporate sources and governments act within the UN system of international governance serving both the short term political goals and the long term ideological agenda of US and European corporate elites.

It is here that a discussion of what constitutes reporting becomes crucial. Popular majority world news outlets like Russia’s RT, Iran’s Press TV and Venezuela’s TeleSur are persistently suppressed and attacked by Western governments claiming to defend freedom of expression. In fact, these targeted news outlets’ generally report more rigorously than their North American and European counterparts. By contrast, Western governments and media outlets give a free pass to demonstrably dishonest reporting by institutions like the Organization of American States’ electoral observer missions, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons or cynically disingenuous NGOs like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or Global Witness among a plethora of others.

All of this, the repression of rival rationalities, the promotion of absurd falsehoods, are aspects of the current “Cold War” environment (which is not cold at all, one would have to look for a more adequate term to describe what is happening today). That is why non-Western media are criminalized, especially RT, teleSUR, HispanTV and others. With total impudence and impunity, their journalists are persecuted, falsely accused of “interference”, “propaganda”, “destabilization” and even “rebellion” while the Western media complex and civil society manipulation organizations (NGOs) routinely practice and have always practiced those same dark arts against any government not to their liking. Moreover, citizens’ activity in cyberspace is routinely and comprehensively monitored, persecuted and criminalized both by Western States and by the corporate monopolies controlling Internet information flows. These are two dimensions of the same war by imperial elites against people everywhere.

Reporting and physical infrastructure

The meaning of “reporting standards” is so well established it seems redundant to state what they are. But it is essential to do so insistently because North American and European controlled news outlets, NGOs and public institutions have debased and practically abandoned fundamental reporting norms. Western reporting goes back to the Greek historian Herodotus and beyond and has developed since then on extremely clear criteria. A bona fide report needs to be based on well sourced material open to public appraisal, be it first hand witness testimony, documentation with clear provenance, official records of all kinds as well as other forensic or similar scientific evidence. But that is only the starting point. On the basis of that material, the authors of a genuine report compare and contrast all the available evidence and explain very openly why, based on those sources, they reach the conclusions they make in their report.

None of that happens in the overwhelming majority of contemporary reporting of almost any kind in North American and European news outlets, NGOs or the heavily politicized Western dominated institutions of international governance. Obvious recent examples of this reality are the phoney reports on the alleged chemical attack on Douma in Syria or the grotesque media assassination of Julian Assange or the downright lies published about Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. For decades, North American and European media, NGOs and institutions have very deliberately excluded any witness testimony, documentary or scientific evidence contradicting their propaganda line. That normality inculcates completely insane false beliefs among whole populations which over time constitute mass false memories.

To protect that systemic mendacity, North American and European authorities and their regional allies cynically accuse media like RT, Telesur or Press TV, among many other genuine information sources, of being propaganda outlets. In effect all reporting and information is now either propaganda or counter-propaganda. The Western machinery manufacturing false beliefs and false memories runs on the corrupt reporting and disinformation role of Western news outlets, NGOs and academic institutions and their symbiotic osmosis with the North American and European entertainment industry. The false beliefs and contrived memories all feed off assumptions generated by Western cultural production including films, television programs, books, magazines and video games which in turn generate fresh feedback of well designed memes and carefully framed images.

A necessary condition for the successful generation and perpetuation of mass false beliefs and false memories is absolute control of the physical media transmitting them. As the digital world conquers the flow of information and ideas in the world, the medium through which these information and ideas are transmitted is no longer neutral and has become a highly monopolised socio-economic medium: the Internet. Countries such as China can afford to have a national Internet, while others such as Russia have a technological infrastructure that allows them to stand up significantly to the attacks of the empire.

But in our Latin American and Caribbean countries we are totally under the communications control of the United States. To understand this, it is enough to look at the global map of fiber optic cables: All telephone calls and all computer connections between any of our countries pass first through Miami and are controlled by the US National Security Agency. If the physical support of telecommunications is in the hands of the empire, the same is almost equally true with regard to its software, that is, in the applications used for communication: The hegemonic social networks, the various content publishing platforms, the mass use applications, the databases in which information is hosted, etc., are overwhelmingly under Western control.

There does exist a vigorous free software movement (which in part expresses popular resistance to imperial hegemony and in part is also necessary for the functioning of capitalism and the hegemony of the West itself). But that movement is destined to continue playing a subordinate role unless our peoples support it politically. Western control over hardware and software, through which information circulates, allows the imperial elites not only to spread their propaganda globally, but also to be the self-selected arbiters of “global debate” and to be a sinister global panopticon without parallel. The empire not only has the power to spread its message, but also to keep opinions carefully compartmentalized in a way that prevents the least possible damage to its interests, along with the power to use those same opinions as a source of intelligence for political-military purposes.

And what then?

This very well established diagnosis self-evidently has strong implications for anti-imperialist majority world media outlets and their allies in the US and Europe. The main elements of that response were articulated most recently in the International Communications Congress in Venezuela in December this year. The Congress identified key needs including a coordinating structure derived from and linked to the Sao Paolo Forum so as to “articulate an International Network of Communication Networks constituted by all the delegates as well as by all the political parties, social movements and organizations of the People’s Power present in this Congress.” That network should enhance and facilitate the creative and comprehensive exchange of news and information across all kinds of regional anti-imperialist media

Additionally, in the Congress final session President Nicolás Maduro announced the formal creation of an International University of Communication as a platform for promoting a community of knowledge and information via training, research and elaboration of materials in the service of the emancipation and liberation of the region’s peoples. The Congress envisages the design of communication campaigns based on all the meetings and congresses of the Sao Paolo Forum so as to overcome and circumvent the Western media blockade. One fundamental task is to make a census of all the anti-imperialist media supporting this initiative, partly so as to identify strengths and weaknesses but also to optimize interaction between all these hugely diverse media and communicators.

Within that process, our experience in Nicaragua both generally over the last three decades and more specifically since the failed coup attempt of 2018, leads us to stress the importance of not allowing the enemy to dictate the media agenda. So rather than criticising the failings-on-purpose of enemy reporting by imperialist media and NGOs, we should expose and demonstrate their corruption and bad faith by practicing truthful reporting with scrupulous care in relation to sources, provenance of documentary and audio-visual material and appraisal of technical or scientific resources. We should try and learn from Venezuela’s bolivarian support for grass roots local news networks and their articulation with regional news and information outlets, especially among youth communicators.

As we responded to the failed coup attempt in 2018 here, we created task-focused information networks for the purposes of defining among other essential media chores what news-sharing to prioritize, how to address anti-government media lies, what material to translate and how to distribute the burden of that work, what direct reporting to do, what research needs we should process. Learning from other examples of successful resistance, like Venezuela’s experience during repeated US sabotage of its energy generating capacity, is also essential. Sharing those experiences effectively and efficiently adapting them to different contexts will be an indispensable part of enhancing anti-imperialist media workers’ skills, knowledge and vision.

Also fundamental to any successful implementation of follow up to the International Communciations Congress will be the genuine intellectual humility necessary to build unity within diversity among the peoples under attack by the United States and the European Union. Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, South America all have very different and specific national and historical experiences despite their common history of genocidal imperialism and sadistic neocolonialism. The revolutions in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are all different in important ways. As President Comandante Daniel Ortega said in 2013 “All Processes have diverse timelines, in the conditions each Process has to address.”

To work together successfully, regional media workers and communicators need to be especially sensitive and alert to that reality. In the contemporary global media environment, State and corporate capitalist marketing and public relations have practically swallowed conventional reporting credibility. The anti-imperialist majority world response must be solidarity-based media committed to honesty and sincerity, focused on the rights and needs of the human person and the world’s peoples and unwavering in united support for the region’s diverse revolutionary processes.

But we should also recognize the two-fold political-military nature of the unrelenting US and European communications offensive. So our peoples must develop by all possible means their capacities in relation to physical and logical communications infrastructure. It is not only a matter of winning the battle of ideas but also of developing our hardware and software capabilities, so as to manage more successfully the technologies through which those ideas circulate. There can be no policy of democratizing access to telecommunications which does not at the same time involve mass education and awareness campaigns about how digital media work. Political and social activists and communicators must seek to reach out to every citizen claiming the rights of their people against US and European aggression.

*

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.