On December 18th, Donald Trump became the third U.S. president in history to be impeached by the House of Representatives. The second to be indicted before completing a first term, the 45th commander-in-chief must now survive a Senate trial before seeking reelection later this year. As many nonpartisan analysts predicted, the charges appear to have only improved his chances with the electorate as his approval rating saw an uptick after the articles were approved on grounds of “obstruction of Congress and abuse of power.” After dragging the country through three years of Russiagate which never panned out, the Democrats appear to be scoring yet another own goal. Even a near brush with war against Iran does not seem to have impacted Trump’s favorability, which could have been seen as a reversal of his campaign pledges to end America’s forever wars that were arguably a significant factor in his unlikely victory.

It was Trump’s rhetoric as a peace candidate suggesting rapprochement with Russia which made him a target of the political establishment and intelligence community, who subsequently blamed his shocking win on still unproven allegations of election interference by the Kremlin.

Since he took office, Trump has done nearly everything short of declaring war on Moscow to appease the bipartisan anti-Russia consensus in Washington but to no avail. One such step was the decision to provide military aid to Ukraine amid its ongoing war in the eastern Donbass region against Russian-speaking separatists, a move the Obama administration decided against because of Kiev’s rampant corruption. Trump’s predecessor tapped his Vice President, Joe Biden, to head up an anti-corruption drive in Ukraine who instead used the opportunity to personally enrich his family by landing his son, Hunter, a job on the executive board of the country’s largest private gas company, Burisma Holdings.

Biden led the U.S. role in the 2014 coup d’etat in Ukraine which overthrew the democratically-elected government of Viktor Yanukovych after he turned down a European Union Association Agreement for an economic bail-out from Russia that was the flashpoint for the subsequent Donbass war. Contrary to the Trump-Russia ‘collusion’ narrative, one figure who tried to lobby Yanukovych into signing the pro-austerity treaty was none other than Paul Manafort, the future Trump campaign manager indicted during the Russia probe for failing to register as a foreign agent while consulting for the deposed Ukrainian president. Manafort’s influence went against Russian interests in favor of the EU and was years before Trump was ever a candidate, but this did not stop the Democrats from later misconstruing it as evidence he was a backchannel to the Kremlin. Meanwhile, Biden’s hand in the junta was revealed in an infamous leaked phone call between Victoria Nuland, Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, and Geoffrey Pyatt, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.

Nuland, who is the wife of leading neoconservative figure Robert Kagan, also spilled the beans that the U.S. invested as much as $5 billion dollars on regime change in Kiev when we were led to believe the Maidan was a spontaneous, popular revolt. Shortly after the putsch, Hunter Biden joined the board of directors at Burisma despite having no experience in Ukraine or the energy sector. The embattled fracking company was founded by a notorious oligarch and corrupt minister from the Yanukovych era, Mykola Zlochevsky, yet who unlike the former did not have to flee to Russia and curiously escaped prosecution in a money laundering case under the new Western-friendly regime — did he obtain immunity with Hunter Biden’s appointment? When the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin, reportedly began to investigate the energy firm, the elder Biden did not just blackmail the post-Maidan government of Petro Poroshenko into sacking him by threatening to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees but openly bragged about it on camera.

As a reward, Poroshenko — nicknamed the “Chocolate King” for his background as a business tycoon in the confectionary industry — was touted as a reformer by the Obama administration despite multiple Wikileaks diplomatic cables featuring U.S. officials describing him as a “disgraced oligarch” “tainted by credible corruption allegations” and “a deeply unpopular politician that has widespread support among party leaders due to his past financial/organizational roles.” Incredibly, Poroshenko would replace Shokin with a former Minister of Internal Affairs, Yuriy Lutsenko, who had previously been imprisoned for embezzlement and corruption himself. It is still a matter of debate whether the top prosecutor was even actually looking into the activities of Burisma, but what is not in dispute — except to corporate media — is the criminal nature of Biden’s conduct who clearly allowed his family to profiteer off U.S. meddling in the country. After he became a 2020 presidential candidate and frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, the subject of Biden’s past wrongdoing was broached by Trump last July during a phone call with current Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky.

The controversial exchange occurred just a day after former FBI director Robert Mueller delivered his anticlimactic testimony before congress where the lead investigator in the Russia investigation did not appear familiar with the details of his own inquiry. The call transcript shows that Trump asked the newly elected Zelensky if he would assist U.S. Attorney General William Barr in determining whether there was truth to the rumors that the infamous Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer server given by the FBI to CrowdStrike Holdings was located in Ukraine. CrowdStrike was one of the cybersecurity firms hired by the DNC which questionably determined it was Russian intelligence which perpetrated alleged cyber attacks during the 2016 election. In other words, Trump wanted to find out if it was actually Kiev which “meddled” and framed the Kremlin. While he did not offer Zelensky compensation, it is true Trump asked for the favor shortly after mentioning the javelin missiles being provided to Ukraine in the military assistance. However, Biden’s extortion and the firing of Shokin is only raised later in the conversation and whether or not either matter was contingent upon the military aid is dubious and implicit at best. At the time of the correspondence, Zelensky and his government were unaware that the nearly $400 million in aid had been withheld and did not learn of it’s freezing until a month later, making any alleged ‘quid pro quo’ doubtful.

The ambiguity of the conversation has not prevented Democrats from surmising that the security aid was suspended on the condition that Zelensky cooperate with Trump’s requests. While the exploits were arguably unethical, for the content of the exchange to be considered sufficient grounds for impeachment would set a very low bar and virtually ensure any future president can be indicted on a technicality for politicized reasons. In the meantime, the focus has shifted to Trump’s firing of former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, because if threatening to withhold foreign aid alone qualifies, Biden is not only guilty of the same crime but more explicitly. Forget that from a procedural standpoint, without the required constitutional majority in the GOP-controlled Senate, the chances of removing Trump are dead in the water anyway. This can only mean the trial is really meant to be a smokescreen for Biden’s own palm-greasing in Ukraine while legally requiring his biggest primary rival, Senator Bernie Sanders, to spend time away from the campaign trail in attendance.

Not only has the legitimate question of whether the former Vice President and his son should also be probed been dismissed by mainstream media as a “conspiracy theory,” but completely lost in the political theater of the proceedings is if Washington ought to be providing defense assistance and fueling a proxy war with Russia to begin with. The Russiagate hoax successfully transformed the entirety of the Democratic Party into new cold warriors and its Ukrainegate sequel has only continued that hawkish trajectory. To make matters worse, Western media coverage of the scandal has omitted that many of the militias fighting with the Ukrainian army in Donbass are far right, neo-Nazi groups previously instrumental in transforming the 2014 Maidan protests into violence. One of the three main political parties which formed the opposition to Yanukovych was the ultra-nationalist Svoboda party whose leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, personally met with Biden in 2014 despite having been barred from entering the U.S. for his anti-semitism just a year prior.

Svoboda and its militant offshoots like the Azov regiment fighting in Donbass are the self-proclaimed ideological progeny of the fascist collaborators led by the Ukrainian nationalist, Stepan Bandera, who sided with Nazi Germany during its invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. In the Cold War, the CIA provided covert assistance to the post-war remnants of Bandera’s faction as it waged a failed insurgency in the 1950s. In post-Soviet Ukraine, a disturbing campaign of historical revisionism has rewritten Bandera‘s fifth column as nationalist heroes who fought solely for Ukrainian independence. This is not reflected in the historical record which shows they not only participated in the Third Reich’s war crimes but shared their racist ideology, as admitted in the CIA’s own declassified documents:

“Altogether, during the 5 weeks of its existence the Bandera “state” destroyed over 5,000 Ukrainians, 15,000 Jews, and several thousand Poles. The “Ukrainian State” Of Stepan Bandera ended its short but ignominious existence in August 1941, when it was announced in Lvov that Western Ukraine had been incorporated as the “District of Galicia” in the “General Governorship” (occupied Poland). And then a “new order,” Hitler style began to be introduced in the Ukraine. This in short, the story of Bandera’s “one-day holiday,” which his followers, relying on people’s forgetfulness, now try to present as a glorious and heroic page in the history of the Ukrainian liberation movement. In reality, it would be best, especially for the supporters of a free Ukraine, to erase from the history of their .. movement this infamous Hitlerite, fascist episode, which brought nothing. but shame and sorrow to the Ukraine.”

Despite provisions in the aid barring weapons from going to the Azov detachment, the U.S. military has continued to provide them with arms and training. We are already witnessing blowback for this decision in the case of Jarrett William Smith, an ex-Army soldier arrested by the FBI for planning to assassinate former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke and plotting terrorist attacks against major news networks. Smith had made plans to travel to Ukraine to fight with the Azov battalion and had previously volunteered in the Donbass war in 2017 with another Ukrainian neo-fascist paramilitary, the Right Sector. Smith reportedly sought help in making contact with Azov from another AWOL soldier, Craig Lang, currently under house arrest in Ukraine and wanted for extradition to the U.S. for killing a Florida couple. Lang, who is considered a hero in the country for serving as a private mercenary with Right Sector, also spent time with Georgian Legion, a unit formed by ethnic Georgians conscripted on the Ukrainian side in the War in Donbass whose members are believed to have perpetrated the ‘false flag’ sniper attacks on the Maidan that was blamed on the government of Yanukovych.

Coincidentally, just as Americans are following the impeachment, trending on the internet streaming service Netflix is a new documentary by a pair of Israeli filmmakers that touches upon U.S. harboring of a Ukrainian Nazi called The Devil Next Door. The series recaps the fascinating case of John Demjanjuk, a retired autoworker and Ukrainian-born immigrant living in Cleveland, Ohio, who is suddenly accused of being a notoriously sadistic Nazi guard at Treblinka concentration camp in eastern Poland during World War II known as “Ivan the Terrible” and is extradited to Israel in 1986 to face charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. After impassioned but inconsistent eyewitness testimony by camp survivors, he was mistakenly found guilty of being the mysterious guard by an Israeli court and sentenced to death until his conviction was overturned under appeal in 1993. Years later, Demjanjuk is identified as a different prison guard at another camp in Sobibor and re-convicted, this time more convincingly by a German court. He maintained until his death in 2012 that he was again a victim of mistaken identity and during the war was a POW himself after serving in the Red Army until his capture by the Germans who then “forced” him to work as a guard at Trawniki, but never Sobibor. However, newly discovered photos of Demjanjuk at the death camp were just released which contradict his denials and increase the likelihood he was a willing defector.

The documentary sheds light on how Demjanjuk was able to gain safe harbor in the U.S. because of amendments to the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 which restricted immigration of those persecuted by the Nazis while giving preferential treatment to Polish and Ukrainian nationals who hid under new aliases in refugee camps while fleeing the Soviets. U.S. immigration services were only able to detect the entry of formal members of the Nazi regime while their local collaborators like Demjanjuk often snuck through unnoticed. The show also speaks briefly of the U.S. embrace of many “former” Nazis such as Wernher von Braun and the thousands of other German scientists recruited in Operation Paperclip who were employed by the U.S. government during the Cold War in order to gain an advantage over Moscow in the space race. However, the series neglects to mention the CIA’s support for Stepan Bandera’s Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), much less their descendants in Kiev today who are renaming city streets after SS veterans and tearing down Soviet statues to replace them with effigies of fascist quislings. Unfortunately, it is unlikely viewers will make any connection between the show and the current political scandal gripping Washington.

Netflix did receive objections over The Devil Next Door from the Polish government and its right-wing populist Prime Minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, who accused the streaming giant of “rewriting history” in its production by using a map of the country’s post-1945 borders while implying that Poland shared culpability for Nazi war crimes that occurred in its territory. Much of western Ukraine became eastern Poland overnight with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the German occupation, one of the reasons why a native of northwestern Ukraine like Demjanjuk ended up in the neighboring country. Like the Banderites doctoring history in Kiev, Polish nationalists are seeking to revise the historical record of the many Poles who collaborated with the Germans in the slaughter of their fellow compatriots as well. This historical negationism continued in Poland’s recent row with Russia over the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz in which Morawiecki despicably made a false equivalency between the USSR and Nazi Germany with a disturbing reinterpretation encouraged by the U.S. who seek to take credit for the Soviet accomplishment of freeing the concentration camp in 1945. Nothing is sacred to the Atlanticists who are willing to politicize anything in the name of their geostrategy of encircling Moscow and ultimate goal of conquering Eurasia.

That the Democrats are not impeaching Trump for an actual unconstitutional offense like the diverting of military funds to his border wall without congressional approval is revealing of its true motivations. Trump only crossed a line when he went after another member of the political establishment and fleetingly halted the U.S. war machine in its aggression toward Moscow. It is reminiscent of what some have argued were the real reasons for the impeachment of Richard Nixon that resulted from the Watergate scandal. Similarly, Nixon was forced to resign in 1974 after he targeted other members of the elite in the wire-tapping and break-in of the DNC headquarters, not his use of the CIA to violate its own charter for domestic espionage on American citizens active in the anti-war movement. Like Trump’s rhetoric toward Moscow, Nixon had also broken with foreign policy orthodoxies both in his unprecedented restoration of diplomacy with China and détente with the Soviet Union negotiating arms control.

The dangerous consequences of the campaign against Trump for deviating from the anti-Russia foreign policy dogma can be seen in the unparalleled recent NATO war games and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists pushing the hand of the Doomsday Clock forward to just 100 seconds to midnight, its closest ever approach which even exceeds that of the beginning of the Cold War in the early 1950s. Trump would never have armed Ukraine to begin with if not for the constant pressure of the Russia investigation and the need to not appear soft on Moscow. It is clear that the impeachment is nothing more than an inter-war between different factions of the elite and not only has it reduced the American people to onlookers, it may get us all killed in a nuclear holocaust in the process. For an excellent in-depth investigation of the roots of the crisis, Revealing Ukraine, the anticipated follow-up to the 2016 documentary Ukraine on Fire directed by Igor Lopatonok and produced by Oliver Stone, is highly recommended.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

The Shame of the Century: Kushner’s Deal Is Dead on Arrival

February 4th, 2020 by Steven Sahiounie

Imagine a lawsuit being tried in a courtroom.  The case is coming to a close, and one side is sure of their position of being ‘in the right’, and then the opposing side offers a ‘deal’ to settle the case out of court.  However, the deal they offer is empty and does not satisfy the basic legal claims. They decide to reject the offer, and wait for the chance of winning their full rights, depending on the justice system, and the merits of their case as presented.

Details of the deal

The “Deal of the Century” has been written by Israeli officials, which is made clear not only from the style but content as well. President Trump announced the deal in the White House’s East Room on January 28, with his guest Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and others, giving Israel full control of the settlements and Jerusalem as its undivided capital. The illegal settlements will now be considered the same as any other part of Israel under Israeli law and by the US. Netanyahu was thrilled that Israel can now annex land in Judea and Samaria, which previously had threatened to bring sanctions in the UN Security Council.  “The idea of dividing Jerusalem is buried,” Netanyahu said while adding “The idea of returning to 1967 lines as we knew it is buried. The right of return is buried; not even one refugee will be entering Israel.” Additionally, the IDF and Israeli security forces will have access to defend all territory west of the Jordan River, and  Israel will control “air, sea, land and electromagnetic fields,” according to Netanyahu. The US will accept Israeli sovereignty over all Jerusalem neighborhoods within the security fence.

The US deal sets a plan for a Palestinian state if they meet conditions within four years, including stopping: terrorism; payments to terrorists; armed resistance. If the conditions are met, then a Palestinian state could be recognized, with limited sovereignty, as Israel would have full security control.

This is an American plan, and an American map, and not binding on anyone.  Some would call it a diktat, defined as ‘a harsh settlement unilaterally imposed on a defeated nation’, or ‘terms of capitulation.’

The two-state solution

The two-state solution has for decades been the basis of negotiations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has been the official policy of the United States, the United Nations, the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Beginning in 1948, Palestinians fled, or were expelled from their homes; however, the UN Resolution 194 was adopted on December 11, 1948, which guarantees everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Following the Arab-Israeli war of 1967, the UN adopted Security Council Resolution 242. The resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the occupied territories, adopted unanimously on November 22, 1967, and those are the borders referred to in the two-state solution. Jerusalem was to be divided into an Israeli West and a Palestinian East.

The Trump deal has bulldozed the two-state solution.

Resistance

Resistance to the occupation of Palestine was most often coordinated by a committee made up of local social and political leaders, who held strikes, protests, and general political activism. The occupied people supported tax revolts, general strikes, teach-ins, prisoner hunger strikes, as Israeli law allows for the arrest and detention of Palestinians without charge or trial.

In 2005 the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement began, targeting corporations and institutions that reinforce Israeli occupation and the denial of Palestinian human rights.

All nonviolent protests have been brutally suppressed and popular resistance leaders have been imprisoned, exiled, and killed.  All public gatherings of more than 10 people are forbidden by Israeli military orders enforced by the Israeli military in the occupied Palestinian territory.  Nonviolent protest actions and public political and/or cultural gatherings of Palestinians in areas under Israeli control are broken up by the Israeli military and police, often using tear gas, pepper spray, water cannons, rubber bullets, live ammunition, and physical force, resulting in deaths and injuries.

Apartheid

The ‘Deal of the Century’ regurgitates apartheid, a racist political system, and we only have to look to Israeli historian Uri Davis’s book “Apartheid Israel”.

Under the Trump deal, the Palestinians may have limited autonomy within a homeland that consists of multiple non-connecting enclaves scattered throughout the West Bank and Gaza. Israel would retain security control over the enclaves and would continue to control borders, airspace, aquifers, maritime waters, and electromagnetic fields. Israel would be allowed to annex the Jordan Valley and Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The Palestinians would be allowed to choose their leaders but would have no political rights in Israel, the state that rules over them.

The Trump deal for racial control and segregation harkens back to South Africa, before the ANC and armed resistance groups fought a bloody fight, which had international support, ultimately winning their freedom and rights with Nelson Mandela at the helm.

Like South Africa’s apartheid, the Trump deal gives the Palestinians autonomy over matters like education and healthcare, while trade, immigration, and security would remain under Israeli control. It would give Israelis a false sense of security while living under a regime based on racial oppression. The deal may constitute a crime against humanity, under the Rome Statute (1998), since it violates the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people.

President Trump

President Trump has done more for Israel than any previous US President.  He allowed the personal ‘pet-project’ of his son in law, Jared Kushner, an Orthodox Jew, to reverse decades of US foreign policy. Many have questioned what gives the US the power to decide that Palestinians will live under apartheid?

Occupation

According to Noam Chomsky, Gaza is the world’s largest open-air prison, where some 1.5 million people on a roughly 140-square-mile strip of land are subject to random terror and arbitrary punishment, with no purpose other than to humiliate and degrade. He wrote, a visitor to Gaza can’t help feeling disgusted at the obscenity of the occupation, compounded with guilt, because it is within our power to bring the suffering to an end and allow the Samidin to enjoy the lives of peace and dignity that they deserve.

Israelis don’t like the plan

Yisrael Beytenu leader, Avigdor Liberman, said: “The Trump plan is an escape plan from the real problems on the agenda” for Netanyahu, and the PM is using the deal to hide from real domestic issues he refuses to deal with. While Trump has been impeached by the House, Netanyahu has been indicted by the courts, and it seems the two wounded leaders are using the deal as camouflage.

Palestinian Christians

Daoud Kuttab, a Palestinian journalist and secretary of the Jordan Evangelical Council in Amman, said after reading the deal, it “sounded more like a surrender dictate than a peace plan. The fact that of 13 million Palestinians, the Americans couldn’t find a single one to attend [the rollout] spoke volumes in its one-sidedness,” he added,  “It is a surrender document that will lay the grounds for Palestinians to continue to live under Israeli discrimination. This is a formula for further violence and unrest.”

The deal allows Israel to keep land they have managed illegally to grab, while they promise to pause for four years while the Palestinians capitulate to unjust terms, but the only offer on the table. If the Palestinians decide the deal is unacceptable, then Israel will undoubtedly begin to grab even more lands and justify their actions by pointing the finger of blame at the other side.  This is the likely outcome unless those insisting on justice will intervene from outside and exert pressure on Israel.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a political commentator. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Jerusalem Post

The Trump proposal, based on Israel’s wish list, appears to be designed to slowly exterminate most of the Palestinians living under Israeli control by creating “cantons” — reservations — that will mimic Gaza’s isolation and lack of access to necessities of life.  Along with the wide adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism as criticism of Israel and the banning of BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) against Israel, it appears that Israel will be able to carry out a slow extermination policy against most of its Palestinian population — citizens as well as those now under occupation — with impunity.

Trump’s proposal —with zero legal legitimacy— gifts Israel many benefits it has long dreamed of:

  • the annexation of choice Palestinian land including Jerusalem, the fertile Jordan Valley and all sea access;
  • the essential deportation of many Palestinian Israeli citizens to Palestinian “cantons”;
  • the “right” to reject all Palestinian refugees; and
  • the rejection of any compensation to Palestinians.

The 181-page description of the proposal, which exudes racism and contempt for Palestinians, effectively denies that Palestinians were forced from their homes, ignores their right to their property and compensation, blames them for “terrorism” despite their (at least) 80:1 death rate with Israelis over the past decade and ignores Palestinians’ legal right to use force to attain freedom and self-determination.

Fifty billion dollars from the Gulf states, which may or may not materialize and may be in the form of loans, is supposed to be forthcoming to appease Palestinians.  To add insult to injury, the Palestinians will not be permitted to administer this funding: Israel, with its long history of skimming from the top of donations to Palestinians, will almost certainly administer any funding.  While Germany has paid at least $100 billion (so far) to the Jewish/Israeli communities as compensation for damages in WW II, Israel has yet to pay anything for its theft of a country, the contents of homes and businesses and for the many thousands of those it murdered and maimed.

The document calls for a four-year implementation period, which could spell the death knell for Palestinian rights. Benny Gantz, Netanyahu’s rival in the upcoming election, called for this document to be the starting point for further negotiations.  Although Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to immediately start the annexation of parts of the occupied West Bank, the US and Britain called for a delay.

The “Deal of the Century” definition of Palestinian “statehood”

Trump’s “deal” offers no sovereignty, no freedom and no equality under the law for Palestinians. The description of the separate Palestinian “cantons” — more accurately described as reservations — describes conditions of isolation potentially more profound than Gaza’s.

The proposal defines in detail how the Palestinian “cantons” will be under total Israeli control. These sites, carved out of occupied Palestinian territory, constitute Palestinian communities that had already been stripped of their agricultural land and access to water.  They have no exclusive economic zones or access to seas or borders that were part of their territory. As described by Bill Van Auken, the maps:

show a patchwork of Palestinian cantons surrounded by Israeli territory, linked one to another by a series of Israeli-controlled bridges, tunnels and roads. The cantons themselves are peppered with what the plan describes as “Israeli enclave communities,” i.e., Zionist settlements that will be walled off, linked by apartheid-style Israeli-only security roads, and protected by Israeli security forces. On the map are five areas inside the supposed Palestinian territory that are marked as “strategic sites,” i.e., Israeli military bases. The statement moreover makes clear that the 15 “enclaves” listed cannot be interpreted as “all-inclusive.”

The inmates of these “cantons” — open air prisons — will have few rights.  Palestinians must recognize Israel as a “Jewish state,” relegating Palestinian Israeli citizens to a subordinate status.  They must renounce any resistance (“terrorism”) to Israel’s colonial control and those in Gaza must give up their weapons. The “cantons” would bar any refugees — Palestinians from the wider diaspora.  Imports and exports would have to pass through Israel, making the “cantons” vulnerable to possible Israeli siege.  While over 140 countries have recognized Palestine, Palestinians would not be not permitted to have any international treaties unless specifically approved by Israel. Palestinian “agreement” to permanent Israeli occupation could negate some protections under international law. 

The cause for concern: the world’s acquiescence with Israel’s slow genocide of Gaza

Nothing Israel has done to slowly exterminate Gazans has generated significant world outrage. Israel has enjoyed total impunity from every one of its genocidal actions in Gaza: 

  • Israel’s devastating bombing campaigns of 2006, 2008/9, 2012, and 2014 that killed thousands and made hundreds of thousands homeless was met largely with world silence.
  • Despite signing an agreement with the World Bank in November, 2005 to allow Gaza access to outside markets, Israel started to block access intermittently the following January, 2006; it started the ongoing blockade of food and humanitarian supplies the following September, 2006.
  • Israel’s siege of Gaza was intensified in September 2007 to what was compared to Warsaw Ghetto-like stringency, limiting caloric intake, similar to the Nazi scheme, to keep Gazans near starvation. Israel did not honor its two agreements with Hamas to end this siege. This siege initially included soap and detergent, making its genocidal intent obvious.
  • Along with the siege, Israel attacks Gaza fishermen as well as farmers whose fields are within hundreds of meters from Israel’s “buffer zone” that takes in an estimated one third of Gaza’s farmland (much of which Israel sprayed with poison in January, 2020).Although the Oslo Accords allow Gaza fishermen to fish up to 20 miles from the coast, fishing crews are attacked and boats confiscated frequently within the allowed zone.
  • Israel has ensured that Gazans have virtually no potable water; it even rejected a French offer of a water purification unit for Gaza in 2014. Israel violates its obligation to ensure the functioning of Gaza sewage treatment, which contaminates the Mediterranean as well as parts of Gaza and its drinking water.
  • Israel continues to keep Gazans incarcerated on land that the UN declared would be unable to sustain life by 2020 because of its contaminated soil and water; this point was thought to have been reached by 2017.
  • Israeli snipers killed hundreds and injured tens of thousands of unarmed Gazans who attended weekly peaceful demonstrations after Friday prayers from March 2018 until Dec. 2019 demanding an end to their incarceration. Medics and the press were specially targeted, as well as children and handicapped.
  • Israel continues to attack Gazans with almost daily bombing or drone attacks.
  • Also, despite laws and a recent UN Security Council resolution against the plunder of Palestinian resources, Israel is believed to be stealing Palestinian gas off Gaza, a resource that could allow Gazans normal lives.

Despite Israel’s brutality towards an imprisoned and defenceless population — genocidal acts that would cause outrage if they occurred in any other country — mainstream media censor the daily atrocities while publishing only stories of Jewish victimhood.  The media’s silent complicity to Israel’s slow extermination of Gazans and apartheid treatment in the West Bank does not bode well for Palestinians who may be incarcerated in West Bank “cantons”.

Negating the United Nation’s laws and international humanitarian legislation

These proposals make a mockery of international law, and pose a direct challenge to the UN and protective legislation that the world community supposedly guarantees.  This is the law of the jungle on steroids.

While genocidal treatment should be unacceptable for any defenceless civilians, Israel’s treatment of Gaza is particularly egregious because all Palestinians under its occupation (in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem) are supposed to have their human and civil rights guaranteed by various United Nations’ Security Council resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention.  This convention, which governs Occupying Powers’ treatment of civilians living under military occupation is supposed to ensure that the civilians are treated with respect, given access to adequate necessities of life, including food and water, have the right to return to their homes, and are not mistreated in any way. Occupying Powers are not only prohibited from moving any of their own population into occupied territory, they are also prohibited from plundering or annexing any of the territory.

All signatories to the Fourth Geneva Convention, basically the world community including Israel, have the contractual legal obligation to hold those responsible for gross breaches — by definition war crimes and crimes against humanity — legally accountable.  The United States has ensured that this is not respected: when Mary Robinson, head of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, demanded in 2001 that the world community step up to the plate and honor this obligation, she lost her position. UN SC resolutions that attempt to protect Palestinians are typically vetoed by the United States.  While Palestinians might have held out hope that their “guaranteed” legal rights would ultimately be respected, Trump’s proposal aims to end that possibility.

Legislation criminalizing criticism of Israel enables the slow extermination of Palestinians

Criminalization of either boycott or criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic racism are the final steps that would allow Israel greater political freedom to carry out a protracted elimination of the indigenous Palestinians.

The IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definitions of anti-Semitism (passed in Britain, France, Germany and Canada) encourage censorship of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.  IHRA definitions of racism include: calling Israel a racist endeavor; accusing Israel or Israelis of “blood libel” such as mass murder of non-Jews; comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis; or blaming Jews for the State of Israel’s actions.  Unfortunately, the possible accuracy of such observations could be irrelevant and considered “anti-Semitic”.

Israeli activist Miko Peled believes that “the reality for Palestinians will not improve until Zionism is condemned, a roadmap to a democratic free Palestine is put in place, and refugees are allowed to return to their homeland.”

*

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.

Karin Brothers is a freelance writer and frequent contributor to Global Research

Featured image: Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967 [Nurphoto]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s “Deal of the Century”: Turning West Bank “Cantons” into Mini Gaza Extermination Zones?
  • Tags: , ,

There are two schools of thought as to whither the fate of the newly revealed proposed settlement to the protracted Palestine problem. One espoused by Scott Ritter, former UN Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Inspector, that it is an offer that Palestinians cannot refuse and the other that it must be rejected, not least because of its total disregard of justice for the Palestinians and their dignity. 

With its obvious bias for Israel, President Trump’s so-called Deal of the Century or more accurately titled “Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People”, the Vision for short, released recently, is built on the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s vision of “less than a state” for Palestinians as prescribed by the Oslo Accords and approved by the Knesset and “not rejected by the Palestinian leadership of the time”. “In 1993, the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation reached the first of several interim agreements, known collectively as the Oslo Accords.”

The argument is straightforward. If Palestinian leaders were agreeable to “less than a state” then why should the same not apply today? More importantly, while there is mention of further negotiations, Tel Aviv whether its Netanyahu or General Gantz, is already on board. The Vision, through some doublespeak also attempts to accommodate the non-division of Jerusalem, very much reflecting the Israeli bias. While the city will not be divided, the area which most symbolises the city’s essence of religious spirituality, where the tourist attractions are — tourism being an industry mentioned in the Vision — is handed over to Israel as her capital city, retaining the name Jerusalem. Meanwhile, “East Jerusalem, located in all areas east and north to the security barrier…could be named Al Quds or another name as determined by the state of Palestine”.

“While a physical division of the city must be avoided, a security barrier currently exists that does not follow the municipal boundary which already separates Arab neighborhoods (i.e., Kafr Aqab, and the eastern part of Shuafat)   in Jerusalem from the rest of the neighborhoods in the city.

The physical barrier should remain in place and should serve as a border between the capitals of the two parties.”

Will this satisfy the Arab nations who protested when Trump declared that the American Embassy to Israel was to move to Jerusalem, most notably Turkey and King Salman of Saudi Arabia?    That Palestinians are already protesting against the Vision is a clear signal that the people are far from enthusiastic despite the attempt to bribe them with US$50 billion over ten years to develop the Palestinian economy and rebuild its infrastructure destroyed by Israeli bombing. 1 million jobs are promised. Iran is clearly against it. According to Al-Monitor, Russia’s negative attitude to Trump’s deal is no secret.

To date, support or otherwise for the Vision, so-called, fall along the traditional divide of the binary division vis-a-vis those who are pro-Palestine and others who are pro-Israel.

Naturally, Palestine will be reinstated on the world map but with less than full sovereignty. Its very profile as envisioned in this distorted Vision is a state that surrenders its security to its occupiers, totally demilitarised, its education curriculum must in no way undermine the integrity of the enemy and accept the loss of lands to the illegal Jewish settlements on occupied lands. In short, the Palestinians must allow for the consolidation of the Balfour Declaration and more. Any breach would only mean giving the Jewish state the right of retribution which will further erode the basic human rights of Palestinians, as an occupied people. It is no exaggeration to suggest that in agreeing to the Vision the Palestinians are legalising their own enslavement to the tyranny of the Jewish state.

Will they? Should they?

The answer is, of course, no. Why should the Palestinians submit to tyranny when international law and order is on their side?For instance, by agreeing to Trump’s idea of a solution the Palestinians are denying their right to protection from the International Criminal Court (ICC) their recourse to justice against the tyrant under the present circumstances. Should they for US$50 billion over 10 years and the million jobs promised renounce all rights that would secure them their dignity and the return of lands stolen from them? Or is there restitution in economic development?

If, as Ritter suggests, this is the chance of a lifetime for the reinstatement of Palestine and its economic development, how can the Palestinians refuse this deal when a refusal means the perpetuation of poverty and their ultimate genocide?After all, the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s (PLO) acceptance of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 — the land-for-peace principle — already granted Israel a window to security and recognised borders. Given this concession, some would argue that the PLO should never have signed the Oslo Accords. The UN Security Council’sresolution 242 was the cornerstone upon which Israel was recognised by Egypt and Jordan. A few days ago the PA announced its intention to cancel the Oslo Accords and will not adhere to the agreements. Having made their position known, a request was made to the Arab League to convene a ministerial level extraordinary meeting to discuss Trump’s Deal of the Century.

Seven decades have passed since the Nakba ( catastrophe for the Palestinians and other Arabs) and there is a growing silence in the corridors of power. A deafening silence that ignores the Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated on the Palestinians. In fact, even worse is Trump’s attempt to make legal the illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

Who will defeat the European perpetrators of the Jewish genocide through regular pogroms and ultimately, the Holocaust, deniers notwithstanding? The Palestinians have endured 70 years of Israeli tyranny so Europe may find atonement for their sins. Who amongst the mighty will champion the Palestinian cause?

Contemporary global civil society is now strengthening a peaceful campaign to defeat expansionist Israel and restore Palestine. The Boycott Divestment Sanctions (DBS) Movement against Israel is currently the only light in the tunnel. That friends of the Tel Aviv government are taking legal measures to undermine the Campaign suggests clearly that the BDS Movement is gaining traction. But it has yet to achieve a critical mass that can bring Tel Aviv to heel and the apartheid Jewish state ended and occupied Palestinian lands freed. Yes, South Africa benefited from a series of boycott initiatives. But is there time for Palestine? Even the UN once predicted that this year, 2020, Gaza will be uninhabitable given the deliberate destruction of its infrastructure by Israel including the delivery of treated water.

Furthermore, without the right of return, can Palestinians make that decisionwhich will bring to an end their diaspora status?Some postulate that Trump’s proposal is designed to fail. Already the head of the Palestinian Authority (PA), Mahmoud Abbas, has rejected it and the PA has complained of the lukewarm, if at all, support of the Arab nations for the Palestinian position. Hamas is asking for a meeting with the PA. Given that the Vision demands its dissolution one cannot see Hamas agreeing to its annihilation.

The prospects do not bode well. What will be the way forward for Palestine? Should not the consolidation of the multipolar world be speeded up in the hope that the United Nations might yet play its assigned role and not be the handmaiden to US hegemony as it so obviously is, now?

*

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

Askiah Adam is Executive Director of International Movement for a JUST World (JUST).

Most Popular Articles in January

February 4th, 2020 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Most Popular Articles in January

Con Guerini ancora più legati al Pentagono

February 4th, 2020 by Manlio Dinucci

«Relazione storicamente privilegiata, che bisogna rafforzare il più possibile»: così, nella sua visita a Washington (29-31 gennaio), il ministro della Difesa Lorenzo Guerini (Pd) ha definito il legame dell’Italia con gli Stati uniti.

Il segretario Usa alla Difesa Mark Esper ha definito l’Italia «solido alleato Nato» che, ospitando oltre 34.000 militari e altri dipendenti del Pentagono, «svolge un ruolo vitale nella nostra proiezione di forza in Europa, nel Mediterraneo e Nord Africa».

Il ruolo dell’Italia è più importante di quanto dica lo stesso Esper. Il Pentagono può lanciare dal nostro territorio, attraverso i comandi e le basi Usa/Nato, operazioni militari in un’area che dall’Atlantico si estende alla Russia e, a sud, all’intera Africa e al Medio Oriente. Sempre col consenso e la collaborazione dello Stato italiano.

«Entrambi i paesi – sottolinea il comunicato ufficiale del Pentagono – riconoscono l’influenza destabilizzante dell’Iran in Medio Oriente e concordano nel continuare a operare insieme per contenere le sempre più dirompenti attività iraniane». Viene così cancellata la posizione formale assunta dal Governo italiano (e quindi dallo stesso Guerini) che, dopo l’uccisione di Soleimani ordinata da Trump e la reazione iraniana, aveva sottolineato la necessità di «evitare una ulteriore escalation e favorire un abbassamento della tensione attraverso la diplomazia».

Confermando che a decidere è Washington e non Roma, Guerini ha dichiarato, nella conferenza stampa al Pentagono, che «l’Italia ha deciso di rimanere in Iraq dopo una conversazione telefonica col segretario Esper».

Guerini – informa il Ministero della Difesa –è stato ricevuto anche dal consigliere del presidente Trump Jared Kushner, «promotore del recente piano di pace per il Medio Oriente», ossia del piano di creare uno «Stato palestinese» sul modello delle «riserve indiane» create dagli Usa nell’Ottocento.

Il ministro Guerini ha avuto da Esper anche qualche tirata d’orecchi: l’Italia deve impegnarsi di più per portare la propria spesa militare (circa 70 milioni di euro al giorno) almeno al 2% del Pil (circa 100 milioni di euro al giorno); deve inoltre limitare o bandire l’uso di tecnologia cinese 5G, in particolare della Huawei, che «compromette la sicurezza dell’Alleanza».

Subito dopo, però, il ministro Guerini ha avuto la sua più grande soddisfazione: il capo del Pentagono lo ha ringraziato per «aver rafforzato il ruolo dell’Italia quale fondamentale partner degli Stati uniti nell’industria della Difesa, e per il suo forte sostegno al programma del caccia F-35 nel quale l’Italia, partner di secondo livello, ha fatto importanti investimenti in ricerca e sviluppo».

A Washington, si legge in un comunicato pubblicato a Roma, il ministro Guerini ha incontrato «esponenti dell’industria italiana della Difesa e i principali think tank del settore».

Al primo posto, sicuramente, i dirigenti della Leonardo – la maggiore industria militare italiana, di cui il Ministero dell’economia e delle finanze è il principale azionista – che negli Usa fornisce prodotti e servizi alle forze armate e alle agenzie d’intelligence, e in Italia gestisce l’impianto di Cameri dei caccia F-35 della Lockheed Martin.

Guerini ha incontrato a Washington anche i dirigenti di Fincantieri, controllata per oltre il 70% dal Ministero dell’economia e delle finanze. Negli Usa il Fincantieri Marine Group costruisce navi da combattimento litorale per la US Navy.

Quattro navi dello stesso tipo vengono ora costruite da questa azienda Fincantieri per l’Arabia Saudita in base a un contratto da 2 miliardi di dollari stipulato dalla Lockheed Martin.

Nel 2019, mentre Fincantieri, controllata dal Governo, firmava il contratto di costruzione delle navi da guerra per l’Arabia Saudita, la Camera approvava una mozione, presentata dalla maggioranza di governo, che chiedeva l’embargo sulla vendita di armamenti all’Arabia Saudita.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Con Guerini ancora più legati al Pentagono

Probably the most hideous propaganda to be spewed by the establishment media cartel in the West is that which portrays the Syrian Arab Army as some kind of militia, “Assad’s gang”, disconnecting these defenders of homeland from the people they are fighting for and dying for every day.

I travelled to Aleppo by Pullman bus a few days ago, it was full of young soldiers heading to the frontlines in West Aleppo and Idlib. Young men from all areas of Syria, all communities, united in the common cause – to liberate their country from the infestation of extremism and sectarian terrorism, to bring peace back to a country that everyone in Syria describes as “the safest place in the Middle East before 2011”.

Most of them slept, curled up in their seats, exhausted.. others hopped off the bus when we stopped, to have a coffee or a cigarette. All of them polite, friendly and tired.

Soldiers sleeping in Idlib between battles. 

I was in Layramoun, an industrial area to the north of Aleppo two days ago as the SAA soldiers prepared for the military campaign to liberate the areas surrounding the factories that are occupied by the West’s “moderates” – Al Qaeda in Syria – it was freezing cold, a biting wind cutting to the bone, not one of the soldiers had really warm clothing or boots. They arrived one by one, their faces full of purpose, their weapons slung over their shoulder, greeting each other with grim camaraderie before the battle begins. Tanks nestling inside open garages, hidden from view, artillery trucks carrying missile launchers parked on the roadside, groups of soliders discussing plans… there was a feeling of calm before the storm.

These soldiers do not have the equipment or food that the terrorist groups have. Turkey ensures that their proxies have everything they need, including US manufactured TOW missiles (anti-tank). The SAA soldiers often do not have food for weeks/months, they survive literally on what they can forage except when local people risk their own lives to bring them sandwiches & tea. The illegal US/EU sanctions are a major part of the war waged against these soldiers who defy all this hardship until victory is the sweetest taste in their mouths.

Their weapons are old and battered compared to the sophisticated equipment supplied to groups like ISIS- BUT these young men are winning their battles, because they believe in their cause, they know they must win or die and that if they do not win, their people will die at the hands of these monsters camped on their land.

To reduce these heroes, these brave Resistance fighters to some kind of homogenous brigade of government militia is a crime in itself. Every young man (and woman) has dreams, hopes and ambitions that they put on hold to fight a war that has shattered their dreams.

When we see videos of terrorist missiles scything through these young people to cries of “Allah Akhbar”, more lives are lost, more blood is shed and more hopes are destroyed. Every single soldier is an individual fighting side by side with thousands other individuals to defeat the enemy that would see them divided. They do not fight for one man, they fight for us all.

God bless the Syrian Arab Army and their allies.

Syrian Arab Army at entrance to Ma’arat al Nu’man in Idlib. 

Here are some messages from supporters of the Resistance from many countries in the world, showing that there are those who recognise the magnitude of the war being fought by the Syrian Arab Army on behalf of us all:

“There are times in history when only the bravest will find the courage to stand alone against the most powerful in their attempts to erase our existence from our planet. We are all living through one of those times and we are witnessing a battle of two worlds. On one side is the world of imperialist oppression, violence, perpetual war, to benefit the predators of our world – on the other are those who wish to see the supremacy of international law and perpetual peace with benefits for all mankind.

Those who have taken the ultimate stand against these forces of subjugation are the Syrian Arab Army and their allies who have stood firm and proud against overwhelming military force and a terrifying apparatus of war. The Syrian Arab Army does not only fight for Syria and its people, it fights for all of us – in Palestine, in the UK, the EU, South America, Yemen, everywhere… Syria is not only the cradle of civilization, it is the cradle of resistance around which are circling those who would destroy it and those who would defend it. We stand with those who defend it.

The following are statements from just some of those around the world who wish to acknowledge what the SAA has done to secure a better future for all humanity:

“We would like to thank the courageous soldiers of the Syrian Arab Army and we wish to show you that you are supported even behind the enemy lines in the countries who are so hostile towards your people. We thank you for your valiant battle against these imperialist nations because we understand you fight for us also.

We understand that if Syria is lost or destroyed, we are all facing the end of civilization. A victory for Syria will mean the end of the imperialist construct as we know it and there will be the opportunity for humanity to evolve away from endless war to protect the supremacy of one nation and its allies. We know you are our brave soldiers on the frontlines for humanity and wherever we live, wherever we come from we love and support you.”

[…]

“The Syrian Arab Army has resisted economic, media and military terrorism for 7 years. We call upon all peoples of the world to stand in solidarity with these courageous men & women of Syria in their stand against International terrorism. History will honour them in the future, but we must honour them now and not turn away from our duty to support them.

On behalf of all the awake in this world, I wish to recognise the sacrifices made by the SAA and their allies, sacrifices made with their blood that has mingled with the soil of their beloved nation, Syria. The soil from which all our futures will grow.

You gave up your families, your homes, your careers, your futures, to fight for the honour & freedom of your people, we will not ever let this sacrifice be in vain. The Syrian people live in our hearts, your kindness, generosity and compassion in the face of such adversity is the flame that will never be extinguished by the cold hand of oppression that is outstretched by our governments towards your country. Instead we extend our hands and place them inside your’s so we are one hand in this war for all our sakes. May God protect you in your mission which is our mission also.”

[…]

“I would like to express my absolute and boundless reverence for the brave young men and women of the Syrian Arab Army and their allies on the front lines. You need no introduction. You’ve fought tooth and nail to keep your country intact, for 7 years, against all odds, with some of the world’s most nefarious and powerfully dark forces lined up against you.

This war has been cruelly imposed upon you and is of greater significance than most realise. You are fighting not only for your nation but to defend your most precious asset, your independence, your right to self-determination. Syria is one of only a handful of nations to have retained its autonomy in this respect. You have defended the world against the most powerful global criminals who also committed the greatest crime of the 20th Century in 1948, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine which could never have succeeded without the endorsement of all the states now targeting Syria.

We stand in solidarity with your courage and your steadfastness that will bring with it a new world power paradigm, one that will ensure a better future for us all.”

[…]

“I am a Kemalist and anti-imperialist secular activist from Istanbul who wishes to salute the brave heroes who are battling imperialism on behalf of all people in this world who have suffered under this imperialist ideology that has preyed upon our world for centuries.

You, the SAA and allies, are not only defending Syria against the US-UK-EU-Gulf State-Zionist axis of hegemony but you are defending the entire region, my country & all humanity against the ravages of imperialist barbarism. Most people in Turkey with a heart and a brain stand in solidarity with your cause and salute your courage on the battlefield.”

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

A recent issue of Air Force News revealed that a senior NZDF officer served a six-month posting at the Qatar base, placing New Zealanders at the heart of the main targeting and bombing center in that region, writes Darius Shahtahmasebi

***

Last month the coalition government declared the end of New Zealand Defence Force deployments in Iraq. The announcement was silent, however, about the future of another deployment of New Zealand personnel, to a U.S. military base in the Middle East that has attracted controversy thanks to its role at the center of a large proportion of U.S. bombing missions in the region.

The base is called the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) and it is located at the Al-Udeid airbase in the small Persian Gulf nation of Qatar. Bombing missions that have been controlled from the base – where aircraft take off and land every 10 minutes, 24 hours a day – are implicated in large numbers of civilian casualties.

recent issue of Air Force News revealed that a senior air force officer, Group Captain Shaun Sexton, served a six-month posting at the Qatar base; placing New Zealanders at the heart of the main targeting and bombing center in that region. The presence of New Zealand staff at the base has been kept largely quiet by the New Zealand military before now.

Last month, the New Zealand government delivered its decision to withdraw NZDF personnel from Iraq by next year. But what of Qatar? A spokesperson for NZDF told the Spinoff that “NZDF personnel based in the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) operate under a separate mandate to the NZDF personnel in Iraq. This mandate has been approved until 2020.” Whether they intend to maintain the postings to the Qatar base after 2020 remains unclear.

New Zealand Air Force News

According to information released by NZDF in response to an Official Information Act request, there are five New Zealand personnel currently serving at the Al-Udeid Airbase. Two of the troops coordinate air tasking in support of the Combined Maritime Forces, Operation Inherent Resolve (Iraq and Syria) and the Resolute Support (Afghanistan) mission. New Zealand also has three personnel supporting intelligence functions within the U.S. Central Command Forward Headquarters at the base.

NZDF confirmed that New Zealand personnel at the COAC work across all regional operations, including those in Syria, where the legality of U.S.-led operations has been thoroughly questioned (although the NZDF states that its troops are not involved in combat operations). NZDF said that because the way the CAOC operates, it is not practical to delineate participation on a country-by-country basis.

The base was responsible for 8,713 airstrikes (or weapons released) in 2018, 39,577 strikes in 2017 and 30,743 in 2016 (including both manned and unmanned aircraft).

Group Captain Shaun Sexton told Air Force magazine that “serving in the CAOC gives an amazing perspective of what is happening in the Middle East”.

He added:

“You truly get a birds-eye view, allowing fascinating insight into the politics and tensions in a key region of the world and into the employment of military effects, especially air power.”

In March 2015, a former chief of the operations division at the base, Lt Col David Haworth, told the Associated Press that “what we are doing today would [not] be even remotely possible without the coalition partners.” This included intelligence gathering.

According to Sexton,

“most of the people serving in the CAOC are from the United States Air Force. However, the other 15 nations in the coalition have a huge role to play.”

He continued: “The contribution they make to the fight in terms of people and hardware is significant.”

A Stuff Circuit report last year suggested that NZDF personnel had been secretly operating at the CAOC at Al-Udeid since at least 2016.

Reports indicate that coalition aircraft flying out of the CAOC have been responsible for anywhere between 10 percent to 20 percent of sorties flown in Iraq and Syria during Operation Inherent Resolve. In addition, the airbase is the “nerve center” of U.S.-led air campaigns across the region, managing and directing air operations in not only Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, but in 18 other countries.

Approximately 40 percent of all strikes in Iraq and Syria have been delivered by the B1 Bomber, an aircraft that has only been departing from the airbase at Al-Udeid.

The CAOC was pivotal in the U.S.-led battle to retake Mosul from ISIS militants. During the early stages of the offensive, U.S.-led airstrikes pounded Mosul every eight minutes.

However, an AP report found an appalling rate of civilian casualties during the operation. It reported that some 9,000 to 11,000 civilians had died, nearly ten times what had been previously reported in the media. This number did not take into account dead still buried underneath the rubble.

The Qatar airbase also has undertaken a crucial role in the Syrian war. The fight to retake ISIS’s de-facto Syrian capital city of Raqqa saw the U.S. military raze approximately 80 percent  of the city to the ground.

A Raqqan resident told Reuters that corpses were rotting on the street, with cats eating their bodies. This offensive was further mired by a special BBC report which found that the U.S. military had made a secret arrangement to allow hundreds of ISIS commanders and fighters to escape Raqqa unscathed. Reuters subsequently reported that the number of escaped ISIS fighters numbered in the thousands.

The base also played a part in US P.r.esident Donald Trump’s April 2018 bombing of Syrian government assets in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack, another controversial use of force.

The NZDF spokesperson said the organization is confident its personnel on all operations are conducting themselves in accordance with both domestic and international legal obligations.

*

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.

Darius Shahtahmasebi is a New Zealand-based legal and political analyst who focuses on US foreign policy in the Middle East, Asia and Pacific region. He is fully qualified as a lawyer in two international jurisdictions.

Featured image: A U.S. Air Force C-130 Hercules at Baghdad International Airport, Iraq, Dec. 9, 2019. Bethany E. La Ville | DVIDS

On November 26, 2018, General Motors announced a number of plant closures in North America, the largest of which is in Oshawa, Ontario. The Oshawa facility, once the largest auto complex on the continent, was to end all its assembly operations by the end of 2019.

The response of the federal government, which had used the preservation of jobs to justify giving GM billions in public funds during the financial crisis, was a tepid ‘disappointment’. The provincial government, which had been plastering the province with the slogan ‘Ontario is open for business’ was left red-faced when, as its billboards were going up, GM announced the closing of one of the largest workplaces in the province. Both levels of government essentially closed their eyes and wished the issue away.

Nor did the autoworkers’ union, Unifor, escape its own share of discomfort. Less than two years earlier, its leadership had negotiated lower wages and pensions at GM for new (essentially younger) workers in spite of those workers doing exactly the same job as those beside them. This betrayal of union solidarity was sold to the members as a victory because of its promised retention of jobs. When the closure exposed the job ‘guarantees’ as a sham, the national president reacted with predictable bluster and launched a public relations campaign to shame the corporation into reversing its decision.

In the end, the union did solicit another job promise from the corporation but this time it was for only 300 hundred jobs and they would only come at the end of 2020. Earlier, when the head of GM had announced the closure, she had pointedly emphasized that even with only 3000 GM workers left, the plant’s heavy ‘underutilization’ was a factor in it being shuttered. What then to make of the sustainability of the 300 prospective jobs that would leave 95 per cent of the facility underutilized?

Toward an Alternative

A small group of rank and file Oshawa workers and retirees understood that far more was needed; both logic and history suggested that appealing to GM to rethink their cold calculations was naïve. They joined with other community allies, including the Durham Labour Council and supporters from the Toronto-based Socialist Project, to establish Green Jobs Oshawa. Its mandate was to explore and organize around other possibilities for the Oshawa facility.

Four perspectives drove their ambitious proposal. First, GM was the problem, not the solution. Second, expecting to compete in the market with China, Mexico or plants in the American south was no answer. It would only reproduce past pressures on wages and working conditions, past insecurities and past failures. Third, any alternative would need to introduce a product with special social significance. And fourth, the issue was not just jobs but retaining Canada’s manufacturing capacities.

In line with this outlook, Green Jobs Oshawa called on the federal government – or the municipal government with substantial financial and technical support from the feds – to take over the land and equipment idled by GM. The Oshawa facility could then be converted to assembling fleets of electric vehicles. The sale of these vehicles was to depend not on market competition, but a social plan based on direct government purchases of the products the government had invested in. The fleet vehicles involved would range from electric post office vans (as recommended earlier by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers) to hydro-electric vans, newly designed school buses, ambulances and police cars. With that base, the plant could also produce electric cars for individual consumers and, depending on how much space remained available, add other environmentally-related products.

The message was that jobs, the environment, and the industrial capacities for conversion and restructuring are inseparable. From that perspective, saving Oshawa was not an end point but a beginning and an example to build on.

Frustration and Persistence

Green Jobs Oshawa developed a website, distributed leaflets to workers, held educationals and public forums in Oshawa and Toronto, organized petitions, commissioned a widely respected professional feasibility study confirming its case, received sympathetic attention in the press and gave numerous media interviews. Yet the committee couldn’t generate the necessary level of support, starting with the workers themselves.

The workers in Oshawa were frustrated and angry, but anger doesn’t necessarily translate into activism. Having experienced the steady drip-drip decline of the Oshawa complex, having recently suffered demoralizing defeats after defeats in bargaining, and now seeing the final end of vehicle assembly in the city, workers had shifted to survival mode. In that state of mind, most workers, it seemed, had simply stopped even thinking about possibilities. Nor was it unusual for workers to guard against hope creeping into their consciousness; risking the pain of once more seeing hopes dashed made even hope something to willfully avoid.

Though workers contacted by Green Jobs Oshawa generally considered the proposals on conversion as sensible, this was trumped by their skepticism of ‘sensible’ driving economic and political decisions. Critical here was the role of the union. As frustrated as workers were with the union, they still looked to its structures and resources for leadership, especially given the radical nature of the alternative proposed. But with both the national and local leadership not interested in and even hostile to an alternative, it was no surprise that workers were lukewarm to committing to a fight for a long-shot alternative.

Important here, as well, were the limits of the environmental movement. Environmentalists have most impressively raised public awareness of the looming environmental catastrophe. Yet they have been far less successful in getting the mass of working people on side. Two inter-related problems stand out. First, the promise of a ‘just transition’ is well-meaning but unconvincing to workers; workers rightly ask how such a commitment could be met in a society driven by competition and private profits. Second, with the environmental movement generally absent from workers struggles, developing ‘awareness’ could only go so far.

Green Jobs Oshawa Lives On

Measured by its ability to keep the Oshawa facility humming, Green Jobs Oshawa was not successful; today, no more vehicles are being assembled in Oshawa. But measured by their work in placing a vital but largely ignored issue on the agenda – the steady loss of the productive capacity we will need to reconstitute the environment – brings a more encouraging conclusion.

Though the Oshawa facility is now quiet, the battle to revive it, with all its noise and productive bustle, continues. The facility still has waiting assembly lines, a body shop, a paint shop, and 10 million square feet of space. In Oshawa and nearby, there is no shortage of workers anxious to apply their too often underestimated skills, suppliers with flexible tooling capacities, and young engineers leaving university anxious to apply their knowledge to developing socially useful products. Green Jobs Oshawa continues to send out material and speak at events, making connections and spreading the urgent discussion of possibilities.

Workers – with the support of their union leadership where possible, on their own if that leadership is not sympathetic – should be setting up committees to consider the future of their workplaces and holding meetings to discuss the plant occupations, nationalizations and conversions in other cities facing major manufacturing shutdowns.

The Canadian Labour Congress should be supporting and coordinating such initiatives with its own research and also joining with the environmental movement to take the initiatives further. A significant step would be to lobby for a National Conversion Agency with the authority and financial and technical resources to intervene when plant closures occur or seem imminent.

Provincial federations of labour could focus on the environmental particularities of their own regions as, for example, the Alberta Federation of Labour has started to do in addressing how the inevitable transition away from oil could be economically and socially managed. This could include lobbying to establish local tech-enviro centers populated by the hundreds of young engineers mentioned above. Alongside coming up with possibilities for local conversion and development, they could contribute to spreading understanding to the community of what we face and what needs to be done.

For private sector workers, the crucial fact is that environmental pressures will require transforming everything about how we live, work, travel, and use our leisure time. Such a massive and unprecedented undertaking (the conversions entering and exiting World War II come closest) can, if done right, mean not a loss of jobs but a shortage of workers trying to meet society’s ‘regular’ needs and the demands of environmental reconstruction.

As for the public sector, the growing acceptance that environmental limits translate into limiting individual consumption in the developed countries leads to a greater emphasis on collective consumption. We are on the cusp of having to urgently redefine what we mean by ‘abundance’ and to place greater value on retrieving our time, leisure, social services (health, education), collective goods (public transit, libraries), and public spaces (sports, music, arts, parks) – a reorientation, that is, to the expansion of the public sector and public sector jobs.

Finally, for environmentalists, truly addressing the scale of what must be done means moving from a vague anti-capitalism to an aggressive – and confident – call for democratic planning and its corollary of fundamentally challenging corporate property rights. And addressing how to implement such policies, requires bringing the mass of workers on side to both the environmental necessities and to the overcoming of capitalism. This can only begin with actively supporting the defensive struggles of workers with the goal of linking them, as Green Jobs Oshawa has tried to do, to those larger issues of conversion and democratic planning in the shaping of the world to come.

In short, the issue is not simply a matter of bringing the environmental movement and the labour movement together; each must be transformed if the sum is to be more than the currently limited parts. The environmental movement must raise itself to a new level by concretely engaging the working class, and the labour movement must escape what, for it, has become an existential crisis. The threats and opportunities of the environmental crisis offer a chance for labour revival, but only if this incorporates a renewed approach to organizing, struggle, radical politics, and the maximization of informed membership participation.

*

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

Sam Gindin was research director of the Canadian Auto Workers from 1974–2000. He is co-author (with Leo Panitch) of The Making of Global Capitalism (Verso), and co-author with Leo Panitch and Steve Maher of The Socialist Challenge Today, the expanded and updated American edition is forthcoming with Haymarket in 2020.

All images in this article are from The Bullet

The Holocaust, the BBC and Antisemitism Smears

February 4th, 2020 by Jonathan Cook

Senior BBC news reporter Orla Guerin has found herself in hot water of an increasingly familiar kind. During a report on preparations for the commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp, she made a brief reference to Israel and an even briefer reference to the Palestinians. Her reporting coincided with Israel hosting world leaders last week at Yad Vashem, its Holocaust remembrance centre in Jerusalem.

Here is what Guerin said over footage of Yad Vashem: 

“In Yad Vashem’s Hall of Names, images of the dead. Young [Israeli] soldiers troop in to share in the binding tragedy of the Jewish people. The state of Israel is now a regional power. For decades, it has occupied Palestinian territories. But some here will always see their nation through the prism of persecution and survival.” 

British Jewish community leaders and former BBC executives leapt on her “offensive” remarks, even accusing her of antisemitism. Guerin had dared, unlike any of her colleagues in the western media, to allude to the terrible price inflicted on the Palestinian people by the west’s decision to help the Zionist movement create a Jewish state shortly after the Holocaust. The Palestinians were dispossessed of their homeland as apparent compensation – at least for those Jews who became citizens of Israel – for Europe’s genocidal crimes.

Guerin’s was a very meek – bland even – reference to the predicament of the Palestinians after Europe’s sponsorship, from the 1917 Balfour Declaration onwards, of a Jewish state on their homeland. There was no mention of the Palestinians’ undoubted suffering over many decades or of Israel’s documented war crimes against the Palestinians. All that Guerin referred to was an indisputable occupation that followed, and one could argue was a legacy of, Israel’s creation.

Holocaust weaponised 

In fact, as we shall see in a moment, Israel’s establishment is today invariably and necessarily justified by antisemitism and its ultimate, horrifying expression in the Holocaust. The two are now inextricably intertwined. So Guerin’s linking of these two events is not only legitimate, it is required in any proper analysis of the consequences of the Holocaust and of European racism.

In fact, the furore among Jewish groups in Britain seems all the more perverse given that the Israeli media have extensively reported on Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s explicit efforts to weaponise the current Holocaust commemorations to harm the Palestinians. 

He hopes to leverage sympathy over the Holocaust to win assistance from western capitals in bullying the International Criminal Court in the Hague into denying that it has any jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories Israel is occupying. That would prevent the court from enforcing international law by investigating war crimes perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinians. (In fact, aware of the diplomatic stakes, the ICC’s prosecutors have so far shown zero appetite for pursuing those investigations.) 

This extract from a commentary by noted Israeli human rights activist Hagai El-Ad, published in the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz (Israel’s version of the New York Times), gives a proper sense of how inadequate was Guerin’s solitary reference to the Palestinians – and how her colleagues are actually complicit through their silence in allowing Israel to weaponise antisemitism and the Holocaust to oppress Palestinians:

“How dehumanizing [of Netanyahu and the Israeli government], to insist on denying a people’s last recourse to even an uncertain, belated, modicum of justice [at the ICC]. How degrading to do so while standing on the shoulders of Holocaust survivors, insisting that this is somehow being carried out in their name. …

“It remains in our hands to decide if the past’s painful lessons will be allowed to be turned on their head in order to further oppression – or remain loyal to a vision of freedom and dignity, justice and rights, for all.”

History in the shadows

By not echoing the rest of the western media in entirely airbrushing the Palestinians out of Europe’s post-Holocaust history, Guerin stood isolated and exposed. None of her colleagues – supposedly fearless, muckraking journalists – appear willing to come to her aid. She has been made a scapegoat, a sacrificial victim – one that will serve as a future reminder to her colleagues of what they are permitted to mention, which parts of Europe’s history they may examine and which parts must remain forever in the shadows. 

Guerin’s comment was denounced as “offensive” by her former boss, Danny Cohen, who was previously the director of BBC television. No one, of course, cares that the Palestinians’ experience of being wiped out of recent European history and its legacy in the Middle East is deeply offensive. The Palestinians are what historian Mark Curtis refers to as “Unpeople”.

What he and others meant by “offensive” was made explicit by the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), which argued that Guerin’s statement was antisemitic.

The CAA is one of the groups that, using similarly twisted logic, led the attacks on the British Labour party over claims of antisemitism in its ranks under leader Jeremy Corbyn. It helped to foist a highly problematic new definition of antisemitism on the party that downgrades concerns about racism directed at Jews to prioritise a supposedly bigger crime: criticism of Israel. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition offers 11 examples of antisemitism, seven of which refer to Israel rather than Jews.

Preposterously, the CAA alleged that Guerin had violated one of these examples. It said her report had included “drawing comparisons between Israeli policy and the Nazis”. Very clearly, she had done no such thing.

Erasing the record

The most that could be inferred from Guerin’s extremely vague, overly cautious remark was two things. First, that Israel justifies the need for a Jewish state on the threat to Jews posed by antisemitism (as evidenced by the Holocaust). And second, that the resulting state of Israel has inflicted a very high price on the Palestinians, who had to be displaced from their homeland to make that state achievable. At no point did Guerin make a comparison between the suffering of Jews in the Holocaust and the suffering of Palestinians. 

She simply, and rightly, hinted at a chain of related events: European racism towards Jews culminated in the Holocaust; the Holocaust was used by the Zionist movement to justify European sponsorship of a Jewish state on the ruins of Palestine; Palestinians and their supporters feel aggrieved that the Holocaust has become a pretext for ignoring their plight and suppressing criticism of Israel. Each of those links is irrefutably true. And unless the truth is now antisemitic – and there is mounting evidence that it is being made so by Israel, its lobbyists and western governments – what Guerin said was not conceivably antisemitic.

It may seem obvious why Israel and its lobbyists would want to silence criticism, or even a basic historical understanding, of the context and consequences of Israel’s founding. But why are western officials evidently so keen to aid Israel in this project of erasing the historical record?

Israel could never have been established without the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland and the destruction of hundreds of their villages to prevent any return. That is why a growing number of historians have risked the wrath of the Israel lobby to declare these events ethnic cleansing – in other words, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Western hypocrisy

Let us note that the circumstances in which Israel was created were not exceptional – at least, from the point of view of recent western history. In fact, Israel is an example of a typical settler colonial state. In other words, its creation depended on the replacement of the native population by a group of settlers, just as occurred when Europeans founded colonies in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. 

The difficulty for Israel and its western allies has been that Israel’s crimes are being committed in the modern era, at a time when the west has claimed to have learnt the lessons both of its colonial past and of the Second World War. In the post-war period the west promised to change its ways, with a new commitment to international law and the recognition of human rights.

The shameful irony about the west’s complicity in Israel’s creation is that Israel could only have been established through the dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. Those outrages occurred in the very same year that, via the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, western states pledged to create a different, better world.

In other words, Israel was launched as an old-style western colonial project at the very moment when the western powers promised to decolonise, giving their colonies independence. Israel was embarrassing proof of the west’s hypocrisy in promising to break with its colonial past. It was evidence of bad faith from the outset. The west used Israel to outsource its colonialism, to bypass the new limitations it claimed to have imposed on itself.

A colonial spin-off 

So committed were the western powers to Israel’s success that France and Britain helped it from the late 1950s to build a nuclear arsenal – the only one in the Middle East – in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Predictably, that further destabilised an already highly volatile region as other states, especially Iraq and Iran, considered trying to level the playing field by developing their own nuclear weapons.

In another sign of the west’s commitment to this colonial spin-off was its determination to turn a blind eye in 1967 to Israel’s greedy expansion of its borders in conquering the rest of historic Palestine. For more than half a century Israel has been given free rein to entrench its occupation and to build settlements in violation of international law. All these decades later the International Criminal Court is still dragging its heels – indefinitely, it seems – rather than prosecute Israel for settlements that are irrefuably a war crime. And more than 50 years on, Europe continues to subsidise the settlements through trade agreements and a refusal even to label settlement products.

Rather than account for these outrageous violations of an international order the west founded, Israel’s allies have helped to obscure or pervert this real history. Israel has developed a whole industry, hasbara, to try to prevent outsiders from grasping what has happened since 1948.

It is therefore important for Israel and its western allies to promote justifications for Israel’s creation that appeal to emotion, not reason, as a way to dissuade observers from delving too seriously into the past. In fact, there are only three possible justifications / explanations for the transformation of what was once Palestine into Israel, a state created by and for European Jews on the ruins of Palestine. Two of these rationales play extremely poorly in the modern west.

That leaves only the third justification, as Guerin intimated in her report, and one that resonates well in an age saturated with identity politics.

A Biblical promise 

The first justification says that the Zionist movement was entitled to rid Palestine of the overwhelming majority of its Palestinian natives because God promised Jews the land of Palestine thousands of years ago. This argument tells Palestinians: Your family may have lived for centuries or even millennia in Nazareth, Nablus, Bethlehem, Beersaba, Jerusalem, Jaffa, Hebron, Haifa but that counts for nought because God told Abraham the land belonged to the Jews.

Let us not discount the continuing power of this argument. It was what inspired the 19th century, apocalyptic movement of Christian Zionism – a longing for the “restoration” of Jews to the Promised Land to bring about an end-times in which only true Christians would be saved.

Later, Christian Zionism was repurposed and adopted by small numbers of influential Jews like Theodor Herzl who realised they needed the support of Christian Zionist elites if they were ever to build a Jewish state. They finally found a sponsor in colonial Britain. In part, it was an appetite for Biblical prophecy that guided the British cabinet in approving the Balfour Declaration.

Today, much teaching in Israel depends on unspoken, unexamined claims in the Bible that Jews have a superior right to the land than Palestinians. Nonetheless, Israeli officials know that nowadays Biblical arguments hold little sway in much of the west. Outside Israel such claims play well only with evangelicals, mostly in the US, and have therefore been deployed selectively, targeted chiefly at US President Donald Trump’s base. For the rest of us, the Biblical rationale is quietly set aside.

White man’s burden 

The second justification, frequently resorted to in the early years of the Zionist project, was a fully fledged colonial one, and closely tied to ideas about a superior Judeo-Christian civilisation.

Colonialism assumed that white westerners were a biologically separate race that had to assume responsibility for taming and civilising the savage nature of inferior peoples around the planet. These inferior beings were treated like children – seen as impulsive, backward, even self-destructive. They needed a role model in the white man whose job was to discipline them, re-educate them and impose order. The white man was compensated for the heavy burden he had to shoulder by awarding himself the right to plunder the savage people’s resources. In any case, it was assumed, these barbarians were incapable of managing their affairs or putting their own resources to any good use.

If all this sounds improbably racist, remember that Trump right now is proposing a variation of the same idea: Mexicans must pay for the wall that keeps them out of a white America, even as US corporations continue to exploit cheap Mexican labour; and ungrateful Iraqis are threatened with being made to pay for the soldiers that invaded their country and the US military bases that oversee their occupation. 

Liberals are no less averse to colonial ideas. The white man’s burden underpins the “humanitarian intervention” project and the related, endless “war on terror”. It has been easy to paint other states and their peoples negatively as they continue to reel from centuries of colonial interference – the theft of resources, the imposition of artificial borders that stoke internal, tribal conflict, and western support for local dictators and strongmen.

Developing states have also struggled to prosper in a world dominated by western colonial institutions, whether NATO, the World Bank, the IMF or the UN Security Council. Doomed to failure by the very rules rigged to ensure the western powers alone prosper, developing states find their dysfunctional or authoritarian politics turned against them, used to justify continuing invasion, plunder and control of their resources by the west. 

‘Death to the Arabs’ 

Whatever Zionism claims, Israel was not an antidote to this “white man’s burden” ideology. It was an extension of it. Much of Europe may have been deeply racist towards Jews, but Europe’s Jews were usually viewed as higher in the racial hierarchy than black, brown or yellow people. Typically Jews were despised or feared by antisemites not because they were seen as backward or primitive but because they were presented as too clever, or as manipulative, secretive and untrustworthy. 

The Zionist movement sought to exploit this racism. Its founders, white European Jews, impressed on potential sponsors their ability to help colonise the Middle East on behalf of the European powers. After the Balfour Declaration was issued, the British government put the Colonial Office in charge of shaping a Jewish “home” in Palestine. 

An indication of the degree to which European ideas of racial categories polluted the thinking of the early Zionist movement can be gauged by the treatment of the Mizrahim – Jews from neighbouring Arab states who arrived in the wake of Israel’s creation.

The Ashkenazi (European) Jews who founded Israel had no interest in these Jews until the destruction of large parts of European Jewry in the Nazi death camps. Then the Mizrahim were needed to bolster Jewish demographic numbers against the Palestinians. Founding father David Ben Gurion was disparaging of the Mizrahim, terming them “human dust”. There were vigorous debates inside the Israeli army about whether the supposedly inferior, backward Arab Jews could ever have their savage natures tamed sufficiently to serve usefully as soldiers. 

Israel launched an aggressive campaign to de-Arabise the children of these Jews – so successfully that today, even though Mizrahim constitute half of Israel’s Jewish population, less than 1% of Israeli Jews can read a book in Arabic. So complete has their re-education been that Mizrahi supporters of the Beitar Jerusalem football club lead chants of “Death to the Arabs” at the ground, apparently unaware that their grandparents were Arab in every sense of the word. 

Virus of hatred? 

Again, Israel and its western allies understand that few observers will accept overtly colonial-style justifications for Israel’s creation, except of the vague, war-on-terror kind. Such arguments run counter to the spirit of the times. Nowadays western elites prefer to pay lip service to identity politics, intersectionality, native rights – at least if they can be used to provide cover for white privilege and to disrupt class solidarity.

Israel has proven particularly adept at inverting and weaponising this form of identity politics. Now deprived of traditional Biblical and colonial rationales, Israel has been left with only one palatable argument to justify its crimes against Palestinians. A Jewish state is supposedly needed as inoculation against a global plague of antisemitism. Israel, it claims, is a vital sanctuary to protect Jews from inevitable future Holocausts.

Palestinians are not just collateral damage of the European project to create a Jewish “home”. They are also presented as a new breed of antisemite – their anger supposedly driven by irrational, inexplicable hatred – that Jews need protecting from. In Israel, roles of oppressor and victim have been reversed.

Israel is only too keen to extend the accusation of antisemitism to any western critic who champions the Palestinian cause. In fact, it has gone much further. It argues that, whether consciously or not, all non-Jews harbour the virus of antisemitism. Other Holocausts have been averted only because nuclear-armed Israel behaves like “a mad dog, too dangerous to bother”, as Israel’s most famous military chief of staff, Moshe Dayan, once declared. Israel is designed as a garrison state for its Jews, and an impregnable bolt-hole in time of trouble for any Jews who foolishly – Israeli leaders imply – have not understood that they face another Holocaust outside Israel.

White European racism 

This is the self-rationalising appeal of antisemitism for Israel. But it has proved the perfect weapon too for western elites who wish to besmirch their opponents’ arguments, as Corbyn, Labour’s outgoing leader, found to his cost. Just as the Zionist movement and its Jewish state project were once the favoured vehicle for spreading British colonial influence in the Middle East, today Israel is the favoured vehicle for impugning the motives of those who criticise western imperialism or advocate for political alternatives to capitalism, such as socialism.

Few outside Israel understand the implications of the mischievous, self-serving antisemitism rationale crafted long ago by Israel and now embraced by western officials. It assumes that antisemitism is a virus present in all non-Jews, even if often lies dormant. Non-Jews must remain vigilant to prevent it reviving and infecting their thinking.

This was at the heart of the claims against the British Labour party. So-called “extreme leftists” like Corbyn and his supporters, so the argument goes, were so sure of their anti-racism credentials that they dropped their guard. Largely free of a fear of immigrants and non-white populations, they mixed with British Muslims and Arabs whose attitudes and ideas were easily passed on. Arab and Muslim resentment towards Israel – again, presented as inexplicable – supposedly provided fertile soil for the growth of antisemitism on the left and in Corbyn’s Labour party. 

Guerin’s mistake was to hint, even if briefly and vaguely, in her report at a deeper, even more discomforting recent history of European white racism that not only fuelled the Holocaust but also sponsored the dispossession of the Palestinians of their homeland to make room for a Jewish state. 

The connecting thread of that story is not antisemitism. It is white European racism. And the fact that Israel and its supporters have signed up as cheerleaders for that kind of racism makes it no less white and no less racist.

*

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 essay first appeared on Jonathan Cook’s blog: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the American Free Press

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas demolished President Trump’s “Peace Plan” or, as the Donald called it, “The Deal of the Century”, calling out “Jerusalem is not for sale”, warning that the “conspiracy deal will not pass. The Palestinian people will reject it.” He added, “[the Plan] belonged to the dust bin of history”. And he is absolutely right. That is an understatement. Indeed, the Palestinians were never even consulted. President Abbas denounced the Plan as a “new Balfour Declaration”. Turkish President Erdogan said, “This is the plan to ignore the Palestinians’ rights and legitimize Israel’s occupation,” as quoted by Anadolu Agency.

The proposed deal, a “two-state” solution, basically under Israeli jurisdiction and military and police security, would reflect the real situation on the ground, namely a Palestinian state dissected into several small enclaves connected by roads, and surrounded by Israeli territory and settlements. What’s left of the Palestinian West Bank would be connected to Gaza through a tunnel.

The big deal: Israel would stop expanding settlements for 4 years. However, the Plan is mute about what happens after the four years. Possibly an acceleration of new settlements that would quickly catch up with the missed 4-year construction. Everything is possible under this fraudster arrangement.  Israel would also annex with immediate effect the fertile Jordan Valley, thus, cutting of Palestine from the Jordan River and its agricultural lands which is under the Oslo Agreement joint territory.

The “Plan” – Deal of the Century– or rather Fraud of the Century, was in the making for more than 2 years, since November 2017. It was concocted in Israel, by Netanyahu, his local Likud and Zionist allies, and by three US-American Orthodox Jews, who have no clue, let alone experience in diplomacy and international affairs – plus, they are totally devoid of any notion of ethics. They are Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and advisor, David Friedman, US Ambassador to Israel, and Jason Greenblatt, special Assistant to the President for “International Negotiations”. What a farce!

The proof for their utter ingenuousness – if that’s what you want to call it, rather than viciousness – is the “Peace Plan” itself, – or as Robert Fisk says, “the belief that the Palestinians would dream of accepting such a deranged, farcical set of political demands is without precedent in the western world.” This plan is rather an excuse for continuous Israeli-driven conflict and annexation of the last square meter of Palestinian West Bank territory.

The so-called “Vision of Peace” was presented at a White House Press Conference on Tuesday, 28 January. The two rogue characters, alleged criminals, Trump under impeachment, and Netanyahu charged with corruption, appeared smug, almost hand-in-hand, facing a crowd of MSM media and friends awaiting and applauding them. Palestinians were not invited to listen to their Peace Plan of the Century, that supposedly was drafted for their future well-being. They would have not come to the presentation anyway. I can just repeat – what a miserable farce, what sham, what denigrating action by what is called the President of the United States, towards another state and people. There re hardly any words to describe this atrocious exceptional nation and her President, who is a mere Zionist poodle.

The ‘miracle’ Plan has two parts, one with an economic and the other with a political focus. Palestinians knew about its substance, as Jared Kushner presented the economic plan, dubbed “Peace to Prosperity”, in Bahrain in June 2019. It talked about a US$ 50 billion investment budget over the next ten years, partly substituting USAID’s funding cuts from ongoing and future Gaza and Palestine development projects. So, hardly any new money.

Essentially, under the Plan, the Palestinians would recognize the Settlements, ant hope of rights to Jerusalem as a shared capital was killed. Trump referred to Jerusalem as “Israel’s undivided capital”. And, of course, the emperor decides, following the strong and unwavering guidance by his indicted Master, Israel’s PM, Netanyahu.

Also, in an act of utmost bigotry, Trump has already placed the US Embassy in Jerusalem, to make sure there is no misunderstanding. And similarly, on 25 March 2019, Trump declared unanimously, as if it was his role to do so, that the Golan Heights, were recognized to be part of Israel. To make it appear more valid, Trump signed a worthless piece of paper to this effect which he waved in front of the Washington Press corps. When in fact, the Golan Heights are an integral part of Syria, illegally occupied for the last 50-plus years by Israel.

Under the Deal, Moslems, wanting to visit their historic al-Aksa Mosque must get Israeli permission. UNWRA, The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, would disappear. Other UN agreements and arrangement specially concluded in support of the discriminated Palestinian people, would also be canceled. All under the pretext that Palestine is now an autonomous state. Again, what a farce! – And the west, while perhaps smiling at the Zionist-US atrocity put in a “Peace Agreement” – does nothing, zilch, zero – just looking on like spineless poodles.

On Thursday, 30 January 2020, Palestine canceled the 1992 – 1995 Oslo Accords (several of them were signed in that period). Although not much of this Oslo Peace Agreement was ever adhered to by Israel, it was a landmark signature event by both parties, Palestine and Israel, shaking hands.

Key points of the Oslo Accord included the goals of Palestinian interim Self-Government (not the Palestinian Authority, but the Palestinian Legislative Council) and a permanent settlement of unresolved issues within five years, based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Although the agreements recognize the Palestinian “legitimate and political rights,” they remain silent about their fate after the interim period. The Oslo Accords neither define the nature of the post-Oslo Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities, nor do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern.

A core issue of the Oslo Accords was the withdrawal of the Israeli military from Palestinian territories. The plan was a withdrawal in phases and a simultaneous transfer of responsibilities to the Palestinian authorities for maintaining security. Oslo II, Article X.2 reads:

“Further redeployments of Israeli military forces to specified military locations will commence after the inauguration of the Council and will be gradually implemented commensurate with the assumption of responsibility for public order and internal security by the Palestinian Police …”

Here is what the UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338 specifically say, “United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 were passed (respectively) in the aftermaths of the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars. Resolution 242 (reaffirmed in 338) was designed to provide the framework for peace negotiations based on a “land-for-peace” formula and has become the foundation of all subsequent negotiations and peace treaties in the region.

The resolutions called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces “from territories of recent conflict,” an Arab “termination of all claims or states of belligerency,” and a recognition of the State of Israel and its “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” The resolution also called for “achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.”

While Palestine recognized Israel’s right of existence, none of the actions by Israel of returning land, has, of course, happened. The Israeli – US pretext is this: Since the passage of the resolution, many have interpreted the text as mandating an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. However, the drafters of Resolution 242 have stated that they did not intend to call for a return to June 5, 1967 lines and purposefully used the words “withdrawal from territories” and not “withdrawal from the territories. Israel and the United States interpret the resolutions as calling for a withdrawal from areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip consistent with its security needs and in the context of a peace agreement, but not from all the territories.”

Two other key points, maybe the most important ones, were left for “later”. Unresolved under “Oslo” were a mutually agreeable solution of Jerusalem and the partition of the Palestinian Westbank’s significant water resources. About 80 % of all the precipitation that falls on Israel and the so-called Westbank, fall on the Palestinian Westbank. However, Israel controls these resources, both surface, and groundwater and releases only minimal fractions of what would belong to Palestine. This leaves Palestine way short of the necessary water to irrigate her agriculture and to gradually become food autonomous. Of course, dependence is Israel’s purpose, plus Israel wants the water which legally would belongs to Palestine, for herself, in this arid area. It is water stolen from Palestine.

In hindsight one could say, the Oslo Accords did more harm than good, inasmuch as they left many crucial issues unresolved and others up to dubious interpretations. It is high time that Palestine cancels them. By now, they were nothing else but an empty shell. And nothing of Oslo is renegotiable, as their meaning has long been overshadowed by Israel’s apartheid oppression. Israel will never let go, like their brother and mentor, whom strangely Zionist-Israel commands, the US of A. Once an objective is in their plan, they will pursue it against all odds with conflicts, wars and indiscriminate killing – exactly what the world is witnessing today and has been observing for the last at least 60 years.

At the request of Palestine, the Arab League will hold an extraordinary meeting at the ministerial level on February 1, 2020, to discuss the so-called peace plan, predictably rejecting it and instead looking at a way forward. To agree on a way forward is a real challengewith the (western) worldwide supported fake and lie-based pro-Israel propaganda.

Let Israel live – but request firmly and enforce by UN blue Helmets, if necessary, from Israel to let Palestinians also live; Israel to withdraw to the pre-67 borders and let Palestinian refugees return, as per the original agreement, and request firmly from Israel to respect Human Rights, and behave as Israel would want other people and nations to behave vis-à-vis Israel.

It is possible if the entire UN body or a vast majority, of it stands behind such a proposal. Equal rights and equal obligations, is the only way forward leading to a peaceful two-state solution, with two nations living side by side in harmony and peace. Let’s make this a worldwide objective, while burring deep and deeper the ridiculous and inhuman Trump-Netanyahu-Kushner Plan.

*

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 New Eastern Outlook.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world, including in Palestine, in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; Defend Democracy Press, TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

The coronavirus pandemic is being used to smear China and its leadership. 

The WHO has set the stage. A Global Emergency after a three hour committee meeting in Geneva was launched on January 30. 

At the time this far-reaching WHO decision was taken, the number of reported infections outside mainland China was of the order of 150 and only 5 in the US (January 3oth). 

Immediately, starting on January 31st, the WHO instructed member governments to issue a health advisory to be filled in by air passengers Worldwide. The standard advisory targets anybody who has visited China or a country reporting coronavirus infections.

Moreover, national governments have issued health warnings and level 4 travel advisories:  ‘level 4 – do not travel to all of mainland China’.

Needless to say, business people who are transacting  “Made in China” commodities or are partners in a joint venture, subcontracting, maritime trade deal, etc. are prevented from travelling back and forth.

What are the implications? Economic Disruption.

Despite the strained geopolitical context, Chinese and US corporations are partners. Otherwise, the US economy simply would not function.

.

Since September 2001, following a bilateral US-China agreement (conditional for Chinese accession to the World Trade Organization), Western financial institutions are embedded in China’s banking and financial landscape, including retail banking.

And now Shanghai’s buoyant financial landscape is an empty desert. Western and Chinese businesses have closed down “temporarily”.

.

Some of the World’s largest maritime trading companies are Chinese. And Chinese business people are active in numerous ports in all major regions of the World. The two largest container ports on each side of the Panama Canal are owned and operated by Chinese business people. And a large share of international trade transits through the Panama canal.

June 22, 2016  report

Under national health advisories, the personnel from container ships leaving from Chinese ports will not be allowed to disembark.

The flow of trade and financial transactions is enormous. A large share of what we consume is “Made in China”. These advisories are ultimately disruptive.

The economic impacts both in China and the West are potentially devastating. Imports from China are likely to be delayed. Retail trade across America could be affected.

Racism in the US against Chinese-Americans

A hate campaign has unfolded against Chinese-Americans, despite the fact that the number of reported coronavirus infections in the US was 5 (at the time of writing).
.
Social media has gone into high gear, transmitting anti-Chinese sentiment.  Media hype and disinformation have served to harness a hate campaign, which in turn has an impact on US-China relations at the geopolitical level. According to The Hill:
.
As news of the virus first spread online one video surfaced above the rest, showing a young Chinese influencer, who many thought to be in Wuhan, biting into a bat that she held up with chopsticks. Media outlets like Daily Mail promoted the video, calling it “revolting” and connecting the consumption of bats to the source of the coronavirus. Thousands took to Twitter to blame what they considered to be “dirty” Chinese eating habits and the consumption of exotic animals for the outbreak, which is said to have begun at a market in Wuhan.
.

Smear: “Human Rights” Campaign in Canada

A few days following the WHO decision, the coronvirus within China was presented as a weapon directed against ethnic groups, including the Uygur population of  Xinjiang Province.

On February 4 a Press Conference is held under the auspices of “Canadians in Support of Refugees in Dire Need”(CSRDN).

Medical experts in Canada and elsewhere warn that poor conditions and cramped living conditions in the Xinjiang internment camps could lead to a catastrophic epidemic that threatens the lives of tens of thousands of people.
For three years up to 3 million Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and other Muslim ethnic minorities in China have regularly been imprisoned in some 465 concentration camps in western Xinjiang province. *see advisory below
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Coronavirus Pandemic: Economic Disruption. China Bashing and Hate Campaign against Chinese-Americans

A majority of Republican Senators are firmly behind Donald Trump. Trump’s acquittal is imminent.

.

“Your duty demands that you convict President Trump,” said Jason Crow of Colorado, urging Republicans to stop pretending Trump was motivated in his Ukraine scheme by concerns about corruption or that maneuvers in the scheme such as the suspension of military aid were in fact innocent measures undertaken for other purposes. (Guardian, Feb)

According to the leader of the White House legal team Pat Cipolonne:

“This is an effort to overturn the results of one election and to try to interfere in the coming election that begins today in Iowa, … The only appropriate result here is to acquit the president and to leave it to the voters to choose their president.”

Reports suggest that Trump will be acquitted.

The aftermath of this acquittal will have a fundamental impact on bi-partisan politics.

In all likelihood, the White House will backlash on the candidacy of Joe Biden.

Updated Monday February 3 at 1:49 p.m. EST

House Democrats and President Trump’s defense team are making their closing arguments in the Senate impeachment trial before lawmakers vote later this week on whether to remove Trump from office.

Both sides presented opposing versions of the president’s handling of aid for Ukraine last summer and the impeachment proceedings so far.

With Trump’s acquittal all but certain, House manager Jason Crow used his remarks to push back against those lawmakers who argue that Trump’s alleged actions do not rise to the level of impeachment.

“If you believe … that the president’s efforts to use his official powers to cheat in the 2020 election jeopardize our national security and are antithetical to our democratic tradition, then you must come to no other conclusion than that the president threatens the fairness of the next election,” Crow said.

The House managers also warned that the president could continue to seek foreign interference in the next election.

“The president continues his wrongdoing unchecked and unashamed,” said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries. (NPR, February 3, 2020)

Watch the proceedings live. or click screenshot below

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on VIDEO: Watch the Impeachment Trial Live. Trump Acquittal “All But Certain”

A World Without War: Global Research Needs Your Support

February 3rd, 2020 by The Global Research Team

Dear Readers,

Global Research is a small team that believes in the power of information and analysis to bring about far-reaching societal change including a world without war. We are as committed as ever to the struggle for Peace, but we have hit some major financial hurdles over the past year. If we are to continue this journey we will need a steady flow of  contributions from our readers in order to run the day to day operations of Global Research.

We recognize that times are tough for everyone and we are extremely grateful for every donation we receive, large or small. However, if you are in a position to make a large donation, now is the time to do so. Your support can make all the difference and help ensure Global Research lives to see another day, month, year, or decade!

Click below to donate now:

Also visit our membership page to see our subscription plans.

Thank you for supporting Global Research!

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A World Without War: Global Research Needs Your Support

In 2019 Russia, Brazil, India, China and South Africa were planning to issue their own digital money in order to reduce the share of payments in the US currency. BRICS countries are reducing the share of settlements in dollars. In Russia, over the past five years, the dollar`s share in foreign trade payments has decreased from 92% to 50%, and the ruble has increased from 3% to 14%.

The efficient BRICS payment system can ensure stability of payments and investments between BRICS member countries that generate more than 20% of the global inflow of foreign direct investment. The development of national segments of payment systems and their sustainable integration are the important factors of economic partnership between the BRICS countries in conditions of increasing non-market risks of the global payment infrastructure.

Ideas of an alternative to the US dollar in international settlements have been actively discussed in different countries over the past few years. Only currencies like the Euro or RMB, due to the size of the country`s economy, can really compete with the US dollar. At the same time, traditional banking institutions, formed more than 50 years ago, do not meet modern requirements of transparency, flexibility and efficiency. Thus, it seems like the using the open registry technology (blockchain) can be the only real alternative to the existing payment system. China has repeatedly announced plans to launch its own cryptocurrency, and in this context, using the BRICS platform to attract partner countries looks very logical.

By the end of January, the global trade and logistics IT-platform “New silk road BRICS” will issue the “NSRT” token (New Silk Road Token). The initial price of the NSRT will be $20. No more than 0.35% of the total NSRT issue (which is 25.9 million tokens) is planned for the first placement. The recipient of the funds will be a company registered in Hong Kong. The first transaction of the NSRT token took place on August 29, 2019.

The NSRT token opens an era of completely new digital assets. This is the first token in the world that works in real sectors of the economy at the global level with the support of state and supranational BRICS structures. The NSRT token is the main digital tool of the platform. There are also plans to place NSRT on the cryptocurrency exchanges Okex, Kukoin, livecoin, Exmo, and the investors who influence the logistics and financial industries of the BRICS and BRICS+ countries will first show interest in this token.

Simultaneously with the creation of the NSRT token in 2020, it is planned to create, implement and convert stable digital assets in the form of Stable Coins, linked to the cost of real instruments, such as fiat money and energy carriers. The NSRT token can be used as a Commission payment on the logistics platform, trading platform, and for cross-border transfers to Stable Coins. NSRT is also planned to be used to maintain the liquidity of the Stable Coins emission centers of the platform.

The global IT-platform “New silk road BRICS” was created under the auspices of such organizations as the BRICS Transport Association, the BRICS Energy Association, the business Club of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (18 countries), IT-Association, Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Association based on the decisions of the state`s heads of China, Russia, South Africa and Brazil. The IT-platform is also hosting 20 BRICs profile associations for wider development of this Project in different sectors of the economy.

In September 2018, the first modules of the Trade and logistics platform were launched newsilkroadbrics.com. According to the inventors, it is a world freight exchange and a global trading platform, which consists of two parts: logistics and trading. The logistics platform is a technological platform where carriers offer their bids in real time, and the system automatically selects the winner based on the offered price and the conditions provided by the carrier. Thanks to innovative technical solutions, this platform allows to quickly monitor offers from tens of thousands of carrier companies. Using the simplest “platform menu” system, the user can find the best price for the transportation of goods within a few minutes, while the system calculates the bid itself in just 5 to 10 seconds.

The trading platform for exporting companies is designed to solve the full-cycle problem of calculating the price of a product, taking into account all stages of delivery to the final destination. This reduces the time for employees of exporting companies to form a price offer to the final buyer, increases confidence in suppliers, and facilitates and speeds up the negotiation process before signing international contracts. Also, as a result of the fact that the system itself is able to determine the best price for the delivery of goods, the exporting company can significantly save on transport costs and provide the customer with the most competitive price with delivery.

The entire system is built on the Ethereum platform. Full decentralization of the system guarantees the preservation of the transaction history and transaction balance, and can be distributed to nodes and servers in different countries to ensure the reliability of its operation and constant access to data in case of system failure. It is also a powerful decentralized marketing platform that is completely “transparent” and safe to use: all transactions in it are carried out publicly, and any part of the information can`t be changed or forged from the outside. Thanks to smart contracts and blockchain technology, users will have a unique opportunity to conduct the entire transaction and document flow within the system, starting from invoicing and paying for goods and ending with transport documents and delivery confirmations. Thus, the platform acts as an escrow agent between the buyer and the seller, and smart contract algorithms allow you to specify any conditions necessary for the parties to the transaction. From January to December 2019, the total number of orders in the system for various types of transportation amounted to more than 24 million tons of cargo.

According to the project managers, the platform is planned to be launched in the second quarter of 2020 in commercial mode. To pay for goods and services on the platform, in addition to the main fiat money, will be possible also with digital currencies of the BRICS and BRICS+ countries, as well as cryptocurrencies Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) – in accordance with the legislation of those countries whose residents are contractors of a foreign trade transaction.

Since the launch in test mode in September 2018, the platform`s official partners have become the SCO Business Club, the BRICS Energy Association, the Russian Association of Crypto-industry and Blockchain, the Distributed Registry Technologies Association (Belarus), GLONASS JSC, the Wireless Ukraine Association, The National Telecommunications Association (NTA) of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Bitfury Group, Hideez Group, and others.

Perhaps the main task of the BRICS countries is to create an interstate system of interbank communication that would replace the SWIFT. Previously, there were no alternatives to the SWIFT system. But with the advent of distributed registry technology, the situation began to change. It turned out that blockchain can be used in the sphere of interbank and international payments. The distributed registry technology allows to do it faster and easier from a technical point of view, and cheaper, if the commission amount is reduced.

Maybe the SWIFT replacement initiative will remain an initiative. However, if it is implemented- and implemented successfully- we can see a new stage in the banking system.

*

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.

Yana Grigoryeva, Intern at the Russian National Committee on BRICS Research – special for InfoBRICS

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on BRICS and the Digital Money Project: Alternative to US$, New Wave in International Payment System?
  • Tags: , ,

Largely in response to reckless Trump regime treaty busting, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved its Doomsday Clock closer than ever to midnight.

It now stands at 100 seconds from potential catastrophe to humanity.

In June 2017, the Trump regime ceased participation in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, falsely claiming it “will undermine (the US) economy…put(ting) (America) at a permanent disadvantage.”

In May 2018, Trump abandoned the landmark JCPOA nuclear deal — unanimously adopted by the Security Council, making it binding international and constitutional law.

In August last year, he pulled out of the vitally important 1987 INF Treaty — Washington and Moscow agreeing to eliminate their ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with rages of 500 to 5,500 km.

For the first time, both nations agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals, eliminate a category of WMDs, and institute on-site inspections for verification of compliance to treaty provisions.

On Friday, Trump abandoned the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, aiming to eliminate use of these weapons worldwide.

The Geneva Convention prohibits their indiscriminate use against civilians.

Radiological, chemical, biological, cluster bombs and landmines are terror weapons — able to kill and maim indiscriminately, civilian harmed most.

Signatories to the landmine treaty must cease their use, development, production, stockpiling, and transferring of these weapons, along with eliminating existing stockpiles, except for small numbers used for training purposes — notably mine clearance and detection.

The treaty only covers anti-personnel mines, not anti-tank and other static explosive devices.

Since the treaty became effective in March 1999, 159 countries completed elimination of their stockpiles, or declared they had none to destroy.

Most world community states ratified the landmine ban. Thirty-two non-signatory states include the US, Russia, China, and Israel.

On Friday, the Trump regime announced that it will no longer observe Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention restrictions — reversing Obama’s 2014 order that restricts their use to the Korean peninsula and abandons further production and transfer of these terror weapons.

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jody William founded the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) — its objective to eliminate use of antipersonnel mines and cluster munitions worldwide.

Asked about the danger posed by landmines, Williams earlier said the following:

They remain dangerous longterm  “(b)ecause no human being monitors their action. The soldier plants the landmine and walks away, and that weapon just sits and waits for someone to step on it or touch it,” adding:

“It has been called ‘the perfect soldier.’ You don’t have to feed it. You don’t have to put a uniform on it. You don’t have to keep monitoring its activities.”

“It sits and waits for its victims for up to 100 years. Landmines from World War I and World War II still claim victims from Europe and North Africa today.”

“Obviously, after the end of the war, every victim is a civilian, a man, a woman, a child trying to live a normal life. Instead they live with daily terror.”

Mine clearance requires dangerous labor-intensive effort, removing them “mine by mine,” Williams explained.

The US hasn’t used landmines since 1991, hasn’t exported them since 1992, hasn’t produced them since 1997, and eliminated about three million landmines in its stockpile.

Will all of the above now change in the wake of Friday’s White House and war department announcements?

A White House press secretary statement falsely claimed landmines “are to ensur(e) our forces are able to defend against any and all threats (sic).”

No real ones exist, just invented ones.

US war secretary Mark Esper falsely claimed “(l)andmines are one of many other important tools that our commanders need to have available to them on the battlefield to shape the battlefield and to protect our forces (sic),” adding:

“(W)e want to make sure that we have all the tools in our toolkit that are legally available and effective to ensure our success and to ensure the protection of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines (sic).”

The US didn’t sign the landmine treaty, falsely claiming they’re needed on the Korean peninsula — knowing the DPRK poses no threat, pretending otherwise since the peninsula was divided post-WW II.

Along with the White House and war department announcements, the State Department said the Trump regime rescinded Obama’s directive for the US no longer to “produce or otherwise acquire any anti-personnel landmines.”

Henceforth, they’ll likely be produced by US contractors and used in theaters of the Pentagon’s choosing.

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, “war surgeons consider them among the worst injuries they have to treat,” often requiring amputation of one or more limbs and multiple operations.

The Landmine Monitor watchdog group reported that most landmine victims post-9/11 have been civilians.

In response to Trump’s action, Arms Control Association (ACA) executive director Daryl Kimball issued a statement, saying the following:

“The resumption of the use of anti-personnel land mines and continued stockpiling and production of these indiscriminate weapons is militarily unnecessary and dangerous,” adding:

“If the Trump administration seeks to reverse the Obama-era policy on anti-personnel mines, Congress should respond by imposing a ban on the deployment of any type of anti-personnel land mine in new theaters of operation.”

ACA said the US “continues to stockpile millions of” these weapons.

ACA senior fellow Jeff Abramson stressed that “(t)he world has rejected landmines because they are indiscriminate and disproportionately harm civilians, who make up the vast majority of landmine casualties,” adding:

“Technical solutions to make landmines self-destruct or otherwise labeled as ‘smart’ have failed to work as advertised and have been rejected by 164 countries.”

“The world has moved on from the use of landmines. The United States should too.”

Will Congress overrule Trump? Most likely not with a two-thirds House and Senate super-majority needed to override a presidential veto.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Nuclear Treaty Busting Trump Regime. Doomsday Clock Closer than Ever to Midnight

The Making of the First American Dictator

February 3rd, 2020 by Massoud Nayeri

The Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump was both a farce and a tragedy. Mr. Trump, a Fascistic minded President was not targeted for his real crimes (inhumane treatments of immigrant children in the ICE concentration camps, inciting violence during his rallies, supporting the ultra-right militias, assassination and violation of  international laws); but for the flimsy accusation of “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction of Congress” according to the Democratic Party establishment!

For the American working people, who run America’s wheels of life by their deeds every day, a pathetic attempt to impeach a Fascistic minded President is  a disappointment. The Democratic Party leadership by conducting a hollow impeachment actually legitimized the transformation of the office of the presidency to the dictatorship circle.

The outcome of an impeachment which was based on shortsightedness rivalry of a section of the 1% contradicts the ideal of the American Revolution. It betrays those revolutionary pioneers who fought against the British monarchy.

Through this impeachment, the Congress of the United States has become the living incubator to “lawfully” hatch the first American dictator and end the idea of “government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

Working people do not benefit from an unformed impeachment by Democrats and disgraceful acquittal by Republicans. The clear partisanship position toward the President Trump impeachment, endless infighting and self-serving arguments once again confirmed the fact that working people have no friends or representatives in Washington to address their urgent problems such as the high price of medicines, job insecurity, low wages, poor educational and healthcare systems, a hazardous environment and so on.

The 1% family feud over the impeachment saga creates heroes out of war criminals like John Bolton, the notorious advocate of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and tireless advocate of war against Iran, who one day is Mr. Trump favorite advisor and the next day becomes the best ally of the Democratic Party establishment. The stench of hypocrisy among the well-fed corrupt politicians of both parties in Washington is nauseating.

Now, we have entered a new era in the history as the “Oldest Democracy” gives rise to a dictatorial presidency under the protection of Congress. The liberals, so-called “Leftists” and naïve supporters of the Democratic Party advise the American working people to VOTE for the Democratic candidate in the next presidential election to gain back the power!

What a foolish proposition as if another Democrat in the White House would give the working people a chance to be free from the influence of Wall Street and military-industrial complex!

In 2019 the same Democrats who initiated the impeachment process against President Trump supported him and approved the largest military budget of $738 billion!

A system that puts profit over people is not reformable. The interest of the 1% with their Democrat and Republican agents lies in the endless wars, wealth inequality and absolute power over the democratic rights of voiceless individuals.

No force is able to reform a deadly virus to a benign virus.

In the epoch of the breakdown of democracy, the wealthy elites in all capitalist countries act as a deadly virus against their own nation. They have equipped their police forces with the latest military gear to shoot and eliminate their own dissident citizens.

The peaceful protests in France, Chile, Colombia, Iraq, and countless other countries are dispersed by the bullets of the riot police of these countries. The facts of inhumane living conditions and miserable situations of Palestinians, Yemenis, Rohingya people and millions of immigrants around the world are either kept in the dark or distorted. Independent journalists (like Julian Assange) or honorable whistleblowers (like Chelsea Manning) are locked up and tortured for telling the truth.

The impeachment process directed against Donald J. Trump which concealed his real crimes was a step backward in history. A counter revolution that is helping the reign of a ruthless monarchy slowly revive under the deceptive nationalist ideology.

Adolf Hitler came to power by the vote of people in a legal election in Germany. The history of the rise of Fascism resembles the current political situation in the U.S. In Germany, in May 1928, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis) got less than a tenth of total votes in the Reichstag (Parliament) elections. More than two years later, in September 1930 election, the same Nazi Party votes increased by up to 700 percent! Two years later in July 1932, the Nazi party becomes the largest Party in Germany. Finally, on January 30th, 1933, Hitler is appointed as Chancellor and became the head of the German government which led to WWII. Today, the Senators of both parties are crowning a fascistic-minded President under the false banner of “national security” or “preserving the American democracy”.

The working families in the U.S. need to unite against despotism independent of the Democratic and Republican parties. Endless wars, the rise of Fascism and ecological disasters are the main problems that only can be confronted by an independent, united, conscious and internationalist leadership.

*

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

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

All images in this article are from the author

Video: Syrian Army Offensive in Greater Idlib

February 3rd, 2020 by South Front

The last week of January turned badly for Idlib militants. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda), the Turkish-backed National Front for Liberation and their allies appeared to be unable to contain the offensive of the Syrian Army, lost several key areas and suffered notable casualties.

On January 27, units of the Syrian Army, led by the Tiger Forces, breached the defense of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham-led forces in southeastern Idlib and by the evening of January 28, they liberated the key town of Maarat al-Numan on the M5 highway. Meanwhile, the 4th Armoured Division and Iranian-backed militias launched an advance in southwestern Aleppo. On January 29, they liberated the town of Khan Tuman, also located on the M5 highway, and a number of smaller villages near Aleppo city.

On January 30, government forces launched an advance from Maarat al-Numan towards the town of Saraqib, located on the crossroad of the M4 and M5 highways.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and Turkish-backed groups conducted several counter-attacks in southwestern Aleppo and southeastern Idlib. At least 2 suicide bombers were employed to target new positions of the Syrian Army. Militants also received reinforcements from the Turkish-occupied part of Aleppo province. Despite these, they were not able to stop the advance.

On January 31, government forces continued their operation in southwestern Aleppo.

All these took place amid a bombing campaign by the Syrian Air Force and the Russian Aerospace Forces. According to reports by pro-militant sources, over 200 airstrikes hit fortified positions, HQs, weapon depots and columns of militants on the frontline as well as deep inside Greater Idlib.

The Russian Defense Ministry said that as of January 29, militants lost 8 battle tanks, 15 infantry fighting vehicles, 49 vehicles armed with large-caliber guns in clashes with the Syrian Army. These numbers have not been confirmed by visual evidence and seem to be overestimated.

The ongoing Syrian Army advance caused a public negative reaction from Turkey and the United States, that have been one of the key supporters of the so-called Idlib opposition for a long time. Nonetheless, it appears that they have no direct leverages of pressure to rescue Idlib radicals as their defense is crumbling. Local sources say that the next ‘humanitarian ceasefire’ could start not earlier than the Syrian Army would secure the M4-M5 crossroad and the area east of it.

*

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

Support 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

The following interview with Ajamu Baraka, national organizer of Black Alliance for Peace, was conducted on January 26, by Alan Benjamin, editorial board member of The Organizer newspaper. It is reprinted from Issue No. 149 (January 31, 2020) of the weekly newsletter published by the International Workers Committee Against War and Exploitation, For a Workers International (IWC). The lead photo of the January 25 antiwar demonstration in Philadelphia posted on our website, was taken by Joe Piette. — Alan B.

***

Question: Could you tell us about the January 25th Global Day of Action Against the U.S. War on Iran and why the Black Alliance for Peace not only participated but played a leadership role in building this antiwar protest:

Ajamu Baraka: It was a positive development to see that people came out across the United States in the tens of thousands to express their opposition to the war on Iran by the Republican Party, led by Donald Trump, and by the Democrats, who, though they expressed concerns about some of Trump’s recent actions against Iran, have been stalwart supporters of U.S. imperialism’s permanent war agenda all along.

Across the country, people came out to say “NO U.S. War on Iran!” — including NO to the U.S. sanctions against Iran that are killing Iranian women and children daily — and to demand that the U.S. government withdraw all its troops from the Middle East.

In rally after rally, speakers talked about the fact that the U.S. has become a rogue nation (actually it has always been a rogue nation, but now it is even more so) as a consequence of the decision by the Iraqi parliament to demand that the U.S. withdraw its troops from their nation. In response, the U.S. has said, basically, that they are not going to abide by the decision of the Iraqi parliament — which means that those 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will now be war criminals if they engage in any kind of military action against the Iraqi population.

The Black Alliance for Peace was proud to be in the forefront organizing this Day of Action. We know that to be effective, this resistance has to have a core element — and one of the most important core elements of anti-imperialist resistance in the U.S. has been the African American community.

We have spent the past two-and-a-half years strengthening this core as a means of reviving and rebuilding the broader antiwar and anti-imperialist movements in the U.S.

Question: Tell us about the war here at home on Black people and why this question is such an important component in building a fightback movement against the war, but also against an economic system — the capitalist system — that daily fosters more wars, devastation, racism, exploitation, and other such scourges.

Ajamu Baraka: Part of our mission as Black anti-imperialist internationalists is, in fact, to make those connections between the U.S. and Western European imperialists’ war agenda, and the war being waged against Black working class people — and against the working class in general — in the U.S.

The permanent war agenda requires support from the public as well as containment of any and all forces opposed to their agenda. This is what’s behind the increased State repression against working class Black and Brown people, in particular, in the U.S.

Different government agencies are responsible for militarizing the police forces across the country. We’ve seen an uptick in the training of U.S. police forces by the Israeli government. We believe that it’s important for people to know about these developments and to connect what’s going on domestically with the ongoing permanent war agenda worldwide. For African people this means, in particular, looking at the U.S. wars launched on the African continent with the creation and expansion of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

We see the antiwar issue as an issue of national oppression, just as we see it, of course, as a class issue. We say to our friends and colleagues, and to our people: Not one drop of blood from the working class and the poor to defend the interests of the capitalist oligarchy!

Question: Now to change the arena of the anti-imperialist struggle: Many of us are very worried about a ramping up in 2020 of the U.S. imperialist aggression against the democratically elected government of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela — an aggression that has the full support of the Democratic Party. You have monitored events in Venezuela closely. Do you think there is an increased threat to Venezuela, especially during this election year?

Ajamu Baraka: The Black Alliance for Peace has been very clear about where we stand in relation to the situation in Venezuela. We have issued many statements and been in the streets in the forefront of the resistance against the imperialist targeting of the Venezuelan project.

We see Venezuela as a country under continued threat. In fact, the threat has increased with the European trip of fake president Juan Guaidó, who has been meeting with European heads of State in Davos. I believe there may be another attempt to try and install this puppet right-winger in Venezuela.

We also have been clear about our essential task to educate people in the U.S. — particularly Black folks — about the reality of Venezuela and the bipartisan effort in this country to undermine the Venezuelan project. We point out that one of the core communities of support for the Bolivarian process has been Black folks. We also point out that 40,000 people have died in Venezuela as a result of the sanctions, a disproportionate number of them Black people.

We also are saying that those politicians in the U.S. who pretend that Black Lives Matter and that police violence must be stopped are, in fact, phonies if they support the recent U.S.-made coup in Bolivia, or the ongoing war and sanctions in the Middle East, or the U.S. intervention in Venezuela, or the attacks against Libya. We tell Black folks that these people are not your friends, they’re your enemies.

Question: Tell us about the upcoming national conference of the United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) and the effort to defend the four Venezuelan Embassy Protectors, who now face serious criminal charges.

Ajamu Baraka: The UNAC coalition — of which I am a member of its leadership — is organizing a national conference in New York City on February 21-23. A focus of our work will be to strengthen the anti-imperialist component of the antiwar movement.

We will be highlighting the threats facing Venezuela and the effort to defend the Venezuelan Embassy Protectors, who occupied the Venezuelan Embassy for 37 days to protect it from a hostile takeover by the coup-plotters under fake president Guaidó. The four activists were assaulted by the police, arrested — and now they face serious charges. There is a real possibility that Trump will seek to make an example of them. They each face a year in prison and a fine of $100,000.

There is going to be a pre-trial hearing on January 29, and the trial will be held on February 11. The four activists need funds for their defense committee. We urge your readers to make a donation directly on their website:defendembassyprotectors.org. For more information on the our work, they can go directly to blackallianceforpeace.com.

Question: Any last comments?

Ajamu Baraka: The situation is very difficult, but we are fairly optimistic. We know that the contradictions are sharpening. We know that the State is getting more aggressive. But there is only one direction we can go, domestically and globally — and that is toward real independent popular power in order for us to transform the world.

There is no other direction we can go. The contradictions between global capitalism and collective humanity are stark. The only solution, as these contradictions are irreconcilable, is a global radical revolutionary movement.

*

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

Featured image: Since the cutting off of electricity, food and water inside the embassy has not been enough to force the collective to leave, late Tuesday afternoon, the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police handed out a trespassing notice that was printed without letterhead or signature from any U.S. government official. (Photo: CodePink)

Once a leading force in the Pan-African Movement on the continent, Libya today, provides a profound illustration of the detrimental and destructive character of neo-colonialism in the present epoch.

During February and March of 2011, the United States and its NATO allies, utilized the United Nations Security Council to engineer two resolutions which provided the rationale for a blanket bombing of the country and a rebel-ground operation which killed tens of thousands and displaced millions.

Longtime Revolutionary Pan-Africanist leader and theoretician, Col. Muammar Gaddafi, was assassinated in October of that same year. In the aftermath of the imperialist-generated crises, scores of militia groups have battled for an elusive political and economic supremacy.

During late January, the German government led by Angela Merkel, held an international gathering featuring the leading western capitalist powers in another failed effort to draft a roadmap for establishing some semblance of stability inside the country. Not surprisingly, the summit ended without a peace accord signed by the main belligerent in the continuing war, being renegade military strongman Khalifa Haftar, who has been a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative for decades, having spent much time in the U.S. after defecting from the Gaddafi administration in Chad in the mid-1980s.

Over four years ago, a German career diplomat, Martin Kobler, had served as the principal negotiator in the establishment of the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA), under the titular guardianship of Fayez al-Sarraj, the prime minister. Nonetheless, the PM has never been able to consolidate power in the East of the country which has a rival and divided as well legislative structure, the House of Representatives, based in Tobruk in alliance with Haftar. See this.

The power vacuum in Tripoli has partly resulted from the de facto recognition of the Libyan National Army (LNA), directed by Haftar, on the part of Washington and Paris. There are also rumors that the Russian Federation is backing Haftar, although President Vladimir Putin has denied this allegation.

The GNA regime is bolstered by various militias which have prevented the LNA from overrunning the capital city. LNA frustrations have led to the carrying out of bombings of civilian areas and the capture of vessels belonging to Turkey which has entered the fray on the side of the GNA.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has announced the deployment of his troops, an affiliate of NATO, in order to shore up Prime Minister al-Sarraj and to ensure that the LNA does not take control of Tripoli. Turkey was present at the recent Berlin Summit as well.

In the aftermath of the Berlin Summit, the 55-member African Union (AU) issued a short communique which raises more questions than answers. In 2011, at the onset of the Libyan crisis three members of the AU voted in favor of the UN Security Council resolutions imposing a no-fly zone over the country. This proved to be a colossal error, in effect creating further a political calamity with the ostensible backing of leading African states within the UN structures.

Soon enough the AU members recognized the mistake made and deployed representatives in an effort to bring about a ceasefire. However, by that time it was far too late. The imperialists and their rebel underlings rejected the AU diplomatic interventions which further marginalized the continental organization on its own soil.

The Role of the AU in the Present Crisis

The latest AU statement during January said of the summit and the contemporary situation in Libya that:

“The Chairperson of the African Union Commission Moussa Faki Mahamat attended a conference on Libya in Berlin, Germany, at the invitation of Chancellor Angela Merkel, alongside President Denis Sassou Nguesso, Chairperson of the AU High-Level Committee on Libya. The conference, which invited international actors including all the permanent member states of the United Nations Security Council, had for its objective to assist the United Nations to unify the international community in their support for a peaceful solution to the Libyan crisis.” (See this)

Well of course, the notion of a peaceful settlement in Libya sounds quite remote. In 2011, the AU had put forward a program for resolving the crises in the North African state through the adoption of an immediate ceasefire, the convening of talks among the Gaddafi government and the western-funded and armed counter-revolutionary rebels, along with the holding of “internationally supervised” elections. Nevertheless, the imperialists and the rebels would not consider these proposals whatsoever. They wanted to remove the Jamahiriya and create a Libyan state in the image of the West. This is a construct of an illusion which has still not been realized some nine years later.

The same AU statement in the aftermath of the January 2020 Berlin Summit concluded by noting:

“The Chairperson reiterated the African position in support of a full and unconditional ceasefire, the respect for the UN arms embargo and the need for violators to face sanctions, and the return to an inclusive Libyan-led and owned political process that includes an effective follow-up monitoring mechanism. The African Union High Level Committee on Libya, established in 2011, is expected to convene a follow up meeting in Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, on 30 January 2020, to study the evolution of the situation in Libya, ahead of the February 2020 AU Summit of Heads of State and Government in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.”

Even the German press said of the aftermath of the recent Berlin Summit emphasizing in a report that:

“Several countries that participated in a Berlin peace summit last week and agreed to respect an existing United Nations arms embargo have violated their commitment, the UN said on Saturday (January 25). The agreement, signed by 16 states and organizations at the Libya peace summit in Germany, set out plans for international efforts to monitor the embargo’s implementation. ‘Over the last 10 days, numerous cargo and other flights have been observed landing at Libyan airports in the western and eastern parts of the country providing the parties with advance weapons, armored vehicles, advisers and fighters,” the UN mission to Libya (UNSMIL) said in a statement. The mission condemns these ongoing violations, which risk plunging the country into a renewed and intensified round of fighting,’ UNSMIL said. The UN criticized several countries that attended the Berlin summit for violating the embargo, but stopped short of naming them.” (See this)

Legacy of the Berlin Conference of 1884-85

The original Berlin Conference of the late 19th century (1884-85) resulted in the partitioning of Africa by the imperialist powers of Europe and the U.S. This conference was held after four centuries of enslavement and colonialism on the continent and in the Western Hemisphere.

There was always resistance by the African people to imperialism and this culminated during the post-World War II period when numerous colonies rose up demanding national independence and sovereignty. However, the new phase of imperialism in Africa, known as neo-colonialism, which was enunciated and popularized by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, has become the dominant mechanism to perpetuate the global domination of Western Europe and North America. (See this)

At the third summit of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the predecessor to today’s AU, held in Ghana in October 1965, Nkrumah urged the immediate formation of a United States of Africa encompassing political, economic, military and cultural integration of the continent. The call was prophetic since it was the last OAU Summit prior to the CIA-engineered coup against Nkrumah which took place on February 24, 1966.

With decades past and lessons learned, the OAU Summit in Libya during 1999 issued the Sirte Declaration, reiterating a form of the Nkrumah program, although on a minimal basis, calling again for continental unification. The Sirte Declaration led to the reformation of the OAU to the AU. Yet the AU cannot realize the objectives of genuine Pan-Africanism absent of a revolutionary program which is anti-imperialist and socialist in character. Such a program will require the empowerment of the majority of workers, farmers, revolutionary intellectuals and youth as the center of development strategies and tactical considerations.

Therefore, the Berlin Summit of 2020 can only lead to the continuation of neo-colonialism. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) initiated in 2018 faces tremendous obstacles. These impediments are rooted in the continuing legacy of the period of enslavement and colonization. Neo-Colonialism must be defeated before Africa can be totally liberated.

*

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.

Featured image: Libya Leader Col. MUammar Gaddafi and South African counterpart Nelson Mandela during the early 1990s.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Libya and the Modern Colonial Legacy of the Berlin Conference
  • Tags: ,

The United States Air Force has a new recruitment tool: a realistic drone operator video game you can play on its website. Called the Airman Challenge, it features 16 missions to complete, interspersed with facts and recruitment information about how to become a drone operator yourself. In its latest attempts to market active service to young people, players move through missions escorting U.S. vehicles through countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, serving up death from above to all those designated “insurgents” by the game. Players earn medals and achievements for most effectively destroying moving targets. All the while there is a prominent “apply now” button on screen if players would like to enlist and conduct real drone strikes all over the Middle East.

The game has failed to win over David Swanson, director of the anti-war movement World Beyond War, and the author of War is a Lie.

“It is truly disgusting, immoral, and arguably illegal in that it is recruitment or pre-recruitment of underage children to participate in murder. It is part of the normalization of murder that we have been living through,” he told MintPress News.

Tom Secker, a journalist and researcher into the influence of the military on popular culture was similarly unimpressed by the latest U.S.A.F. recruitment strategy, telling us,

 The drone game struck me as sick and demented… On the other hand, many drone pilots have described how piloting drones and killing random brown people is a lot like playing a video game, because you’re sat in a bunker in Nevada pushing buttons, detached from the consequences.  So I guess it accurately reflects the miserable, traumatised, serial killing life of a drone pilot, we can’t accuse it of inaccuracy per se.”

Game Over 

Despite the fact that they are rarely, if ever in any physical danger, the military has considerable difficulty recruiting and retaining drone pilots. Nearly a quarter of Air Force staff who can fly the machines leave the service every year. A lack of respect, fatigue and mental anguish are the primary reasons cited. Stephen Lewis, a sensor operator between 2005 and 2010 said what he did “weighs on your conscience. It weighs on your soul. It weighs on your heart,” claiming that the post traumatic stress disorder he suffers from as a consequence of killing so many people has made it impossible for him to have relationships with other humans.

“People think it is a video game. But in a video game you have checkpoints, you have restart points. When you fire that missile there’s no restart,” he said. “The less they can get you to think of what you’re shooting at as human the easier it becomes to you to just follow through with these shots when they come down,” said Michael Haas, another former U.S.A.F. sensor operator. The Airman Challenge game follows this path, using red dots on the screen to represent enemies, sanitizing the violence recruits will be meting out.

“We were very callous about any real collateral damage. Whenever that possibility came up most of the time it was a guilt by association or sometimes we didn’t even consider other people that were on screen,” Haas said, noting that he and his peers used terms like “fun sized terrorist” to describe children, employing euphemisms like “cutting the grass before it grows too long,” as justifications for their extermination. The constant violence, even from afar, takes a heavy toll on many drone operators, who complain of constant nightmares and having to drink themselves into a stupor every night to avoid them.

Others, with different personalities, revel in the bloodshed. Prince Harry, for example, was a helicopter gunner in Afghanistan and described firing missiles as a “joy.” “I’m one of those people who loves playing PlayStation and Xbox, so with my thumbs I like to think I’m probably quite useful,” he said. “If there’s people trying to do bad stuff to our guys, then we’ll take them out of the game.”

A Nobel Cause

Drone bombing is a relatively new technology. Barack Obama came into office promising to end President Bush’s reckless aggression, even being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. While he slashed the number of American troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, he also greatly expanded U.S. wars in the form of drone bombings, ordering ten times as many as Bush. In his last year in office, the U.S. dropped at least 26,000 bombs – around one every twenty minutes on average. When he left office, the U.S. was bombing seven countries simultaneously: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. 

Up to 90 percent of reported drone casualties were “collateral damage,” i.e. innocent bystanders. Swanson is deeply concerned about the way in which the practice has become normalized: “If murder is acceptable as long as a military does it, anything else is acceptable,” he says, “We will reverse this trend, or we will perish.”

History did not exactly repeat itself with the election of Donald Trump in 2016, but it did rhyme. Trump came to power having made multiple statements perceived as anti-war, strongly criticizing Obama and the Democrats’ handling of the situation in the Middle East. Egged oneven by so-called “resistance” media, Trump immediately expanded drone bombings, increasing the number of strikes by 432 percent in his first year in office. The president also used a drone attack to kill Iranian general and statesman Qassem Soleimani earlier this month.

Killing in the Game of

In 2018, the armed forces fell well short of their recruitment targets, despite offering a package of benefits very attractive to working-class Americans. As a result, it totally revamped its recruitment strategy, moving away from television and investing in micro-targeted online ads in an attempt to reach young people, particularly men below the age of thirty, who make up the bulk of the armed forces. One branding exercise was to create an Army e-sports team entering video game competitions under the military brand. As the gaming website, Kotaku wrote, “Positioning the Army as a game-friendly environment and institution is crucial, or even necessary, to reach the people the Army wants to reach.” The Army surpassed its recruitment goal for 2019.

Although the Airman Challenge game is a new attempt at recruitment, the armed forces have a long history being involved in the video game market, and the entertainment industry more generally. Secker’s work has uncovered the depths of collaboration between the military and the entertainment industry. Through Freedom of Information requests, he was able to find that the Department of Defense reviews, edits and writes hundreds of TV and movie scripts every year, subsidizing the entertainment world with free content and equipment in exchange for positive portrayals. “At this point, it’s difficult to effectively summarise the US military’s influence on the industry, because it’s so varied and all-encompassing,” he said.

The US Army spends tens of millions a year on the Institute for Creative Technologies, who develop advanced tech for the film and gaming industries, as well as in-house training games for the Army and – on occasion – the CIA. The Department Of Defense has supported a number of major game franchises (Call of Duty, Tom Clancy games, usually first or third-person shooters). Military-supported games are subject to the same rules of narrative and character as movies and TV, so they can be rejected or modified if they contain elements the Department Of Defense deems controversial.”

The video games industry is massive, with hyper-realistic first person shooters like Call of Duty being among the most popular genres. Call of Duty: WWII, for example, sold $500 million worth of copies in its opening weekend alone, more money generated than blockbuster movies “Thor: Ragnarok” and “Wonder Woman” combined. Many people spend hours a day playing. Captain Brian Stanley, a military recruiter in California said, “Kids know more about the army than we do… Between the weapons, vehicles, and tactics, and a lot of that knowledge comes from video games.”

Young people, therefore, spend huge amounts of time effectively being propagandized by the military. In Call of Duty Ghosts, for instance, you play as a U.S. soldier fighting against a red-beret wearing anti-American Venezuelan dictator, clearly based on President Hugo Chavez, while in Call of Duty 4, you follow the U.S. Army in Iraq, shooting hundreds of Arabs as you go. There’s even a mission where you operate a drone, which is distinctly similar to the Airman Challenge. U.S. forces even control drones with Xbox controllers, blurring the lines between war games and war games even further.

Cyber Warfare

Although the military industrial complex is keen to advertise opportunities for pilots, they go to great lengths to hide the reality of what happens to the victims of airstrikes. The most famous of these is likely the “Collateral Murder” video, leaked by Chelsea Manning to Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange. The video, which made worldwide news, laid bare the callousness towards civilian lives Haas described, where Air Force pilots laugh at shooting dead at least 12 unarmed civilians, including two Reuters journalists. While those commanders ultimately in charge of military operations in the Middle East appear on television constantly, trying to sanitize their actions, Manning and Assange remain in prison for helping to expose the public to an alternative depiction of violence. Manning has spent the majority of the last decade incarcerated, while Assange awaits possible extradition to the United States in a London prison.

The Airman Challenge video game, for Secker, is merely “the latest in a long line of insidious and disturbing recruitment efforts by the US military.” “If they feel they have to do this just to recruit a few hundred thousand people to their cause, maybe their cause isn’t worth it,” he said.

*

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.

Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in ReportingThe GuardianSalonThe GrayzoneJacobin MagazineCommon Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.

Featured image: A screenshot from the US Air Force’s latest recruitment tool, a video game called the Airman Challenge

On Sunday, ahead of the big Tuesday reveal in the White House, US President Donald J. Trump delivered to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the so-called “Deal of the Century” also known as the “Middle East Peace Plan”. The proposal however is absent of any semblance of a realistic deal or a feasible plan to solve Israeli-Palestinian issues as it benefits one side at the expense of the other. Quite frankly, it’s not even worth the ink or paper it was printed on and was rejected by Palestinian leaders before Tuesdays unveiling.

The United Nations rejected the proposal and reiterated that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be solved based on UN resolutions and international law and bilateral agreements based on pre-1967 lines. Trump has ignored the two-state solution adopted by the UN and international community and is proposing his own plan which is heavily influenced and supported by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) a strong lobby group that advocates pro-Israel policies to Congress and the Executive Branch on domestic and international issues.

For the past three year’s President Trump’s Senior Advisor and son-in-law, Jared Kushner has been busy working on the eighty-page document and the accompanying map which graphically demonstrates how Israel will be using this farce of a deal to continue it’s illegal occupation and annexation of Palestinian land.

Kushner’s Middle East expertise is limited to his real estate investment projects in Israel which fostered strong family relations with Netanyahu and the twenty-five books he read while preparing for his “peace agreement”.

Trump, Kushner, and Netanyahu never actually intended to create an agreement or deal that could be entered into by the Israeli’s and Palestinians for their mutual benefit instead their supposed “vision for peace, prosperity, and a brighter future for Israeli’s and Palestinians” has an underlining agenda to bolster Israel’s subjugation of Palestinians, theft, murder, annexation and occupation. Netanyahu said that his cabinet would vote on the measure to apply Israeli sovereignty to West Bank settlements and the strategic Jordan valley on Sunday, which could account for 30 percent of the West Bank, occupied territory which Israel seized from Jordan in the 1967 war which Palestinians were planning on using for their future state. However, Netanyahu might encounter some legal complications because the current cabinet is an interim cabinet till the upcoming election.

As happy and proud as Trump and Kushner were on Tuesday while unveiling the “Scam of the Century”, in the White House, there was one man in the room who was beaming with unrestrained glee, Netanyahu referred to Trump’s “Deal of the Century” as the “Opportunity of the Century” and said that Israel will not miss this opportunity. In a room full of Zionists, Evangelicals, and White House Officials, not a single Palestinian political leader, advisor, or otherwise was present, which again speaks to the illegitimacy of this supposed “peace plan”.

Ambassadors from Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE attended and will be paying for the economic portion of the deal, but they represent less 1% of the Arab population and have aligned themselves with Israel and western nations because they share a common enemy, Iran.

Trump said that this was a win-win opportunity for both sides, but clearly this and everything else he has done in the past three years entirely favors Israel while subjugating Palestinians such as but not limited to moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, claiming that the Golan heights belong to Israel, and unilaterally withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) aka Iran Nuclear deal.

Trump’s “Slap of the Century” as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas referred to it, states that Palestinians would have four years to work towards becoming a state, President Trump went on to say that he is asking Palestinians to meet the challenges of peaceful co-existence. This would include disarming Hamas, broadly accepting the Jewish character of the Israeli state and in exchange they would be granted limited autonomy within a Palestinian homeland that consists of multiple non-contiguous enclaves scattered throughout the West Bank and Gaza.  Israel would retain “security” aka control over not only Palestinian enclaves but Palestinian borders, airspace, aquifers, maritime waters, and electromagnetic spectrum. In addition, Israel would be allowed to annex the Jordan valley and Jewish communities in the West Bank. Palestinians would be allowed to select their political leaders but would not have any political rights in Israel. This fraudulent Mideast “peace plan” is a thinly veiled plan for apartheid and increases tensions between the two contentious parties.

The timing of this big reveal is important to note, as it serves as a distraction from the political woes that both Trump and Netanyahu are currently facing. President Trump is currently the subject of an on-going impeachment trial in the Senate and Israel’s Attorney General filed a criminal indictment against Netanyahu on a series of corruption charges.

Not only was this sham of a “peace plan” made without the participation of Palestinians but it defies international law and international precedent on the issue and ignores Palestinian interests.  Without question by declaring Jerusalem Israel’s “undivided” capital, Trump has angered and pushed Palestinians away from coming to any sort of possible resolution to decades of violent conflict. Now Israel has more of a reason to annex major illegal Israeli colonies in occupied West Bank due to this proposal. Not only is the United States promoting the theft, plundering, and illegal annexation of Palestinian land but the Syrian Golan Heights as well.

Disturbing historical parallels have been drawn between Palestinians and the Bantu people of South Africa. Ten territories were designated as quasi-autonomous states for the black African population during the mid to late 20th century and kept under control of the white supremacist state.  The “Steal of the Century” is intended to bring about a similar fate for Palestinians.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and analyst.

Featured image is from Another Day in the Empire

We must not be indifferent when we hear historical lies. We must not be indifferent when the past is distorted for today’s political needs. The ancient people of Palestine have been the documented, majority indigenous demographic of the region for more than 1000 years – a millennium! We must not be indifferent when any minority is discriminated against. Democracy hinges on the rights of minorities to be protected. We must not be indifferent when any government – in this case, the Israeli government – violently infringes on the existing social contract.

For 13 years, the 1.8 million civilian population of Gaza has had to suffer a blockade of essential goods, medicines, food, power and electricity by the Israeli government forces of occupation that have tried to effect an illegal regime change in order to build a Greater Israel. It has failed but the people of Gaza increasingly starve.

Now the Israeli state, armed and supported by an unbalanced, megalomaniac President in the White House, and his family, are intent on the unlawful forced annexation of the occupied Palestinian lands of the West Bank and East Jerusalem – plus the Golan Heights.

We reach out to the world today and ask you to reject the Rape of the Palestinian people by today’s manifestation of American misconceived power.

We ask the world to work together for the future of the next generation, respecting history and inspired by peace, justice, tolerance and partnership.  Future generations will shout: “where was everybody?” Where was the world who could see and hear that and did nothing to save all those hundreds of thousands?  In times like this, when minorities have to feel vulnerable again, we can only pray that people and nations worldwide will stand up for democracy and human rights.

The Second World War did not descend from the sky. There was adequate warning of the catastrophe then to come. But no action was taken and 60 million souls died in France, USSR, Germany, Japan, Britain, Poland, Italy, Austria, Holland, throughout Europe, North Africa and around the world – because good people sat on their hands and did nothing. Don’t let it happen again!

There are huge, hidden, undeclared arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, today, in the Middle East – both nuclear and chemical – just waiting for a corrupt leader to press the button, initiate genocide and contaminate the entire world. Do NOT Be IndIfferent! Use your voice and your influence in your country and in your legislative assembly or Parliament.  The time to act is now!

*

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

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: A protester holds a placard as she stands next to Israeli soldiers during a protest against Israeli settlements in Beit Fajjar town south of the West Bank city of Bethlehem December 27, 2014. REUTERS/ Mussa Qawasma

On first opening Ramzy Baroud’s new book, These Chains Will be Broken, there is a series of references from five distinguished activists praising, in different ways, the short anecdotes from those who have been or are imprisoned within the Israeli system.  They speak eloquently of the power and passion generated by the work, of the criminality of the Israeli system, the disgust with the savage and brutal tactics used within the prison system, and the steadfastness and humility of those imprisoned.  What more could be added other than to read the individual stories themselves.

And yet I found more could be added.  What the initial praise for the work did not actually prepare me as a reader for was the very visceral and sickening feeling as I read how the people of Palestine are treated within the prison system.   The knowledge about the prison system is already available but it has never been treated so clearly in this way, directly from the hearts of those involved.  Two main thoughts developed as I read each history.

The first is simply family.  All the writers expressed a human commonality, the desire to love one’s family in freedom, to be able to provide for them, to be able to move around freely and visit them.  They wished for the freedom of Palestine, but that was always underscored by thoughts about their families history and dispossession, by their current desires to help their families and cause them no further harm, to create a future free to be with their loved ones – mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, all the extended family – in a free society.

In contrast, the second idea, which is certainly not entirely new, is the viciousness, brutality, and immorality of the actions of the Israeli military and judicial system.  It was not so much the actual physical torture that sickened me, but the disdain, contempt, and outright brutality of individual military personnel as they controlled those under their jurisdiction.

It is easy to describe the actual physical tortures – the strained sitting and standing positions, beatings, burnings, starvation rations, the isolation and deprivation.  What is more difficult to comprehend is the psychological torture, the attitude of the jailers towards the prisoners and their families who attempt to visit them.

For a country that boasts of its “most moral” army this work provides the lie to that claim.  Using both physical and psychological torture within an overwhelmingly illegal prison network (thus the many “administrative” detentions) only demonstrates the racism and hatred engendered by a society in which military rule and control predominate.

These twenty stories are but a small sample of what is inflicted on the Palestinian population as a whole, the hundreds of thousands who have at one time or another been victims of the Israeli military and judicial system.  It extends to every aspect of the Israeli colonization of Palestinian territory, the millions of people denied basic humanitarian freedoms.   These Chains Will Be Broken is a short read, but a difficult and necessary one.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on These Chains Will be Broken – Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons
  • Tags: ,

A major victory for Canada’s First Nations has just been won in Ontario. On January 31, the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) overwhelmingly voted down the proposed deep geological repository (DGR) for storage of low- and intermediate-level radioactive nuclear waste next to Lake Huron. The DGR had long been proposed by Ontario Power Generation (OPG), but in 2013 OPG had committed to SON that it would not build the DGR without their support.

As Chief Lester Anoquot of the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation told the press on January 31,

“This vote was a historic milestone and momentous victory for our People. We worked for many years for our right to exercise jurisdiction in our Territory and the free, prior and informed consent of our People to be recognized.” [1]

Out of 1,232 total votes, there were 4 spoiled ballots, 170 yes votes, and 1,058 no votes, indicating that 85% of those casting ballots had said no to a DGR at Bruce Power’s nuclear generating station in Kincardine, Ont.

Dr. Gordon Edwards, a long-time nuclear critic, has advocated a “policy of Rolling Stewardship” by which the wastes would be “constantly monitored and kept in a retrievable condition [above-ground] indefinitely,” as they are now.

According to BeyondNuclear.org, the SON had been offered $150 million by OPG “in exchange for SON agreeing to ‘host’ this DGR” [2] It cannot have been easy for a small First Nation to reject this much money, so the rest of us might consider ways to thank them. After all, there are 40 million people (on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border) who obtain their drinking water from the Great Lakes.

A brief summary of the sordid history of the DGR proposal shows just how much thanks are owed the SON.

Sordid History

In 2001, Bruce Power was hived off from provincial Crown corporation OPG by the Conservative Mike Harris provincial government to become a private power company, leasing the eight Bruce nuclear reactors from OPG under a public-private partnership (P3). Bruce Power’s two major sharehholder-partners have long been TransCanada Corporation (now called TC Energy) and Borealis Infrastructure (the investment arm of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System – OMERS). The Bruce site’s assets (including the nuclear waste) remain owned by OPG, while Bruce Power gets the profits from selling the nuclear-generated electricity. [3]

In the same year that this P3 was established, the Kincardine City Council approached OPG about hosting a possible long-term nuclear waste facility. OPG’s proposal was to bury low- and intermediate-level nuclear wastes from Ontario nuclear power plants in chambers drilled into limestone 680 metres (2,231 feet) below the surface and under the Bruce nuclear site at Kincardine – 400 metres from Lake Huron. The nuclear waste to be entombed in the DGR would come from the Bruce, Pickering and Darlington nuclear sites in Ontario – currently home to 18 Candu reactors.

After years of controversy, a Canadian federal Joint Review Panel (JRP) approved the DGR in May 2015, accepting testimony that Lake Huron would be large enough to dilute any radioactive pollution that might leak from the DGR. [4] This outrageous “environmental” ruling prompted thousands of people on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border to mobilize, and dozens of communities adopted resolutions against the DGR. Meanwhile, U.S. efforts to engage the International Joint Commission (IJC), which oversees boundary waters’ issues, had gone nowhere.

In 2015, I contacted the IJC’s Public Information Officer Frank Bevacqua, who told me by email that both the Canadian and U.S. federal governments would have to ask the IJC to intervene on the issue. “The IJC does not review proposals for site-specific projects [like the DGR] unless asked to do so by both governments,” he said. [5] Obviously, it was the Canadian federal government that was the hold-out.

Nonetheless, after the Harper government’s JRP approval, subsequent Canadian federal politicians have been reluctant to give final approval to the DGR, perhaps knowing how much that would enrage people and politicians on both sides of the border. In August 2017, then-environment minister Catherine McKenna was the latest to pause the process, “to ensure buy-in from Indigenous people in the area.” [6]

Money Talks (For Some)

In March 2013, an NGO called Stop the Great Lakes Nuclear Dump reported that

“OPG is paying $35.7 million to Saugeen Shores, Huron-Kinross, Arran Elderslie, Brockton [and] Kincardine. All are [municipalities] adjacent to the Bruce Nuclear Power Plant site. Ten and a half million dollars have already been paid even before approval to construct the dump is received.” [7]

Erika Simpson, political science professor at the University of Western Ontario, also noted at the time that the payments to these municipalities will continue for years “so long as they provide their co-operation in support of the environmental approvals and licensing applications…” [8]

In contrast to these municipalities, we now know that the Saugeen Ojibway Nation passed up $150 million from OPG and voted down the DGR. Let’s find ways (including financial) to show our gratitude. The mailing address for Saugeen Ojibway Nation’s Environmental Office is 25 Maadookii Subdivision, Wiarton, Ontario, Canada N0H 2T0.

*

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.

Joyce Nelson is the author of seven books. She can be reached via www.joycenelson.ca

Notes

[1] Saugeen Ojibway Nation Environment Office, “Vote Results,” January 31, 2020.

[2] Beyond Nuclear.org, January 30, 2020.

[3] Joyce Nelson, “Nuclear Dump Controversy,” Watershed Sentinel, September 17, 2015.

[4] Joyce Nelson, “Great Lakes Nuclear Waste Dump: The Battle Continues,” Counterpunch, January 15, 2016.

[5] Quoted in ibid.

[6] Colin Perkel, “Indigenous community votes down proposed nuclear waste bunker near Lake Huron,” The Canadian Press, February 1, 2020.

[7] Quoted in Nelson, “Nuclear Dump Controversy,” op. cit.

[8] Quoted in Ibid.

Erdogan lost his mind and sends NATO troops into the Syrian province of Idlib to establish military checkpoints in front of the advancing Syrian Arab Army from the south to protect his defeated and collapsing al-Qaeda terrorists.

Even someone like Trump would stand down in such an event who had to stand down after Iran delivered its first slap and destroyed Ayn Alasad military base east of Iraq housing US troops avenging Trump’s killing of Iran’s top General Qasim Soleimani.

But Erdogan is on a very different level of madness, he has been a faithful servant to the same cult of Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush who indoctrinated him to ‘lead the Greater Israel Project in the region’.

The following report by Mohammad Al-Khodr of the Lebanese-based Al-Mayadeen news channel sheds more light, the video followed by the transcript of the English translation of the video:

Transcript of the English translation of the above video

A Turkish movement on the ground tries to hinder the Syrian army’s advance on the fronts east of Idlib and southern Aleppo.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan threats of a full-scale military operation in Idlib, was translated by his army as erecting a military post in Kafr-Ammem, east of Saraqib.

Another attack launched by the Turkish-backed ‘National Army’ on the Tadif axis in eastern Aleppo.

Safwan Korbi, member of the Syrian People’s Assembly for Idlib: I understand the shouting and I understand the noise and I understand the loud voice of Erdogan because the effects of the fall of Idlib and its return to the Syrian state will be disastrous for Erdogan inside Turkey first, especially in the presence of relations that I do not see at its best with Russia.

In western Aleppo, Noureddine Zanki’s militants entered the fronts of adults and Journalists District under Turkish supervision and with the approval of the Hay’at Tahrir Sham (al-Qaeda Levant aka Nusra Front).

Erdogan is pushing jihadist groups in a last-ditch attempt to stop the Syrian army’s surge on expanding fronts that allow militants to maneuver to the Turkish border.

An attempt that proved unsuccessful with the destruction of defense lines established by the militants over a period of 7 years.

Safwan Korbi, member of the Syrian People’s Assembly for Idlib: He will resort to his jihadist banner, which is to use extremist terrorist groups to try to disturb as much as possible the sound and loud advances of the Syrian Arab Army on the outskirts of Idlib province and Aleppo countryside.

The fighting between the Aleppo and Idlib fronts coincides with the large leaps achieved by the Syrian army east of Idlib as part of a broad goal of securing the international road between Aleppo and Damascus through Saraqeb and Ma’rat al-Numan.

It seems to have been resolved in the two dossiers of opening international roads between Aleppo, Damascus, Aleppo, and Latakia and eliminating al-Qaeda linked groups, and what is going on is nothing but the implementation of what was agreed in Sochi in 2018 by firepower after Turkish stalemating and attempting to buy time.

Mohammed al-Khader, Damascus- Al-Mayadeen

***

For 1.5 years Erdogan has failed to fulfill any of his commitments he pledged to Russian President Putin within the Sochi and Astana framework, leaving the Syrian Arab Army no choice but to clean the country by force from Erdogan (NATO) sponsored al-Qaeda terrorists.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Turkey’s Madman Erdogan Sends NATO Troops to Defend al-Qaeda Terrorists in Idlib
  • Tags: , , ,

When millions of  Iraqis took to the streets recently, their main slogan was “THE UNITED STATES OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!”

How should one analyze this?

Obviously, there are a lot of social tensions in the Middle East – class based, ethnic, religious and cultural. The region is a patchwork of conflicts and tensions that not only goes back hundreds of years, but even a few thousand. There are always many reasons to rebel against a corrupt upper class, anywhere in the world. But no rebellion can succeed if it is not based on a realistic and thorough analysis of the specific conditions in the individual country and region.

Just as in Africa, the borders in the Middle East are arbitrarily drawn. They are the product of the manipulations of imperialist powers, and only to a lesser extent products of what the peoples themselves have wanted.

During the era of decolonization, there was a strong, secular pan-Arab movement that wanted to create a unified Arab world. This movement was influenced by the nationalist and socialist ideas that had strong popular support at the time. King Abdallah 1 of Jordan envisaged a kingdom that would consist of Jordan, Palestine and Syria. Egypt and Syria briefly established a union called the United Arab Republic. Gaddafi wanted to unite Libya, Syria and Egypt in a federation of Arab republics. In 1958, a quickly dissolved confederation was established between Jordan and Iraq, called the Arab Federation. All these efforts were transient. What remains is the Arab League, which is, after all, not a state federation and not an alliance. And then of course we have the demand for a Kurdish state, or something similar consisting of one or more Kurdish mini-states. Still, the most divisive product of the First World War was the establishment of the state of Israel on Palestinian soil. During the First World War, Britain’s Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour issued what became known as the Balfour Declaration, which «… view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.»

But what is the basis for all these attempts at creating states? What are the prerequisites for success or failure?

The imperialist powers divide the world according to the power relations between them

Vladimir Lenin gave the best and most durable explanation for this, in his essay «Imperialism – the highest stage of capitalism«. There, he explained five basic features of the era of imperialism:

  1. The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
  2. The merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;
  3. The export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
  4. The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves; and
  5. The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.

But Lenin also pointed out that capitalist countries are developing unevenly, not least because of the uneven development of productive forces in the various capitalist countries. After a while, there arises a discrepancy between how the world is divided and the relative strength of the imperialist powers. This disparity will eventually force through a redistribution, a new division of the world based on the new relationship of strength. And, as Lenin states:

“The question is: what means other than war could there be under capitalism to overcome the disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the other?“

The two world wars were wars that arose because of unevenness in the power relationships between the imperialist powers. The British Empire was past its heyday and British capitalism lagged behind in the competition. The United States and Germany were the great powers that had the largest industrial and technological growth, and eventually this misalignment exploded. Not once, but twice.

Versailles and Yalta

The victors of the First World War divided the world between themselves at the expense of the losers. The main losers were Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia (the Soviet Union) and the Ottoman Empire. This division was drawn up in the Versailles treaty and the following minor treaties.

Europe after the Versailles Treaties (Wikipedia)

This map shows how the Ottoman Empire was partitioned:

At the end of World War II, the victorious superpowers met in the city of Yalta on the Crimean peninsula in the Soviet Union. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin made an agreement on how Europe should be divided following Germany’s imminent defeat. This map shows how it was envisaged and the two blocs that emerged and became the foundation for the Cold War. Note that Yugoslavia, created after Versailles in 1919, was maintained and consolidated as «a country between the blocs». So it is a country that carries in itself the heritage of both the Versailles- and Yalta agreements.

The fateful change of era when the Soviet Union fell

In the era of imperialism, there has always been a struggle between various great powers. The battle has been about markets, access to cheap labor, raw materials, energy, transport routes and military control. And the imperialist countries divide the world between themselves according to their strength. But the imperialist powers are developing unevenly.

If a power collapses or loses control over some areas, rivals will compete to fill the void. Imperialism follows the principle that Aristotle in his Physics called horror vacui – the fear of empty space.

And that was what happened when the Soviet Union lost the Cold War. In 1991, the Soviet Union ceased to exist, and soon the Eastern bloc was also history. And thus the balance was broken, the one that had maintained the old order. And now a huge area was available for redivision. The weakened Russia barely managed to preserve its own territory, and not at all the area that just before was controlled by the Soviet Union.

“Never has a so large area been open for redivision. It was the result of two horrible world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war.” (Pål Steigan 1999)

“Never has a so large area been open for re-division. It was the result of two horrible world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war.” Map: Countries either part of the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc or non-aligned (Yugoslavia)

When the Soviet Union disintegrated, both the Yalta and Versailles agreements in reality collapsed, and opened up the way for a fierce race to control this geopolitical empty space.

This laid the foundation for the American Geostrategy for Eurasia, which concentrated on securing control over the vast Eurasian continent. It is this struggle for redistribution in favor of the United States that has been the basis for most wars since 1990: Somalia, the Iraq wars, the Balkan wars, Libya, Ukraine, and Syria.

The United States has been aggressively spearheading this, and the process to expand NATO eastward and create regime changes in the form of so-called «color revolutions» has been part of this struggle. The coup in Kiev, the transformation of Ukraine into an American colony with Nazi elements, and the war in Donbass are also part of this picture. This war will not stop until Russia is conquered and dismembered, or it has put an end to the US offensive.

So, to recapitulate: Because the world is already divided between imperialist powers and there are no new colonies to conquer, the great powers can only fight for redistribution. What creates the basis and possibilities for a new division is the uneven development of capitalism. The forces that are developing faster economically and technologically will demand bigger markets, more raw materials, more strategic control.

The results of two terrible wars are again up for grabs

World War I caused perhaps 20 million deaths, as well as at least as many wounded. World War II caused around 72 milliondeaths. These are approximate numbers, and there is still controversy around the exact figures, but we are talking about this order of magnitude. The two world wars that ended with the Versailles and Yalta treaties thus caused just below 100 million dead, as well as an incredible number of other suffering and losses. Since 1991, a low-intensity «world war» has been fought, especially by the US, to conquer “the void». Donald Trump recently stated that the United States have waged wars based on lies, which have cost $ 8 trillion ($ 8,000 billion) and millions of people’s lives. So the United States’ new distribution of the spoils has not happened peacefully.

The Rebellion against Sykes-Picot

In the debate around the situation in the Middle East, certain people that would like to appear leftist, radical and anti-imperialist say that it is time to rebel against the artificial boundaries drawn by the Sykes-Picot and Versailles treaties. And certainly these borders are artificial and imperialist. But how leftist and anti-imperialist is it to fight for these boundaries to be revised now?

In reality, it is the United States and Israel that are fighting for a redistribution of the Middle East. This is the basis underlying Donald Trump’s «Deal of the Century», which aims to bury Palestine forever, and it is stated outright in the new US strategy for partitioning Iraq.

Again, this is just an updated version of the Zionist Yinon plan that aimed to cantonize the entire Middle East, with the aim that Israel should have no real opponents and would be able to dominate the entire region and possibly create a Greater Israel.

It is not the anti-imperialists that are leading the way to overhaul the imperialist borders from 1919. It is the imperialists. To achieve this, they can often exploit movements that are initially popular or national, but which then only become tools and proxies in a greater game. This has happened so many times in history that it can hardly be counted. Hitler’s Germany exploited Croatian nationalism by using the Ustaša gangs as proxies. From 1929 to 1945, they killed hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews and Roma people. And their ideological and political descendants carried out an extremely brutal ethnic cleansing of the Krajina area and forced out more than 200,000 Serbs in their so-called Operation Storm in 1995. Hitler also used the extreme Ukrainian nationalists of Stepan Bandera’s OUN, and after Bandera’s death, the CIA continued to use them as a fifth column against the Soviet Union.

The US low-intensity war against Iraq, from the Gulf War in 1991 to the Iraq War in 2003, helped divide the country into enclaves. Iraqi Kurdistan achieved autonomy in the oil-rich north with the help of a US «no-fly zone». The United States thus created a quasi-state that was their tool in Iraq. Undoubtedly, the Kurds in Iraq had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. But also undoubtedly, their Iraqi «Kurdistan» became a client state under the thumb of United States. And there is also no doubt that the no-fly zones were illegal, as UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali admitted in a conversation with John Pilger.

And now the United States is still using the Kurds in Northern Iraq in its plan to divide Iraq into three parts. To that end, they are building the world’s largest consulate in Erbil. What they are planning to do, is simply «creating a country».

As is well known, the United States also uses the Kurds in Syria as a pretext to keep 27 percent of the country occupied. It does not help how much the Kurdish militias SDF and PYD invoke democracy, feminism and communalism; they have ended up pleading for the United States to maintain the occupation of Northeast Syria.

Preparations for a New World War

Israel and the US are preparing for war against Iran. In this fight, they will develop as much «progressive» rhetoric as is required to fool people. Real dissatisfaction in the area, which there is every reason to have, will be magnified and blown out of all proportion. «Social movements» will be equipped with the latest news in the Israeli and US «riot kits» and receive training and logistics support, in addition to plenty of cold hard cash.

There may be good reasons to revise the 1919 borders, but in today’s situation, such a move will quickly trigger a major war. Some say that the Kurds are entitled to their own state, and maybe so. The question is ultimately decided by everyone else, except the Kurds themselves. The problem is that in today’s geopolitical situation, creating a unified Kurdistan will require that «one» defeats Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. It’s hard to see how that can happen without their allies, not least Russia and China, being drawn into the conflict. And then we have a new world war on our hands. And in that case, we are not talking about 100 million killed, but maybe ten times as much, or the collapse of civilization as we know it. The Kurdish question is not worth that much.

This does not mean that one should not fight against oppression and injustice, be it social and national. One certainly should. But you have to realize that revising the map of the Middle East is a very dangerous plan and that you run the risk of ending up in very dangerous company. The alternative to this is to support a political struggle that undermines the hegemony of the United States and Israel and thereby creates better conditions for future struggles.

It is nothing new that small nations rely on geopolitical situations to achieve some form of national independence. This was the case, for example, for my home country Norway. It was France’s defeat in the Napoleonic War that caused Denmark to lose the province of Norway to Sweden in 1814, but at the same time it created space for a separate Norwegian constitution and internal self rule. All honor to the Norwegian founding fathers of 1814, but this was decided on the battlefields in Europe. And again, it was Russia’s defeat in the Russo-Japanese War that laid the geopolitical foundation for the dissolution of the forced union with Sweden almost a hundred years later, in 1905. (This is very schematically presented and there are many more details, but there is no doubt that Russia’s loss of most of its fleet in the Far East had created a power vacuum in the west, which was exploitable.)

Therefore, the best thing to do now is not to support the fragmentation of states, but to support a united front to drive the United States out of the Middle East. The Million Man March in Baghdad got the ball rolling. There is every reason to build up even more strength behind it. Only when the United States is out, will the peoples and countries in the region be able to arrive at peaceful agreements between themselves, which will enable a better future to be developed. And in this context, it is an advantage that China develops the «Silk Road» (aka Belt and Road Initiative), not because China is any nobler than other major powers, but because this project, at least in the current situation, is non-sectarian, non-exclusive and genuinely multilateral. The alternative to a monopolistic rule by the United States, with a world police under Washington’s control, is a multipolar world. It grows as we speak. The days of the Empire are numbered. What this will look like in 20 or 50 years, remains to be seen.

*

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

Translated by Terje Maloy

Pål Steigan is a Norwegian veteran journalist and activist, presently editor of the independent news site Steigan.no.

UN Rejects Trump’s Annexation Scheme?

February 3rd, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

Pronouncements are one thing, policies another. Ignore what politicians say. Follow only what they do.

The same goes for UN officials, notably the secretary general, installed by the US to serve its interests. 

Most often, current incumbent Antonio Guterres and his predecessors failed to fulfill the mandate they were sworn to uphold:

It’s “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war; to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights; to establish conditions (promoting) justice…equal rights of men and women (in all nations and respect for) international law (and) social progress…to ensure…armed force shall not be used.”

Guterres and most of his predecessor turned a blind eye to the highest of high crimes of war and against humanity committed by the US, NATO, and Israel.

They failed to condemn US human rights abuses and war by other means (economic terrorism) against Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba and other countries.

They did nothing to support world peace and stability, nothing for Palestinian rights or other victims of US/NATO/Israeli aggression — operating instead as loyal servants of Western interests.

UN secretaries general aren’t usually made of the kind of mettle that extends beyond their willingness to serve the interests of the dominant country that largely runs the world body — the Security Council an exception because of veto power by its five permanent members.

In most other respects, the UN is largely a wholly owned subsidiary of the nation where it’s been headquartered on Manhattan’s east side since 1952.

No candidate becomes secretary general without passing a US vetting process to assure willingness of body’s top official to support its agenda.

A little wiggle-room is allowed provided it doesn’t exceed the limits of the boss’ tolerance.

Guterres, Ban Ki-moon, Kofi Annan and others were appointed because they agreed to play by US rules — world’s apart from UN Charter principles.

They’re silent about countless millions of post-9/11 casualties alone — because of the US war OF terror, not on it, the human toll mounting daily, the rule of law ignored to pursue its imperial interests.

Guterres earlier criticized Syrian forces instead of supporting their liberating struggle against US aggression.

He’s been largely silent about flagrant US-led breaches of Security Council Res. 2254 — calling for ceasefire and diplomatic resolution of endless (US launched) war in Syria.

He failed to condemn Israeli apartheid viciousness, its illegal militarized occupation, theft of Palestinian land, dispossession of its lawful owners, and oppressive Gaza blockade, suffocating its defenseless people.

Calling Israel a “democratic” state  defied reality on the ground.

Rejecting Trump’s annexation scheme of the century through his spokesman was his latest hollow gesture, saying:

“The position of the United Nations on the two-state solution has been defined, throughout the years, by relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions by which the Secretariat is bound,” adding:

“The United Nations remains committed to supporting Palestinians and Israelis in resolving the conflict on the basis of United Nations resolutions, international law, and bilateral agreements and realizing the vision of two States – Israel and Palestine – living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, on the basis of the pre-1967 lines.”

Before the above statement was issued, Guterres ducked a question from a reporter on this issue, not answering and walking away — showing where he really stands, proved by his actions time and again.

He failed to denounce Israel’s racist 2018 Nation-State Law. Enacted into its Basic Law, the equivalent of US constitutional law, it was condemned by Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel director Hassan Jabareen, saying:

It’s “illegitimate as it establishes a colonial regime with distinct apartheid characteristics in that it seeks to maintain a regime in which one ethnic-national group controls an indigenous-national group living in the same territory while advancing ethnic superiority by promoting racist policies in the most basic aspects of life.”

It officially calls Jewish rights “superior” to those of Israeli Arab citizens.

Separately, Adalah said “(n)o country in the world today is defined as a democratic state where the constitutional identity is determined by ethnic affiliation that overrides the principle of equal citizenship.”

Enacting the measure illegitimately enshrined Jewish supremacy over equal rights for Arab citizens into Israeli Basic Law – what apartheid is all about, supported by Guterres for failing to condemn the outrageous law.

Former UN Special Human Rights Rapporteur for Occupied Palestine Richard Falk earlier minced no words, saying:

“Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid in relation to the Palestine people should be taken with the utmost seriousness by all those who affirm human solidarity and care about making visible the long ordeal of a suffering and vulnerable people.”

Article 7(1)(j) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court calls apartheid a “crime against humanity.”

When enacted into Israeli Basic Law, Guterres issued the following unacceptable statement through his spokesman, saying:

“We reaffirm the United Nations’ respect for the sovereignty of states to define their constitutional character while emphasizing the need for all states to adhere to universal human rights principles, including the protection of minority rights” – notions he pays lip service to alone.

In response to repeated Israeli attacks on illegally blockaded Gaza, he shamefully said the following earlier:

“I am gravely concerned over the dangerous escalation of violence in Gaza and southern Israel.”

“It is imperative that all sides urgently step back from the brink of another devastating conflict.”

“I call on Hamas and other Palestinian militants to cease the launching of rockets and incendiary kites and provocations.”

They’re launched in response to Israeli provocations, self-defense permitted under the UN Charter Guterres ignored, tepidly adding at the time:

We urge Israel to “exercise restraint to avoid further inflaming the situation.”

Time and again, Guterres, like most of his predecessors, failed to use his bully pulpit power to challenge, denounce, and demand accountability for high crimes committed by the US, NATO, Israel, and their imperial allies.

Palestinians are on their own, resistance against a brutal occupier their only viable option — liberation one day possible but only through longterm struggle.

The alternative is endless subjugation, their fundamental rights denied, their lives threatened, their futures empty.

*

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 Afghanistan Papers. “Teflon Lies” and Mowing Lawns…

February 3rd, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Afghanistan is a famous desert for empires, a burial ground which has consumed those in power who thought that extra fortification and trading most might benefit them.  It remains a great, and somewhat savage reminder about those who suffer hubris, overconfidence and eagerness in pursuing their agendas.  But the country has also served another purpose: a repository for the untruths of those who invaded it. 

That said, the normative sense does not always keep pace with the actual; people might well insist that they loathe being lied to but that is no guarantee for altering conduct or votes.  The US citizen has been the recipient of mendacity on the republic’s foreign engagements since President Thomas Jefferson decided to expand its operations against the Barbary pirates in Europe.  There have been deceptions, concoctions and fabrications to either justify an intervention or justify the continuation of US garrisons in foreign theatres.  Cometh the empire, cometh the military presence.

Since US forces were deployed after September 11, 2001 ostensibly to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda, the US has lost 2,400 personnel, seen the deaths of over a hundred thousand Afghans and expended, through Congress, $137 billion in reconstruction funds.  Some $1 trillion has been spent in the military effort. A note from the Congressional Research Service from January 31 this year, despite toeing the line, had to concede that, while “most measures of human development have improved […] future prospects of those measures remain mixed in light of a robust Taliban insurgency and continued terrorist activity.”

The Afghanistan Papers, as they have now come to be known, should have stimulated something more than it did.  Run as a set of interviews in the Washington Post in December from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), they are filled vignettes of confusion, incompetence and indifference.  The interviews feature an imperium in a mess, dithering, muddled, and in need of a purpose.  At times, there is an astonishing freshness that only comes with being frank.   

SIGAR, the main oversight body responsible for examining the US operation in Afghanistan, has released nine reports in its “Lessons Learned” series.  The seventh report, for instance, notes “the difficulty of reintegrating ex-combatants during an active insurgency in a fragile state.”  The words of the executive summary are almost brutal in their common sense.  “In Afghanistan, we found that the absence of a comprehensive political settlement or peace agreement was a key factor in the failure of prior reintegration programs targeting Taliban fighters.”

From September 2016 comes another report detailing “Corruption in Conflict”.  Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s words feature prominently.  “The ultimate point of failure of our efforts… wasn’t an insurgency.  It was the weight of endemic corruption.”  The report identified five pertinent grounds that affected the entire effort: the presence of corruption that “undermined the US mission in Afghanistan by fuelling grievances and channelling support to the insurgency”; the direct contribution by the US to corruption; a slowness to recognise the scale of the problem; the trumping of “strong anticorruption actions” in favour of security and political goals and the conspicuous lack of “sustained political commitment” in anticorruption efforts. 

The picture sketched by the Post is one of dysfunction and even deceit in the planning process.  As with any policy that demands many hands and many tiers, the grunts and diggers are bound to have a different view to those seated behind desks either in Kabul or Washington. The SIGAR project also saw criticism from over 400 insiders on the deepening nature of US involvement in a project without success or end.  “With a bluntness rarely expressed in public,” notes the paper, “the interviews lay bare pent-up complaints, frustrations and confessions, along with second-guessing and backbiting.”

Distant wars fall victim to attention deficit syndrome.  Geography dispels interest.  The enemy is there, away from any reckoning.  Whether a Taliban fighter is killed, or a school girl in Kabul educated, is irrelevant to the purchase of groceries of a shopper in Wisconsin.  Few American voters have a concept of where the country is, seeing any deployment of forces in the most abstract of terms.  The idea that US forces are there is only as relevant as the idea that they might serve some purpose to repel evil and shore up the interests of the country.  Other factors rarely count. 

The budgeting feature behind the war is also a matter that confines it to the periphery.  Being part of “emergency supplementary spending”, the issue rarely finds scope for debate and discussion in the broader issues of Congressional spending.  The US political establishment, in other words, shows little interest in this bit of nastiness in the Middle East.  As an editorial in the Christian Century put it, “The war, in short, has little effect on most Americans’ lives.”

Not even President Donald Trump has been able to arrest this tendency, despite being very much of the view that US forces should be reined back from various theatres of operation.  The objectives of his administration in Afghanistan entail “achieving a peace agreement that ensures Afghan soil is never used again by terrorists against the United States, its allies, or any country that allows American troops to return home.”  Politics is often not only the art of the possible but the vague. 

Besides, he has had impeachment proceedings to battle, a process which has served to draw attention away from the less appealing, let alone competent nature, of US foreign policy when it comes to overthrowing governments and finding suitable substitutes.  On the issue of Afghanistan, Republicans and Democrats are to blame, both united by the strand of shoddiness that characterises imperial engagements that look increasingly doddering in their nature.  Nation building is a near impossible exercise, and remains the exception that proves the rule.   

The default position of US foreign and military policy in its Trump phase, then, is “mowing the lawn”, an expression bequeathed to us by Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.  This entails measures of brutal violence to keep the enemy in check as “every now and then, you have to do these things to stay on top of it so that the threat doesn’t grow, doesn’t resurge.”  A solid retreat, then, from the bricks and mortar of state-building. 

*

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

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

Featured image is from Washington Post

The Health Impacts of Cell Phone Radiation in America

February 3rd, 2020 by Microwave News

NTP scientists have decided to follow the science.

In a recent revision to the information it offers the public on cell phone radiation, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) revealed that its scientists are now taking precautions by spending less time on cell phones and, when on a call, increasing the distance between their heads and the phones.

The NTP released the final report on its $30 million animal study that showed “clear evidence”of a link between cell phone radiation and cancer in late 2018. But until now NTP scientists have downplayed the implications of their findings in public statements.

Indeed, John Bucher, the former associate head of the NTP and the leader of the NTP cell phone project, was asked —at each of the three press conferences held at various stages of the release of the NTP results— whether the cancer findings had changed the way he used his cell phone or the advice he gave his family. In the first two instances, he replied no, and in the third —on issuing the final report— he again said no except when “on a conference call for an hour or two.”

That has now changed.

In an email to Microwave News, Bucher confirmed that he is following the precautionary steps offered on the NTP website. In a separate exchange, Michael Wyde, who managed the study and continues to run the follow-up work, wrote that he too is taking these precautions.

They and other NTP scientists are, at present, the only ones working for the U.S. government to publicly endorse precaution to reduce microwave exposure from wireless devices.

CDC Once Endorsed Precaution and Then Backed Away

For a brief time in 2014, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) endorsed precaution. It quickly reversed direction under pressure from the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, better known by its acronym, NCRP.

Up to now, government scientists have left individuals to make their own decisions to take precautions, favoring the phrase, “if people are concerned about their exposure…” That conditional used to be on the NTP website but has now been removed.

The FDA website continues to suggest precautions only for those who are “concerned.”

Here are screenshots of this particular Q&A from the NTP’s FAQs before and after the change.

Before:NTP on precaution before
After:
NTP on precaution after

*

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.

China has been hit by coronavirus as if by a brick over the head; heavily and mercilessly. Instead of help, Beijing has received criticism, even verbal attacks.

In spite of doing tremendous job fighting the epidemy, China is getting almost no tributes for its performance.

Now Bangkok, Jakarta and other regional capital are in panic. After trying to sweep the crises under the carpet in order not to rock their tourist industries which are heavily dependent on annual arrival of the millions of Chinese package tourists, they are trying to introduce coherent health measures. A bit too late, complain their own citizens.  However, the West has no appetite to criticize them. All criticism is reserved, as always, for China.

*

No one knows precisely where the present disease really comes from. Chinese doctors (as well as the Russian ones) are working days and nights, trying to find the answers, as well as the cure. But until now, people are still dying.  The mortality rate of the infected patients is very high; some sources say at about 50%. As this article is being written, around 210 have already lost their lives, mainly in China.

In 2013, The Guardian wrote that there were similar cases in Saudi Arabia, where the research was brutally swept under the carpet:

“A doctor in a Saudi hospital was fired for reporting a new, deadly strain of the coronavirus. Now, with half of all confirmed cases ending in death, the World Health Organization has issued a global alert and scientists are preparing for the worst…”

This example exposes an approach so commonly adopted by different nations.

In many countries, similar emergencies are not confronted directly. The governments hope that they will, quietly, go away, until it is often too late to prevent disaster.

My doctor friends in Hong Kong commented on the above-mentioned case:

“That was MERS, and MERS is a corona virus, and so is a common cold. The present virus has not got a name yet, but belongs to the corona virus family, too.”

*

China has risen, with zeal and determination. It is confronting deadly disease frontally, as if it would be confronting enemy military battalions. It has been clearly a Communist approach, similar to that which already saved millions of lives in Cuba.

From Szechuan and elsewhere, I began receiving brief but powerful messages, penned by my friends and colleagues; messages reflecting heroic struggle of Chinese nation against the disease:

“China is now introducing the highest level of emergency. Treatment and prevention are the most important political missions.”

“Nobody can now neglect his or her duties… In my city’s education department, they issued an order to postpone school opening day.”

“A factory in Zhejiang province was told to produce 80 million masks in just a few days. In the same time, the government ordered factories and shops not to raise the price of the masks. It also allocated billions of RMBs for preventive measures and products, including paying for trucks and trains distributing the equipment.” 

“Patients infected with this virus get free medical care.”

A young Chinese diplomat, a friend of mine whom I will only identify by her first name – Langqi – here, reported to me from her hometown in Northern China, near Beijing:

“Despite the ineffective response of the Wuhan government at the initial stage, all governments, from central to local, have been doing everything they can to contain the spread of the virus. It is not an easy task, considering the “biggest human migration” happening during the Chinese New Year. It is with immense commitment and voluntary contributions, from doctors, nurses, people working in service and delivery industry, as well as from Wuhan people themselves, that China is able to manage the spread of the virus to its current situation. The responsive measures are also largely backed up by experts, including those who contributed during the SARS epidemic. It can be said that the whole country now is working as a whole to face our common challenge: the coronavirus. The solidarity comes not only from the trust in the government, but also from the identity as part of the community.”

A doctor with whom I work in Hong Kong, re-confirmed, in summary:

“In Wuhan, some officials tried to hide the information at the beginning. But the higher authorities made everything clear and the world appreciates government’s work, afterwards.”

Not all do, of course; unfortunately, not all.

Attacking China (as well as Russia, Iran and other independent nations) is now a sport, or a well-paid profession, or both, for many individuals, particularly those living in the West.

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

*

But many people, particularly those with the first-hand experience, decided to line-up in their support for China:

An Indonesian student Yessy Liana, based in Wuhan, recently sent passionate plea to her native country, which has an on-going tendency to smear everything Chinese, on behalf of its Western masters:

“Today I am in Wuhan City and I want to share the situation where I am now. We all heard about the coronavirus and for those of you who are worried or curious, hopefully this video can give light on the situation.

This is my school canteen, usually closed during winter holidays. But because of the coronavirus, the school reopened the canteen although only on the 1st floor… Because the school wants students to stay in the school and reduce the interaction with the outside.

This is the street in front of the campus. Now in Wuhan, public transportation is not in operation for a while. But private vehicles can go around without a problem. You can see for yourself that… it quieter than usual.

Now we are at one of the Chaoshi (market) that is still open. You can see the stock of food and drinks in this chaoshi are plentiful, and usually those of us who stay in dormitory in Wuhan buy food and drinks here.

Now we are in campus area and in front of us is a campus hospital and it is still open.

The building in front of us is a dormitory for international students. There are basketball courts and also place to play table tennis… 

Now we are at my dormitory. Next to the entrance, there is a security guard who is on duty, and he will check the temperature of all people entering and leaving the dormitory.

For parents and friends who are worried about friends or family in China, please don’t worry because the government here and the school are taking care of us…”

Similar stories are circulating all over social media, uploaded by foreign students and workers who are based in China. They speak about the determination and strength of the state, the Communist Party and the citizens.

Entire factories are ordered to produce protective gear, laboratories are working on developing vaccines and medicine, to fight this latest type of coronavirus. Hospitals are constructed literally overnight.

My friend, a doctor from Hong Kong, has no doubts why the West ignores this dedicated fight of China, against the deadly disease:

“People are accusing China, from everywhere. This means that China is really strong!”

He shared with me an image, with a comment:

“Look at this. A Danish newspaper insults China by using the coronavirus as the stars of the national flag. This has lots of feedback from the citizens of China. The Prime Minister refused to apologize because ‘there is freedom of expression in Denmark’.”

Things are getting wilder and wilder. Attacks are intensifying.

In Hong Kong, rioters are burning shelters intended to host future victims of coronavirus. They are also forcing local government to close all border posts with Mainland China: ferry terminals, bridges. Rail links have already been suspended.

Some in Hong Kong are lamenting, that the rioters have already lost their humanity and compassion. It is Chinese Lunar New Year, after all; beginning of the auspicious Year of Rat. Time when solidarity and kindness should be shown. But that is not what the rioters are paid for to do, by their Western masters.

China is now fighting successfully, but alone. Chinese people are clearly aware of the fact that their entire nation is ‘quarantined’ politically, by the West. Even during such hard times of medical emergencies, there is malicious sarcasm coming from Washington, London and Paris, never an extended hand.

Some publications, including Global Research in Canada, are not excluding a possibility that what we are witnessing could be a Western biological warfare against China.

If they are correct, chances that China will be defeated are truly slim. On 31 January, 2020, RT reported that Chinese scientists made first giant step in their epic battle:

“Scientists in China have reportedly developed an express test which can detect the 2019-nCoV novel coronavirus in under fifteen minutes, in a major breakthrough which will hopefully help stem the tide of infection.

Experts from a tech company based in Wuxi in eastern China’s Jiangsu Province, working with the National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, developed the rapid nucleic test kit in just ten days, according to the Xinhua news agency.”

China will win the battle against this malicious virus, soon, but the situation will be remembered for many years to come. It has already broken trust, and soon it will negatively influence the way this world is functioning. For years and decades, China have stood alone, smiling and with the extended hand, offering peace and friendship. Many are now wondering whether such unilateral kindness is capable of improving the world.

*

Saboteurs Exhibit Appalling Callousness in Times of Crisis

All objective reports coming out of China are praising the country for its determined and successful battle against the new and treacherous disease known as Coronavirus.

The government in Beijing takes no chances. It is studying the situation, allocating massive resources to medical research. It is setting up temporary hospitals and medical centers, informing citizens about the recent developments, while controlling the flow of people in all affected and high-risk areas.

All this is impressive. China is fighting for its own people, and it is trying to minimize the impact on foreign lands. And it is much more effective than what takes place in Western countries during the same or similar national emergencies.

But how is the Chinese government rewarded for its life-saving efforts?

The better prepared China is, the more successfully it gets in fighting the outbreak of the coronavirus epidemic, the louder the critical voices smearing it in the West become, and even in its own territory of Hong Kong.

On January 27, 2020, RT reported shocking occurrences which took place there:

“A small bomb prompted evacuation and temporarily disrupted work at a hospital in Hong Kong. Masked protesters had earlier firebombed a proposed quarantine area for possible coronavirus victims. 

On Sunday, masked anti-government protesters threw a Molotov cocktail at an empty public building, where authorities planned to quarantine people who may have contracted the deadly coronavirus that is currently raging in mainland China.”

These cowardly and selfish acts will only further discredit the rioters, exposing their destructive and selfish spirit.

Instead of showing solidarity and supporting people in dire need of help (as the citizens in Mainland China are doing with great determination), these hooligans are reducing future medical facilities to ashes.

Committing such crimes, the rioters are not “fighting for Hong Kong”; far from it! Needless to say, both people from Mainland China, as well as Hong Kong residents, are travelling back and forth, for family visits, cultural exchanges, tourism and work. Do rioters want, for instance, a local mother and her child who just returned from Wuhan, to die on the streets of Kowloon in agony, with no help? Or even if not a local: would they want an unlucky man or a woman from Mainland China who earlier contracted the disease, to have no place to go and get help?

If this is what they really want, then one has to wonder if there is really any Chinese blood left circulating in their veins, or whether they got converted into compassionless and brutal subjects of Western colonialist masters.

One wants to shout: “Shame! This is Spring Festival time. And Hong Kong is part of one of the oldest, deepest and the most compassionate cultures on Earth! If you do not want to help, at least do not dare to spoil the efforts of those who do.”

*

A friend of mine who practices medicine in Hong Kong, wrote to me recently in what appeared to be despair:

“People in the West criticize China, no matter what it does. If it barricades a city they say it has hidden some important information. If it doesn’t do it, they say that Beijing is acting irresponsibly. They smear China either way.”

He lamented about the changes which are taking place in his city:

“I have been working the whole morning in a public hospital. The medical staff are working as usual. But some doctors and nurses threaten to strike, probably for political gains. Many of them take sick leaves. I am so ashamed of them. When we had SARS in 2003, we were not like this. We continued working and even some young doctors died…”

Another Hong Kong-based doctor wrote to me, bitterly, using WeChat:

“…In contrast, doctors in China volunteer to work in Wuhan!”

On 30 January 2020, Reuters reported:

“Trade unions in Hong Kong, including hospital and rail workers, are threatening to go on strike unless the government closes the border with mainland China to stop the spread of a new coronavirus that has sent jitters around the world.

While Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam has ordered the suspension of the high-speed rail service between the city and mainland China from midnight on Thursday and all cross-border ferry services, the unions said it was not enough.”

These occurrences may not be as “spectacular” as the ones in which rioters are burning or beating their fellow citizens in broad daylight – citizens who simply disagree with them.

But what is taking place is enormously significant.

It appears that the rioters have managed to make solidarity totally collapse. Hong Kong has been infiltrated by savage individualism, or call it Western-style selfishness. The manual on how to behave and live one’s life is not printed in black and white, but it can always be guessed: “Let victims collapse in the middle of the street, and if they are ill, cross to the other side. Shelter yourself. Do not show compassion. You are all that really matters.”

This is most likely a result of too many Western flags waving, and of repeating endlessly, “Me-me-me”.

What is certain is that the People’s Republic of China will eventually defeat the coronavirus. It will happen sooner than later. In a few months, or perhaps even weeks, the people on the streets of Beijing and Wuhan will be celebrating yet another great victory. If it doesn’t come to its senses soon, Hong Kong will be left behind. It will feel far from being proud of itself, in fact it will be depressed; depressed and defeated by its own selfishness.

This article was originally published on China Daily Hong Kong

*

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.

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: Connecting Countries, Saving Millions of Lives”, China and Ecological Cavillationwith 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 the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter. His Patreon

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Coronavirus – China Fights Determinately, While Others Smear!

On the third of January, after midnight, news about the assassination of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, Brigadier General Hussein pour Jaafari, Colonel Shahroud Muzaffari Nia, Major Hadi Tameri and Captain Wahid Zamaniam reached the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad. Officers at the embassy were in contact with the convoy, and suddenly the communication was interrupted. Sardar Soleimani had diplomatic immunity and had been officially asked by the Iraqi government to help in defeating ISIS. Moreover, the convoy was attacked just before an Iraqi checkpoint that knew the Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes was in convoy along with his protection team. The news was communicated to Tehran and from it to the house of the Iranian leader of the revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei.

“We belong to Allah and to Him we shall return”. These verses of the Qoran a believer would pronounce when the death of someone he knows is announced, whether close to him or not. It is a reminder that all humans are mortal. That was the first reaction of Sayyed Khamenei when the news reached him of the death of “a son”. That was Sardar Soleimani’s closeness to Sayyed Khamenei. Soleimani earned the title of “living martyr” due to the many occasions his life was in danger while fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria.

Soleimani left Beirut and slept in Syria on the first of January, not far from Damascus airport. On every trip to Syria, he used to hold a meeting with all commanders, after morning prayers and just before the sun rises, for a maximum of two hours. That day he kept all commanders for lunch and allowed them to leave just before sunset. He didn’t stop talking, leaving his instructions for his team of commanders in the Levant. Captain Wahid Zamaniam used to be his inseparable companion. The Major General was greeted by Iranian and Iraqi officers at Baghdad airport when arriving, where a US drone assassinated them.

According to a well-informed source within the “Axis of the Resistance”, when he learned about the assassination, Sayyed Khamenei called for a meeting of his commanders in the first hours following the murder and instructed: “prepare yourself for a strong reply. We shall announce our direct responsibility, so our enemy knows we are challenging it face to face and not in the cowardly way the US killed Soleimani and his companions. Hit the US army hard to break their arrogance in the same theatre they have executed this vile assassination”.

Many scenarios were laid down in front of Sayyed Khamenei. The first choice was Ayn al-Assad, the most significant and most substantial airbase in Iraq, where President Trump landed in what he considered the safest location in Iraq. Iran knows every single detail about the base. Its drones and intelligence were good enough to identify the contents of every hangar and construction.

A plan for a second hit was also prepared against a US base outside Iraq across the Persian Gulf, more powerful and painful than the first objective, in case the US responded to the Ayn al-Assad hit.

A third hit was also organised, much more powerful and destructive than the first two against the most significant US base in the Middle East. This hit aimed to cause many casualties, many more than the US other possible retaliation.

Three plans, three scenarios, all planned to be executed one after the other for three consecutive hits. Sayyed Ali Khamenei approved all these responses so there would be no need for his commanders to ask for his blessing. After that, Sayyed Khamenei instructed his commanders to return to him for further instructions and to declare a general mobilisation of the country where an all-out war would be announced against the US if there were military responses to all the Iranian hits. In this last scenario, Sayyed Khamenei ordered a plan where hundreds of missiles would have been launched simultaneously against all US military bases in the countries surrounding Iran, in the Levant and beyond. All Iran allies in the Middle East would have been involved, and US allies would be directly hit. But this ultimate decision would require the last evaluation by Sayyed Khamenei.

That was a foreseeable scenario that the US President – with his decision to stand down, notwithstanding the human casualties and destruction inflicted on Ayn al-Assad military base – managed to avoid.

“Iran didn’t use any missiles in its silos to hit US targets at Ayn al-Assad. On the contrary, missiles were deployed overtly and prepared for launching two days before under the eyes of US satellites. Messages were flocking to Iran from diplomats asking to refrain from retaliating or at least to soften the response. All requests were turned down. Iran avoided surprising the US; had Iran wanted to surprise the US, missiles would have been launched from its silos with no warning. It was a direct challenge to US hegemony. Moreover, Iran informed the US that the hit was coming, further challenging President Trump and his military apparatus in the Middle East by showing that Iran is not afraid of the consequences”, said the source.

Iran sent its drones over Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and other nearby countries in daylight over US bases. It was a signal that Tehran was prepared for war and an indication of some of the Iranian bank of objectives. The Iranian leadership was ready to go to the point of a no-return if necessary.

No one in Iran accepts to give up the missile programme that has become the pride of the Iranian people and its armed forces. When the US bombed hundreds of Russian contractors in Syria, Deir-Ezzour, who were crossing the Euphrates river to chase ISIS remnants, Russia decided not to respond. No country or army in the Middle East ever challenged the US, notably when the US deployed tens of thousands of troops and effective equipment in the Middle East. Only Iran has directly challenged US hegemony and military power.

The “Axis of Resistance” confirmed the balance of fear and imposed a deterrence policy on the US in the Middle East. Iran overtly challenged the US and declared its responsibility with no fear of the consequences. So far, the US has confirmed at least 64 casualties suffered; some time ago Iran announced that “US casualties were not less than 80.”

President Trump thought he was living a historical moment in his life where he could do anything he wants with no fear of consequences. He believed no country in the world would dare to challenge him. He also advised that Iraq was divided, that no government could contest violation of its sovereignty, and that Iran is no longer tolerated in Mesopotamia. He was most likely informed that the burning of two Iranian consulates was enough to kick Iran out of Iraq. Perhaps he imagined that assassinating Sardar Qassem Soleimani would go unpunished, and he bragged about killing “two for the price of one.” He and his warmonger team also wrongly believed – and I guess still find – that his “maximum pressure” and harsh sanctions would bring Iran onto its knees begging him for mercy. He said he would be waiting by the phone for Iran to call, proving his ignorance of Iran, its mentality, culture, patience, harshness and pride.

The magic turned against the magician and Trump gave Iran a massive gift by allowing it to bomb his army and challenge him face to face. Trump was afraid to announce the number of casualties in the first week. The Pentagon is now releasing a part of the reality every week. The US, not Iran, has shown fear.

“All US military bases have become a threat to the hosting countries in the Middle East. These bases no longer serve to protect these countries but have become perfect targets for Iran in case of war. They provide an overwhelming list of targets for Iran. No place will be safe for US forces in the Middle East if red-lines are crossed, as happened with the assassination of Sardar Soleimani,” said the source.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

“Seventy-five years after the liberation of this place by the Red Army, we should all make this sacred commitment to never forget what happened here. And let us never forget that hatred, discrimination, intolerance have no place in our democracy” – Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, 27 Jan 2020, at Auschwitz 75th Liberation event, Ekathimerini 27/1/20

Just what does your sacred commitment to never forget “that hatred, discrimination, intolerance have no place in our democracy” mean? Your government has recently removed access to public health care to all new refugee arrivals; you are in the process of building new closed camps on Samos, Lesbos and Chios; you are planning to deport 10,000 people this year; you have done nothing to improve the physical conditions in the Hot Spots; you continue to hold refugees including children in police cells that have been continually and extensively denounced as inhumane; and you are sanctioning a significant militarisation of the seas around the border islands in conjunction with the EU. Did none of this come to mind as you wandered around Auschwitz? Surely your plans for the closed camps with their deliberate bleak design behind the razor wire fences in remote and barren locations which will also contain an even more secure detention area for holding those for deportation shadowed your mind, albeit briefly.

Hatred, discrimination and intolerance all feature centrally in the management of refugees struggling to find a future for themselves in Europe. This indeed is the central message of all the major refugee support groups in Greece which have universally condemned this government’s International Protection Act which came into force in January 2020. This legislation marks a significant hardening of the procedures and practices governing asylum seekers making it to Greece. As far as the refugees are concerned there is nothing positive in the legislation. “This new law expands grounds to detain asylum seekers, increases bureaucratic hurdles to make appeals, and removes previous protections for vulnerable individuals who arrive to the Greek islands. Specifically, all individuals that arrive from Turkey are now prohibited from leaving the islands until their applications are processed, unless geographic restrictions are lifted at the discretion of the authorities. These changes ultimately will lead to an increased population of asylum seekers trapped in Lesvos, [and all the frontier islands including Samos] and an increasing number of people trapped here who have had their asylum claims rejected and face deportation to Turkey” (Legal Centre Lesvos, 22 Jan 2020)

Many of the new procedures increase the need for asylum seekers to have adequate legal support but in the almost total absence of state funded lawyers on the frontier islands there is no chance of this happening. “Under the new law, asylum seekers in the islands’ hot spots have only five days to appeal a first negative decision, within which time they also have to find a lawyer and submit the precise grounds and reasons for this appeal in a memorandum in Greek. Given that there is only one state-appointed lawyer working in Lesvos [and Samos is no different) and that there are not sufficient NGO lawyers available to represent people for appeals, having a memorandum in Greek within five days, will be practically impossible for the vast majority of people seeking asylum” No Rights Zone, p7). Making it even worse are the actual realities of the hot spots where hundreds of desperate people try to access the Asylum Office every day and fail. The Lesvos legal centre gave one example this month of a family with 2 young children who tried for five days to get through the door of the Asylum Office in Moira Camp and only succeeded through a chance meeting with a lawyer. Under the new law failure to turn up for an appointment promises dire consequences including the presumption that their non attendance indicates that they are no longer seeking to continue with their asylum application. An application, which for many refugees has now been significantly further undermined by the Act’s identification of 12 ‘safe’ countries. As all the critics have pointed out the safe country designation will inevitably lead to many asylum rejections as the system now assumes that people from these countries are not deemed to be in need of international protection. In a September 2019 Press Release the Ministry of Citizen Protection argued that ‘the refugee issue –of Syrians and Iraqis –has shifted to a migration issue of Afghans and sub-Saharans’, implying that nationals from these countries cannot have valid asylum claims in an attempt to justify laws that violate international standards and safeguards. “ This assumption is inappropriate since irrespective of the country of origin, international law requires an independent assessment of each individual claim. It is also not supported by the facts: Afghanistan is still a top ‘refugee producing country’ according to UNHCR, with a recognition rate in Greece of over 70 percent during the first ten months of 2019” (No Rights Zone Dec 2019,p.7).

Neither is it re-assuring that the new Act now allows police and army personnel to conduct these first interviews. And to cap that further, the Government has made it a priority to achieve 10,000 deportations to Turkey in 2020. As the Greek Council for Refugees noted in its condemnation of the legislation:

“the Greek State, instead of planning a policy to solve the real problems of the Greek asylum and reception system ……. chooses to handle the existing crisis with regulations that reduce fundamental guarantees of the asylum and reception system and are unilaterally directed towards the increase of returns.” (See this)

In 2019, 74% of the refugees on the frontier islands were assessed as vulnerable. The majority of refugees now are young families. In addition, there are thousands of unaccompanied minors. So many of the refugees here are young; children, infants and teens, the lucky ones being with their parents. Even though the new legislation has been in force only for a few weeks it is clear from what our friends in the camp and elsewhere are telling us that it is frightening them and making an intolerable situation worse. They see and experience all too clearly the shift towards increased harshness and abandonment. They tell us that in the past few weeks there has been a marked increase in stop and searches, especially by plains clothes police. If your papers are not in order you are arrested and detained. They also tell us that more and more people now are getting rejections. Many of the African refugees are now more frightened that they are going to be deported. Last night I was on the phone with a Somalian friend  now in Thessaloniki who told me that he had just heard from Samos where a fellow Somalian who was initially rejected in December 2017 and then appealed, has just been told that his appeal was unsuccessful and that he will be deported. Cruel. There are no other words.

Back on Samos

In the meantime the Greek frontier islands have seen a spate of mobilisations over the past two weeks protesting especially the government’s decision to build new, large, closed hot spots on Chios, Samos and Lesbos and turning the open camps currently on Leros and Kos into closed camps. The protests have been driven largely by the Mayors of Lesbos, Chios and Samos town, all of whom are New Democracy, as is the government. This has been reflected in the attention and time currently accorded the mayors by the Athens government with relevant ministers now regularly coming to the islands in an attempt to appease the mayors. But all the mayors are getting is soothing words and expressions of concern at the ‘undoubted strains’ facing the islanders. In so many ways it is little more than theatre for the mayors must know that EU/Turkey pact of 2016 is sacrosanct and cannot be threatened. It is this agreement which determines the necessity for the camps on the frontier islands. Turkey will only accept deportations from the islands and not the mainland. Consequently there is no chance to deliver on the mayors’ demands that no new closed camps be built and that all refugees be removed leaving only a much smaller operation focused on rapidly transiting new refugee arrivals to the mainland.

Instead, what the government is promising for Samos and the other frontier islands is tighter control over the refugees through the closed camps alongside deepening the militarisation of the borders in an attempt to stop refugee arrivals. In the case of Samos this means the closure of the camp in Samos town and the building and opening of a bigger but closed camp in the middle of nowhere. Big money is being spent and committed and in the past three weeks the Samos media has reported on the order of 15 high speed patrol boats and the tender for a floating plastic barrier of around 2.5 kms length to be trialled in the sea around Lesvos with a view to similar installations to follow in Chios and Samos. According to Nikos Panagiatopoulis, minister of defence, “We will see what deterrent effect this [fence] will have when it is put into practice. But it will be a natural obstacle. If it works, as it did in Evros, I expect it will have some effect….We are trying to find solutions to somehow reduce the flow (Samos Voice 30 Jan 2020). This latest announcement has been widely derided as delusional as “even a child knows you can’t build a fence out in the sea!”. For many on the island it is all too reminiscent of the Zeppelin which was launched with such a fanfare barely a year ago. This too was to be a significant weapon in reducing arrivals. It didn’t. It has gone. But unlike its arrival it departed in silence.

Much of what is now being implemented with the new legislation and being proposed with respect to the use of extensive detention, deportations without due process and the stopping of refugee arrivals is of dubious legality with respect to international law and conventions concerning refugees and asylum seekers. There will be resistance especially in the law courts as so many fundamental principles concerning rights to international protection are under threat. Implementation will almost certainly have to be modified and held back. Combined with the proven incompetence of the Greek state authorities and agencies and sheer lack of capacity to implement the proposals promises chaos with refugees bearing the consequences. For example, “the latest report of the European Court of Auditors highlighted that ‘accelerated procedures’ implemented in Greece have become lengthier and the time between the registration of the asylum seeker and the first asylum decision increased from 236 days in 2016 (7-8 months) to 363 days (nearly a full year) in 2018 “(No Rights Zone, 2019, p.7) In Lesvos earlier this month the introduction of the policy to make refugees renew their papers every 2 weeks as against 4 weeks had to be abandoned simply because they were overwhelmed.

Not surprisingly then there is much scepticism on Samos as to what might happen. Even though the new camp is being built now many refugees and activists here don’t think it will open. Despite notices in the camp posted this past Monday informing that all refugees would be moved, including families and minors in rental accommodation by April 2020, the scepticism remains. The day to day evidence of the relentless neglect of the authorities is overwhelming. And, like the islanders, they no longer believe the promises of government action because they too experience the sheer lack of both numbers and ability across the spectrum from lawyers to social workers; from asylum officers to doctors and translators to make any of the proposals work. It is a long list. But then as one young woman from Kuwait told me the other day, “What can I expect from a government which can’t even provide us with a toilet?”

(It is 7am on Saturday 1st Feb 2020 and I can see from my room a cargo vessel heading towards Samos harbour full of accommodation containers for the new closed camp. As much as the scepticism over the opening of a new camp is understandable, it would be mistaken not to see that at this point in time there is a much greater sense of urgency and determination in the actions of the Greek government to shift towards even more repressive refugee policies and practices. But will it last?)

Sadly intelligence has not been a notable characteristic of the main public refugee debates on Samos. At this moment we have ranting mayors most notably exemplified by the mayor of Vathi who takes every opportunity to be televised telling the Greek people how awful life is on Samos for the people because of the refugees. It seems that their culture, language and identity are in dire danger. Sadly too many nod their heads even though there is not the slightest danger of this happening but on an island that has and continues to suffer from a collapsed economy and its associated emaciated and inadequate public services, the refugees offer a convenient scapegoat.

Samos mayor George Stantzos ranting at refugees in the central square of Samos town, December 2019

A simple walk through Samos town made vibrant with the presence of young people and children is all that is needed to cut through the mayor’s distortions. It is a walk that makes you think about how a small town like Vathi has come to live alongside up to 7,000 refugees when until recently it was rare ever to see a black or Arab person in the town. It is a walk where you see many smiles. It is a walk where you don’t feel afraid or fearful. Just yesterday I was with a small crowd of local people who were watching 2 young boys, one from the Congo and the other from Syria playing marbles outside the refugee shop, Open Doors. Marbles was once a popular children’s game here it seems as much of the chatter was about how good it was to see the game being played again. Lots of laughter and just one more example from our daily lives here which expose the endless distortions of the mayor and his vociferous supporters.

Samos Town, December 2019

It is not fear but a deep shame that shadows this town. It is an island which saw many flee the Nazi invasion and who ended up living for years in refugee camps in Palestine and Egypt. It is an experience not yet forgotten in many families here. Many islanders understand that what is going on here is both wrong and cruel. And for us, the camp is the tumour of Samos and what makes this beautiful island a dark place. This is what needs to change.

*

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 Samos Chronicles.

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Deepening Cruelties and Delusions on the Greek Frontier Islands
  • Tags:

The Pentagon deployed a new, smaller nuclear warhead aboard the ballistic missile submarine USS Tennessee as it sailed into the Atlantic last month in the midst of the spiraling crisis with Iran. The weapon, known as the W76-2 warhead, has an explosive yield of roughly five kilotons, a third of the destructive power of the “Little Boy” bomb that claimed the lives of some 140,000 people in Hiroshima in 1945.

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) revealed the deployment this week, citing unnamed civilian and military figures. It stated that two of the 20 Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles onboard the USS Tennessee and other subs will be armed with the W76-2 warheads. Each missile can be loaded with as many as eight such warheads, capable of striking multiple targets.

The new weapon has been rolled out with remarkable speed. The Trump administration’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review called for the development of “a low-yield SLBM [submarine-launched ballistic missile] warhead to ensure a prompt response option that is able to penetrate adversary defenses” and close “an exploitable ‘gap’ in US regional deterrence capabilities.”

The pretext for the warhead’s deployment was the unsubstantiated claim that Russia is developing similar weapons and has adopted a doctrine of “escalate to de-escalate” or “escalate to win” by utilizing low-yield nuclear weapons, with the expectation that Washington would not retaliate with strategic warheads for fear of initiating an all out thermonuclear war. The Pentagon’s argument has been that a low-yield and rapid reaction ballistic missile is needed to “restore deterrence.”

The report by the FAS strongly suggests, however, that this alleged Russian doctrine is a pretext and that “it is much more likely that the new low-yield weapon is intended to facilitate first-use of nuclear weapons against North Korea or Iran.”

It points out that both the US National Security Strategy and the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) envision the use of nuclear weapons in response to “non-nuclear attacks, and large-scale conventional aggression,” and that the NPR explicitly stated that the W76-2 warhead was designed to “expand the range of credible US options for responding to nuclear or non-nuclear strategic attack.” Washington does not rule out a nuclear strike, including against non-nuclear armed countries like Iran.

The deployment of the USS Tennessee with its new “usable” nuclear warheads came at roughly the same time as President Donald Trump huddled with his top aides on December 29 at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, ordering the criminal drone missile assassination of Gen. Qassem Suleimani, one of Iran’s top officials. The drone killing was carried out at Baghdad’s international airport five days later.

In a report Thursday, NBC News, citing unnamed senior US officials, established that at the same meeting in Florida,

“Trump also authorized the bombing of Iranian ships, missile launchers and air defense systems… Technically, the military can now hit those targets without further presidential authorization, though in practice, it would consult with the White House before any such action.”

The report warned that

“the two sides remain in a dangerous boxer’s clench, in which the smallest miscalculation, some officials believe, could lead to disaster.”

In other words, for all the talk of war having been averted following the act of war and war crime carried out by Washington in the murder of Suleimani, the reality is that the world remains on the knife’s edge of a catastrophic military confrontation, which could rapidly escalate into the first use of nuclear weapons in three-quarters of a century.

The threat against Iran is part of a far broader buildup to global war through which US imperialism is seeking to offset the erosion of its previously hegemonic domination of the global economy by resorting to the criminal use of overwhelming military force.

After securing a $738 billion military budget for 2020 with the support of an overwhelming majority—Democratic and Republican alike—in the US Congress, the Trump administration is now preparing to push through a 20 percent increase in the budget for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the agency overseeing the buildup of the US nuclear arsenal. This $20 billion budget proposal, made public this week, represents only a fraction of the more than $1 trillion the US is projected to spend on “modernizing” the arsenal over the next three decades—plans that were set into motion under the Democratic administration of Barack Obama, before Trump took office.

Trump is a war criminal. His threats to carry out the “obliteration” of Iran and to rain “fire and fury” upon North Korea are not merely hyperbole. The “usable” nuclear weapons to commit such atrocities have already been placed in his hands.

As the Senate impeachment trial of the US president limps to an ignominious close, it is striking that Trump’s greatest crimes, including acts of war and his threat to drag the world into a nuclear war, feature in no way in the charges against him. On the contrary, the articles of impeachment center on allegations that he withheld lethal military aid to Ukraine and has been insufficiently aggressive in confronting Russia.

This charge is made, as Newsweek pointed out this week, after the Pentagon staged an unprecedented 93 separate military exercises between May and the end of September of last year, all of them simulating or preparing for war against Russia. This includes practice bombing runs less than 500 miles from the Russian border and the steady build-up of ground forces in the three Baltic states and Poland, together with escalating US air deployments described as “bomber assurance” and “theater security” programs.

The drive to war has its source not in the diseased mind of Donald Trump, but rather in the insoluble crisis of global capitalism. There exists no antiwar faction within the US ruling class, including its Democratic representatives, only tactical differences over how US imperialist interests should best be pursued on the global arena.

The struggle against a new imperialist world war and the threat it poses to the survival of humanity can be based only upon the struggles of the working class, which is engaged in a wave of strikes and social upheavals across the planet. These emerging mass struggles must be armed with a socialist and internationalist program to unify workers in the common fight to put an end to the source of war and social inequality, the capitalist system.

*

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: First launch of a Trident missile on January 18, 1977 at Cape Canaveral, Florida [Credit: U.S. Navy file photo]


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

WWIII Scenario

Thousands of Palestinians held numerous demonstrations on the first Friday following the announcement of the so-called “Deal of the Century” promoted by the U.S. President Donald Trump.

From Gaza to the West Bank, people protested energetically against what they called “an apartheid proposal” that will not resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the streets of Aman, the capital of Jordan, the “Deal of the Century Disaster” also generated vehement protests in front of the U.S. embassy, ​​where protesters said Palestine is a religious and historical heritage, which cannot be canceled by agreements among politicians.

In Sanaa, the capital of Yemen, thousands of outraged people took to the streets to denounce that some Arab countries collaborated with the United States and Israel in the elaboration of a plan aimed at depriving Palestinians of their fundamental rights.

Through its “peace proposal”, the U.S. expects other countries to recognize Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, all of which are illegal under international law.

Also, Trump’s idea seeks to prevent the return of Palestinian refugees to currently occupied territories.​​​​​​​

On Friday, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan whipped some Arab countries for keeping silent about the supposed “Peace plan” and said they betray their own people and all humanity.

“Saudi Arabia is silent. When will you make your voice heard? Oman, Bahrain, same. The Abu Dhabi government applauds. Shame!Shame!,” he said and asked the Christian world to confront the U.S. plan because “Christians are also entitled to Jerusalem.”

The proposal to leave this holy city “to the bloody clutches of Israel is not just oppression for Muslims and Christians who live there. It is also the greatest evil that can be done to humankind. ”

On Wednesday, Erdogan said that Trump’s plan will not serve for peace. Besides legitimizing the Israeli occupation, it does not take into account the rights of the Palestinian population.​​​​​​​

The United Nations, together with other international organizations and a significant number of countries, consider East Jerusalem occupied Palestinian territory.

In Dec. 2017, the United Nations General Assembly rejected the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Previously, on Aug. 20, 1980, the UN Security Council condemned the attempted annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel, for it was a violation of international law.

Historically, Palestine has aspired to have its capital in East Jerusalem. According to the current US proposal, however, such capital would be located only in a part of East Jerusalem, which would be in the area east and north of the current security barrier.​​​​​​

*

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: Palestinian take cover as Israeli forces fire at protesters at the Gaza border on 14 December 2018 [Mohammed Asad/Middle East Monitor]

James Clad, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia, remembers the exact moment, back in 2001, when he learned that the U.S. had invaded Afghanistan. As chance would have it, he was in a meeting with a dozen or so South Asia experts at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“It was in early October of 2001,” he recalls, “and word came that U.S. warplanes had attacked three Afghan cities. Well, you could have heard a pin drop. I looked around the room and everyone was studying their shoes. And I thought, ‘well, this isn’t going to work.’ And we all knew it. All of us. This was going to be a morass.”

Clad wasn’t alone in his thinking. In the wake of the December 9 publication of the Afghanistan Papers in the Washington Post, retired CIA officer Robert Grenier, who ran covert operations in support of the 2001 U.S. intervention, reflected on the papers’ key finding – that U.S. officials lied about the 18-year campaign, hiding “unmistakable evidence” that the Afghan war had become unwinnable.

“Frankly, it strikes me as weird that people should only be waking up to this now,” he told me. “The Washington Post series doesn’t convey anything which those who’ve been watching with even moderate attention should long since have understood.”

Which may be why the papers, comprising some 2000-plus pages of interviews with generals, diplomats, aid workers and Afghan officials conducted by SIGAR, the Pentagon’s Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, landed with a thud – “a bombshell that has yet to explode,” as one commenter described it. For good reason: celebrated as a second Pentagon Papers (the 1971 documents that bared the lies of the Vietnam War) the Afghanistan revelations didn’t actually reveal anything that foreign policy officials, or the American people, didn’t already know: that the U.S. was not winning and could not win in Afghanistan, that senior U.S. diplomats and U.S. military commanders knew this soon after the 2001 intervention, that the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to build a responsive Afghan government was squandered, misspent, diverted or stolen, and that officials consistently misled the American people about the prospects for victory in the war – promoting optimistic assessments in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

“In news conferences and other public appearances,” the Post report noted, “those in charge of the war have followed the same talking points for 18 years. No matter how the war is going – and especially when it is going badly – they emphasized how they are making progress.”

Among the most outspoken critics quoted by the papers is retired Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, who served as the Afghan war czar during the Bush and Obama years.

“We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan – we didn’t know what we were doing,” Lute told SIGAR officials in an oft-quoted judgment. “What are we trying to do here? We didn’t have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking.”

In truth, the big “reveal” of the Afghanistan Papers came after their release, when most of official Washington reacted to their publication with a collective shrug. Despite this, though not surprisingly, while the State Department and White House remained silent on the revelations, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley rejected the claim that officials had purposely misled the public about the war.

“I know there’s an assertion out there of some sort of coordinated lie over the course of 18 years,” Milley told reporters. “I find that a bit of a stretch. More than a bit of a stretch, I find that a mischaracterization.”

Optimistic reports on the war in Afghanistan, he argued, were “honest assessments” that were “never intended to deceive the Congress or the American people.” While Milley’s response was unusually strident, it was not a surprise for most Pentagon reporters, many of whom knew that senior military officers and Pentagon policy makers were carefully studying proposals that would keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan for at least the next five years – if not longer.

Among these is a paper authored by Michael O’Hanlon, the high profile Foreign Policy Director of Research at the influential Brookings Institution. Entitled “5,000 Troops for 5 Years,” O’Hanlon’s offering was previewed in an op-ed in The Hill in late October, presented formally by Brookings officials on the same day as the Post published the Afghanistan Papers, then circulated to a wider audience in an O’Hanlon-authored op-ed in USA Today on January 3. O’Hanlon provides a less outspoken critique of the Post story than Milley (calling it “badly misleading” and arguing that U.S. officials “have been consistently and publicly realistic about the difficulty of making progress” in the war), while acknowledging the “limits of the possible” in a “beleaguered and weak country.” Even so, O’Hanlon says in taking issue with the Post report, the Afghanistan mission “has not been an abject failure” because, as he argues, the Afghan government  “continues to hold all major and midsize cities” and the U.S. has “not again been attacked by a group that plotted or organized its aggression from within Afghan borders.”

O’Hanlon concedes that while these are modest accomplishments, they are sustainable “at a far lower cost in blood and treasure than before.” Here then, is O’Hanlon’s payoff: “The United States needs a policy that recognizes Afghanistan for what it is – a significant, but not a top-tier, U.S. strategic interest – and builds a plan accordingly. That overall strategy should still seek peace, but its modest military element should be steady and stable, and not set to a calendar. Roughly 5,000 troops for at least five years could be the crude mantra.”

O’Hanlon’s proposal has gained traction among a number of senior military officers who are frustrated with a war that drains military assets and erodes readiness, but who are loathe to concede Afghanistan to the Taliban – an outcome they believe is certain to follow a full U.S. withdrawal. Then too, O’Hanlon confirms, his proposal reflects the thinking of a large swath of Washington’s foreign policy community. “I think I am codifying and encapsulating and distilling the wisdom of a lot of people here, with a couple of my own twists,” he told me in response to a series of questions I posed to him in an email exchange. “I think the chances of something like this [being adopted] are therefore pretty good.”

Indeed, the O’Hanlon proposal seems to have something for everyone: it foregoes the large nation building expenditures that have characterized the U.S. intervention ($7 billion to $8 billion each year – “not trivial, but only 1 percent of the defense budget”), it maintains enough military capacity to check the growth of ISIS or al-Qaeda (the U.S. would maintain “two or three major airfields and hubs of operations” in the country), it allows time for the U.S. to put in place a more effective Afghan military presence (O’Hanlon provides five specific recommendations on how this can be done), it signals the Taliban that the U.S. will not leave the country out of frustration (that they cannot simply “stall for time”), and perhaps most crucially, it gelds the controversy surrounding the conflict by taking it out of public view: “By laying out a plan designed to last for several years,” O’Hanlon writes, “Washington would be avoiding the drama and the huge consumption of policy bandwidth associated with annual Afghanistan policy reviews that have typified the late Obama and early Trump years.” Which is to say:

maintaining a presence in Afghanistan at 5,000 troops (“I’d rather see 5,000 as a rough goal not a formal or legislated ceiling or floor,” O’Hanlon says) over an extended period takes the war off the nation’s front pages – it regularizes the U.S. deployment at an acceptable cost (that’s what sustainable means) and it makes the war in Afghanistan publicly palatable.

If any of this sounds familiar, it’s because it is. “5,000 Troops for 5 Years” seemingly institutionalizes what then-Afghan commander General David Petraeus called “Afghanistan Good Enough” in August of 2010: “This isn’t to say that there’s any kind of objective of turning Afghanistan into Switzerland in three to five years or less,” he said at the time. “Afghan good enough is good enough.” At the time, any number of pundits predicted that the Petraeus statement would come back to haunt him, but his mantra has been adopted by senior military officers who cite the O’Hanlon paper as a means of, if not exactly winning the Afghanistan war, at least not losing it – if victory isn’t possible, they argue, then “good enough” is next best. Or, as one senior military officer told me, the O’Hanlon proposal recasts the political calculus of Vermont Senator George Aiken on Vietnam, who said that the U.S. should “declare victory and get out.” In this case, the officer said, O’Hanlon is proposing that “the U.S. declare a stalemate and stay in.”     

The O’Hanlon proposal details what has been quietly talked about in military circles for the last decade, but was given credence in a monograph written by retired Army Colonel David Johnson (“Doing What You Know”) published in 2017. Johnson, whose paper circulated widely in Army circles, argues that “good enough” might well be the most appropriate model for fighting counter-insurgencies – a form of warfare that has traditionally been outside of the U.S. military’s “strategic culture.” In these conflicts, what Johnson calls a “least bad outcome” might be all that the U.S. military should expect. In Afghanistan, this means accepting limits to success. “In Afghanistan, what is good enough is a government that can successfully protect itself and take the fight to the Taliban with minimal U.S. support,” Johnson wrote. “Whether the Kabul government is corrupt or not representative is secondary to its ability to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a terrorist haven. That would be good enough.”

That this model might well be adopted in Afghanistan (and in Iraq), and in any of the other “grey zone” conflicts of the Middle East, is no longer at issue. The model is already in place, while O’Hanlon’s 5000 Troops for 5 Years is fast becoming a reality. But the adoption of the program has come at a price – in  Afghan lives. While the U.S. has continued to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, it has escalated its air campaign against the Taliban (U.S. aircraft dropped 7423 bombs on Afghanistan in 2019 – more than any other year), thereby embracing a strategy that allows U.S. deployments to remain in place, but without the consequent escalation in U.S. casualties. (“More U.S. troops die in training accidents than in Afghanistan so, you know, there’s that,” a senior military officer told me.) Meanwhile, Afghan civilian casualties have spiked, reaching  unprecedented levels in the period of July to September of 2019. That trend is likely to continue.

And so, the results of the Washington Post’s publication of the Afghanistan Papers “bombshell” in December have now come sharply into focus: Afghanistan is off the nation’s front pages, American casualties are “sustainable,” the war continues – and, ironically, the chances for ending it are now even more remote than before the Post published its revelations.

*

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: U.S. Army Sgt. Christian Cisineros takes a moment to speak with his interpreter March 17, 2009, while on a dismount patrol mission near Forward Operating Base Baylough in the Zabul Province of Afghanistan. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Adam Mancini/Released)

The heat absorbed in Earth’s oceans reached a new record in 2019, found a recent study published in the journal Advances in Atmospheric Sciences. Despite the fact that this has been the case for almost every year over the past decade, this information dominated the news cycle, with some particularly viral headlines noting that the amount of energy accumulating in the oceans is equivalent to detonating five Hiroshima atomic bombs per second, every second over the past 25 years.

While stunning, this isn’t a new analogy. After we published a paper about Earth’s energy accumulation in 2012, my colleagues and I at Skeptical Science created a website called 4Hiroshimas.com that provided a widget that websites can include on their homepages to illustrate the amount of heat accumulating on Earth as compared to the energy in the Hiroshima atomic bomb. The widget also uses other analogies to get the idea across, such as how the amount of heat accumulated compares to the energy in Hurricane Sandy, or 6.0 magnitude earthquakes, or Big Bens full of dynamite, or millions of lightning bolts. Improved ocean heat measurements have since revised the rate of warming upwards from four to five ‘Hiros’ per second. (For the record, as of the writing of this article, our climate has accumulated the equivalent of a total of more than 2.8 billion Hiroshima bombs’ worth of heat since 1998.)

Our team wasn’t the first to use this analogy. In 2010, oceanographer John Lyman compared the rate of ocean warming to atomic bombs, and James Hansen used the Hiroshima atomic bomb analogy in his February 2012 TED talk. One might say that the comparison has come under heat, however. Some criticize the analogy for exploiting or being insensitive to the horrors suffered by the people of Hiroshima. Others have complained that the analogy is imperfect, as all analogies are, by definition.

On the other hand, the use of Hiros has one major upside. Earth and especially its oceans have been accumulating such a vast amount of heat due to human-caused global warming that it’s difficult to comprehend. Most people have little if any sense what 10 zettajoules per year—the amount of heat energy absorbed per year by the Earth—means. That’s why climate communicators have searched for a metric of comparison that the public can grasp. It’s relatively easy to visualize five atomic bombs detonating every second, and consequently comprehend the vast amount of energy being absorbed by the Earth’s climate system.

For those who nevertheless object to the Hiros analogy, perhaps microwaves offer a more palatable comparison. The heat accumulating in Earth’s oceans over the past 25 years is also equivalent to every person now on Earth running 35 standard household microwave ovens nonstop during Justin Bieber’s entire lifetime.

Critically, the rate of global heating is also accelerating. During the prior 25 years (1968–1992), the oceans only warmed at a rate equivalent to one Hiroshima bomb detonation per second, or 7.7 billion people each running 10 microwaves nonstop during that quarter-century period.

The good news: the rate at which we’ve been adding heat to Earth’s climate hasn’t changed much over the past two decades. The bad news: to avoid a potential climate catastrophe, global heating needs to begin declining soon and rapidly, which will require international implementation of numerous ambitious climate policies.

So far, many governments appear more inclined to keep increasing fossil fuel extraction than taking the necessary steps to slow global heating. Political leaders in many countries can implement these destructive policies without fear of losing power because too few people grasp the urgency of the climate crisis. Perhaps visualizing global heating as five atomic bomb detonations per second will help convey that sense of urgency to more 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.

Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist, and author of Climatology versus Pseudoscience.

Featured image: ong-exposure photo of the first atomic bomb test, code-named Trinity, and taken at 5:29:45 a.m. on July 16, 1945.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Earth Is Heating at a Rate Equivalent to Five Atomic Bombs Per Second. Or Two Hurricane Sandys.
  • Tags: ,

The already existing tensions in the Black Sea region have heightened because of the Defender-Europe 2020 exercises, which include ten participating states, including the Black Sea state of Romania. Through these U.S.-led exercises, that are mostly aimed against Russia’s Kaliningrad enclave in the Baltics , the U.S.-made MQ-9 Reaper reconnaissance and assault drones, made infamous for being used in the assassination of Iranian Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani earlier this month, were deployed in Romania. 

The presence of the Pentagon’s and CIA’s strategic squadron on the Black Sea and close to Russia does not contribute in any way to maintaining regional security, and rather these offensive weapons that were used in the assassination of high-ranking officials of enemy countries, aims to pressurize Russia further. The deployment of such drones in Romania shows that the former Warsaw Pact country is willingly going beyond its NATO responsibilities by becoming a critical staging point for anti-Russian pressure.

Moscow has mentioned on several occasions that it would consider these assault drones to be the equivalent of medium-range missiles, banned by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Despite this warning, it had done little to influence the decision of Warsaw to permanently host the drones at the Mirosławiec airbase in western Poland.

The Romanian airbase Câmpia Turzii is the host of these offensive weapons. Although in the event of a military conflict in the Black Sea region, Russian anti-aircraft and missile defense units could intercept and destroy unmanned targets, even those in take-off position, this move to host offensive U.S.-made weapons is part of a larger strategy to pressurize, isolate and contain Russia in the Black Sea. Romania is not the only anti-Russian state on the Black Sea – Bulgaria and Turkey are also NATO members, and Ukraine and Georgia are weaponized states with aspirations of joining NATO. The U.S. are effectively leading efforts for a coalition against Russia in the Black Sea, even though it is unlikely that these states have the combined power to challenge Russian naval and aerial dominance in the region.

The U.S. Air Force Command in Europe announced that the MQ-9 Reaper drones will be relocated to Romania until spring to support a series of operations, gathering information, monitoring and air reconnaissance in the Black Sea area. These drones can fly a distance of 6,000 kilometers, a distance that can comfortably cover Moscow, St. Petersburg and even the western fringes of Siberia. This is a dangerous prospect for Russia considering that these drones are capable of not only carrying out assassinations, but can also carry a nuclear warhead. The drones have been used to deadly effect in Iraq and Afghanistan where it has begun replacing piloted F-16 and A-10 flights by the U.S. air force.

The Pentagon has invested $3 million in the construction on a hangar and other sites in Romania for the deadly drones. These facts confirm the existence of long-term plans to use the Câmpia Turzii air base as an aerodrome for sending American drones to strategic targets in Eastern Europe when need be, all with the aim of pressuring Russia.

The Defender-Europe 2020 exercises primarily aims to put pressure on Kaliningrad, but the deployment of these drones has now demonstrated that it is a multipronged exercise against Russia that has expanded the focus of operations. Effectively the Defender-Europe 2020 exercises stretches from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, in a show of force to demonstrate to Russia that any war with NATO will be conducted across two seas and the entirety of its European land border with the exception of perhaps Finland.

This move to turn Romania into a U.S. drone base against Russia has wider aspirations for some leading thinkers in Washington. Moldova, a neighobring Romanian-speaking country, has been identified by the highly influential RAND think tank to become another U.S. military hub on the Black Sea. This identification of Moldova also comes as the U.S. military base network is expanding in Romania with the arrival of 500 U.S. servicemen in order to strengthen the Kogâlniceanu air base. Chisinau has cooperated with NATO allies and partner states for several years through the Partnership for Peace and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. Moldova also bought weapons in 2018 in accordance to the Alliance’s standards. However, the Moldovan Constitution ensures that the country is a neutral state, and according to the polls, the majority of the population is against NATO membership. Although RAND has identified Moldova to become a hub for the U.S. military, this will unlikely occur, essentially meaning Washington’s policymakers are concentrating on further militarizing Romania against Russia.

Although Romania is consolidating its position in the anti-Russian bloc, the drones do cause a matter of concern, but perhaps not seriously enough as Russia will have confidence in its own air defense capabilities, especially with the famed S-400 missile defense system. This still does not deter the fact that Romania is willingly becoming a hub for the U.S. military to oppose Russia.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Author’s Note

This is an updated and revised version of the full cover-story that appeared in the important publication, garrison: The Journal of History and Deep Politics, Issue 003. Issue 004 is due out this week and I urge readers to purchase it.  You will read articles there that you will find no place else, brilliant, eye-opening analyses of issues that the MSM will never touch.

***

 “It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.” – Harold Pinter’s Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, 2005

While truth-tellers Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning sit inside jail cells and Edward Snowden lives in exile in Russia, the American people hole up in an illusionary dwelling constructed to reduce them to children afraid of the truth. Or is it the dark?  This is not new; it has been so for a very long time, but it has become a more sophisticated haunted doll’s house, an electronic one with many bells and whistles and images that move faster than the eye can see. We now inhabit a digital technological nightmare controlled by government and corporate forces intent on dominating every aspect of people’s lives. This is true despite the valiant efforts of dissidents to use the technology for human liberation. The old wooden doll houses, where you needed small fingers to rearrange the furniture, now only need thumbs that can click you into your cell’s fantasy world.  So many dwell there in the fabricated reality otherwise known as propaganda.  The result is mass hallucination.

In a 1969 interview, Jim Garrison, the District Attorney of New Orleans and the only person to ever bring to trial a case involving the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, said that as a result of the CIA’s murderous coup d’état on behalf of the military-industrial-financial-media-intelligence complex that rules the country to this day, the American people have been subjected to a fabricated reality that has rendered them a nation of passive Eichmanns, who sit in their living rooms, popping pills and watching television as their country’s military machine mows down people by the millions and the announcers tell them all the things they should be afraid of, such as bacteria on cutting boards and Russian spies infiltrating their hair salons. Garrison said:

The creation of such inanities as acceptable reality and unacceptable reality is necessary for the self-preservation of the super-state against its greatest danger: understanding on the part of the people as to what is really happening.  All factors which contribute to its burgeoning power are exaggerated. All factors which might reveal its corrosive effect on the nation are concealed.  The result is to place the populace in the position of persons living in a house whose windows no longer reveal the outside but on which murals have been painted.  Some of the murals are frightening and have the effect of reminding the occupants of the outside menaces against which the paternal war machine is protecting them. Other murals are pleasant to remind them how nice things are inside the house.

But to live like this is to live in a doll’s house. If life has one lesson to teach us, it is that to live in illusion is ultimately disastrous.

In the doll’s house into which America gradually has been converted, a great many of our basic assumptions are totally illusory. [i]

Fifty years have disappeared behind us since the eloquent and courageous Garrison (read On the Trail of the Assassins) metaphorically voiced the truth, despite the CIA’s persistent efforts to paint him as an unhinged lunatic through its media mouthpieces.  These days they would probably just lock him up or send him fleeing across borders, as with Assange, Manning, and Snowden.

It is stunning to take a cue from his comment regarding the JFK assassination, when he suggested that one reverse the lone assassin scenario and place it in the U.S.S.R.  No American could possibly believe a tale that a former Russian soldier, trained in English and having served at a top Soviet secret military base, who had defected to the U.S. and then returned home with the help of the K.G.B., could kill the Russian Premier with a defective and shoddy rifle and then be shot to death in police headquarters in Moscow by a K.G.B. connected hit man so there would be no trial and the K.G.B. would go scot free.  That would be a howler!  So too, of course, are the Warren Commission’s fictions about Oswald.

Snowden, Assange, and Manning

If we then update this mental exercise and imagine that Snowden, Assange, and Manning were all Russian, and that they released information about Russian war crimes, political corruption,  and a system of total electronic surveillance of the Russian population, and were then jailed or sent fleeing into exile as a result, who in the U.S., liberal, libertarian or conservative, would possibly believe the Russian government’s accusations that these three were criminals.

Nevertheless, Barack Obama, the transparency president, made sure to treat them as such, all the while parading as a “liberal” concerned for freedom of speech and the First Amendment.  He made sure that Snowden and Manning were charged under the Espionage Act of 1917, and that Assange was corralled via false Swedish sex charges so he had to seek asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London (a form of jail).  He brought Espionage Act prosecutions against eight people, more than all former presidents combined.   He hypocritically pardoned Manning on his way out the door as if this would polish his deluded liberal legacy after making her suffer terribly through seven years of imprisonment.  He set the stage for Trump to re-jail Manning to try to get this most courageous woman to testify against Assange, which she will not do, and for the collaborationist British government to jail Assange in preparation for his extradition to the United States and a show trial.  As for Snowden, he has been relegated to invisibility, good for news headlines once and for a movie, but now gone and forgotten.

Obama and Trump, arch political “enemies,” have made sure that those who reveal the sordid acts of the American murderous state are cruelly punished and silenced.  This is how the system works, and for most Americans, it is not happening.  It doesn’t matter.  They don’t care, just as they don’t care that Obama backed the 2009 coup d’état in Honduras that has resulted in so many deaths at the hands of U.S trained killers, and then Trump ranted about all these “non-white” people fleeing to the U.S. to escape a hell created by the U.S., as it has been doing throughout Latin America for so long.  Who does care about the truth?  Has anyone even noticed how the corporate media has disappeared the “news” of all those desperate people clamoring to enter the U.S.A. from Mexico?  One day they were there and in the headlines; the next day, gone.  It’s called news.

The Sleepwalkers

But even though a majority of Americans have never believed the government’s explanation for JFK’s murder, they nevertheless have insouciantly gone to sleep for half a century in the doll’s house of illusions as the killing and the lies of their own government have increased over the years and any semblance of a democratic and peaceful America has gone extinct. The fates of courageous whistle-blowers Assange, Manning, and Snowden don’t concern them. The fates of Hondurans don’t concern them.  The fates of Syrians don’t concern them. The fates of Iraqis, Afghans, Yemenis, Palestinians don’t concern them. The fates of America’s victims all around the world don’t concern them.  Indifference reigns.

Obviously, if you are reading this, you are not one of the sleepwalkers and are awake to the parade of endless lies and illusions and do care. But you are in a minority.

That is not the case for most Americans.  When approximately 129 million people cast their votes for Donald Trump and HilIary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, you know idiocy reigns and nothing has been learned. Ditto for the votes for Obama, Bush, Clinton, et al.  You can keep counting back.  It is an ugly fact and sad to say.  Such a repetition compulsion is a sign of a deep sickness, and it will no doubt be repeated in the 2020 election.  The systemic illusion must be preserved at all costs and the warfare state supported in its killing.  It is the American way.

It is true that average Americans have not built the doll’s house; that is the handiwork of the vast interconnected and far-reaching propaganda arms of the U.S. government and their media accomplices.  But that does not render them innocent for accepting decades of fabricated reality for so-called peace of mind by believing that a totally corrupt system works.  The will to believe is very powerful, as is the propaganda.   The lesson that Garrison spoke of has been lost on far too many people, even on those who occasionally leave the doll house for a walk, but who only go slightly down the path for fear of seeing too much reality and connecting too many dots.  There is plain ignorance, then there is culpable ignorance, to which I shall return.

Denying Existential Freedom

One of the first things an authoritarian governing elite must do is to convince people that they are not free. This has been going on for at least forty years, ever since the Church Committee’s revelations about the CIA in the mid-seventies, including its mind-control program, MKULTRA.  Everyone was appalled at the epiphany, so a different tactic was added.  Say those programs have been ended when in fact they were continued under other even deeper secret programs, and just have “experts” – social, psychological, and biological “scientists” – repeat ad infinitum that there is no longer any mind control since we now know there is no mind; it is an illusion, and it all comes down to the brain.  Biology is destiny, except in culturally diversionary ways in which freedom to choose is extolled – e.g. the latest fashions, gender identity, the best hair style, etc.  Create and lavishly fund programs for the study of the brain, while supporting and promoting a vast expansion of pharmaceutical drugs to control people. Do this in the name of helping people with their emotional and behavioral problems that are rooted in their biology and are beyond their control.  And create criteria to convince people that they are sick and that their distress has nothing to do with the coup d’état that has rendered them “citizens” of a police state.

We have been interminably told that our lives revolve around our brains (our bodies) and that the answers to our problems lie with more brain research, drugs, genetic testing, etc. It is not coincidental that the U. S. government declared the 1990s the decade of brain research, followed up with 2000-2010 as the decade of the behavior project, and our present decade being devoted to mapping the brain and artificial intelligence, organized by the Office of Science and Technology Project and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). How convenient! George H. W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, Trump — what a difference! But this is science and the welfare of the world.  Science for idiots.

Drip by drip, here and there, in the pattern of the best propaganda, as the French sociologist Jacques Ellul says – “for propaganda is not the touch of the magic wand. It is based on slow, constant impregnation. It creates conviction and compliance through imperceptible influences that are effective only by continuous repetition”[ii]– articles, books, media reports have reiterated that people are “determined” by biological, genetic, social, and psychological forces over which they have no control. To assert that people are free in the Sartrean sense (en soir, condemned to freedom, or free will) has come to be seen as the belief of a delusional fool living in the past , a bad philosopher, an anti-scientist, a poorly informed religionist, one nostalgic for existential cafes, Gauloises, and black berets.  One who doesn’t grasp the truth since he doesn’t read the New York Times or watch CBS television. One who believes in nutty conspiracy theories.

The conventional propaganda – I almost said wisdom – created through decades-long media and academic repetition, is that we are not free.

Let me repeat: we are not free. We are not free.

Investigator reporter John Rappoport has consistently exposed the propaganda involved in the creation and expansion of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) with its pseudo-scientific falsehoods and collusion between psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry.  As he correctly notes, the CIA’s MKULTRA mind-control program has morphed into modern psychiatry, both with the same objectives of disabling and controlling people by convincing them that they are not free and are in need of a chemical brain bath.[iii]

Can anyone with an awareness of this history doubt there is a hidden hand behind this development? Once you have convinced people that they are not free in the most profound sense, the rest is child’s play. Convinced that they are puppets, they become puppets to be willingly jerked around.

“He played with me just as I used to play with dolls,” says Nora in Ibsen’s A Doll’s House.

Now who would want to get people to believe they were not free?  The answer is obvious given a minute of thought.  It is not just Nora’s husband Torvald.

Perfect examples of the persistence of the long-term, repetitive, impregnating propaganda appear in news headlines constantly.  Here is an egregious example concerning the little understood case of the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy.  On Friday, August 30, 2019, Sirhan, who has been in prison for fifty-two years for the murder of RFK that he did not commit, was stabbed by another prisoner. A quick click through the MSM headlines reporting this showed the same words repeated by all the corporate media as they fulfilled their function as CIA stenographers. One example, from CBS News, will suffice: “Robert Kennedy assassin hospitalized after prison stabbing.”[iv]  RFK assassin, RFK assassin, RFK assassin … all the media said the same thing, which they have been doing for fifty-two years. Their persistency endures despite all the facts that refute their disinformation and show that Senator Kennedy, who was on his way to becoming president, was murdered, like his brother John, by forces of the national security state. 

Sartre and Bad Faith

Lying and dissembling are ubiquitous.  Being deceived by the media liars is mirrored in people’s personal lives.  People lie and want to be deceived.  They choose to play dumb, to avoid a confrontation with truth.  They want to be nice (Latin, nescire, not to know, to be ignorant) and to be liked.  They want to tuck themselves into a safe social and cultural framework where they imagine they will be safe. They like the doll’s house. They choose to live in what Jean Paul Sartre called bad faith (mauvaise foi):  In Existential Psychoanalysis he put it thus:

In bad faith it is from myself that I am hiding the truth. But with this ‘lie’ to myself, the one to whom the lie is told and the one who lies are one and the same person, which means that I must know in my capacity as deceiver the truth which is hidden from me in my capacity as the one deceived.

Such bad faith allows people to fabricate a second act of bad faith: that they are not responsible for their ignorance of the truths behind the government’s and corporate media’s lies and propaganda, even as the shades of the prison house ominously close around us and the world edges toward global death that could arrive in an instant with nuclear war or limp along for years of increasing suffering.

Those of us who write about the U.S. led demented wars and provocations around the world and the complementary death of democracy at home are constantly flabbergasted and discouraged by the willed ignorance of so many Americans.  For while the mainstream media does the bidding of the power elite, there is ample alternative news and analyses available on the internet from fine journalists and writers committed to truth, not propaganda. There is actually far too much truth available, which poses another problem. But it doesn’t take a genius to learn how to research important issues and to learn how to distinguish between bogus and genuine information.  It takes a bit of effort, and, more importantly, the desire to compare multiple, opposing viewpoints and untangle the webs the Web weaves.  We are awash in information (and disinformation) and both good and bad reporting, but it is still available to the caring inquirer.

The problem is the will to know.  But why?  Why the refusal to investigate and question; why the indifference?  Stupidity?  Okay, there is that.  Ignorance? That too.  Willful ignorance, ditto.  Laziness, indeed. Careerism and ideology?  For certain.  Upton Sinclair put it mildly when he said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on not understanding it.”  Difficult?  No, it’s almost impossible.

But then there are many very intelligent people who have nothing to lose and yet adamantly refuse to entertain alternative possibilities to the reigning orthodoxies that have them in their grip.  As do many others, I know many such people who will yes me to death and then never fully research issues.  They will remain in limbo or else wink to themselves that what may be true couldn’t be true.  They close down.  This is a great dilemma and frustration faced by those who seek to convince people to take an active part in understanding what is really going on in the world today, especially as the United States wages war across the globe, threatens Russia, China, and Iran, among many others, and expands and modernizes its nuclear weapons capabilities.

As for Assange, Manning, and Snowden, their plight matters not a whit.  In fact, they have been rendered invisible inside the doll’s house, except as the murals on the windows flash back their images as threats to the occupants, Russian monsters out to eat them up.  As the great poet Constantine Cavafy wrote long ago in his poem “Waiting for the Barbarians” and they never come: “Now what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?  Those people were a kind of solution.”  Then again, for people like U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, who knows the Russian barbarians have and will come again, life must be terrifying as he tries so manfully to bar the gates.  The Russians have been the American solution in this fairy tale for so long that it’s hard for many Americans to believe another story.

The Two-Headed Monster

On the one hand, there is the massive propaganda apparatus operated by American intelligence agencies in conjunction with their media partners.

On the other, there is the human predilection for untruth and illusions, the sad need to be comforted and to submit to greater “authority,” gratefully to accept the myths proffered by one’s masters.  This tendency applies not just to the common people, but even more so to the intellectual classes, who act as though they are immune.  Erich Fromm, writing about Germans and Hitler, but by extension people everywhere, termed this the need to “escape from freedom,” since freedom conjures up fears of vertiginous aloneness and the need to decide, which in turn evokes the fear of death.[v]  There are also many kinds of little deaths that precede the final one: social, career, money, familiar, etc., that are used to keep people in the doll’s house.

Fifty years ago, the CIA coined the term “conspiracy theory” as a weapon to be used to dismiss the truths expressed by critics of its murder of President Kennedy, and those of Malcom X, MLK, and RFK.  All the media echoed the CIA line.  While they still use the term to dismiss and denounce, their control of the mainstream media is so complete today that every evil government action is immediately seconded, whether it be the lies about the attacks of September 11, 2001, the wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iran, etc., the coups disguised as color revolutions in Ukraine, Venezuela, Bolivia, Hong Kong, the downing of the Malaysian jetliner there, drone murders, the Iranian “threat,” the looting of the American people by the elites, alleged sarin gas attacks in Syria, the anti-Russia bashing and the Russia-gate farce, the “criminals” Assange, Manning, Snowden – everything.  The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, Fox News, the Washington Post, CNN, NPR, etc. – all are stenographers for the deep state.

So much of the ongoing propaganda travels under the banner of “the war on terror,” which is, of course, an outgrowth of the attacks of September 11, 2001, appropriately named and constantly reinforced as 9/11 in a wonderful example of linguistic mind-control: a constant emergency reminder to engender anxiety, depression, panic, and confusion, four of the symptoms that lead the DSM “experts” and their followers to diagnose and drug individuals.  The term 9/11 was first used in the New York Times on September 12, 2001 by Bill Keller, the future Times’ editor and Iraq war cheerleader.  Just a fortuitous coincidence, of course.

Jacques Ellul on Propaganda

Jacques Ellul has argued convincingly that modern propaganda in a technological mass society is more complicated than the state and media lying and deceiving the population.  He argues that propaganda meets certain needs of modern people and therefore the process of deceit is reciprocal.  The modern person feels lost, powerless, and empty. Ellul says, “He realizes that he depends on decisions over which he has no control, and that realization drives him to despair.”  But he can’t live in despair; desires that life be meaningful; and wants to feel he lives in a world that makes sense.  He wants to participate and have opinions that suggest he grasps the flow of events.  He doesn’t so much want information, but value judgments and preconceived positions that provide him with a framework for living.  Ellul wrote the following in 1965 in his classic book Propaganda:

The majority prefers expressing stupidities to not expressing any opinion: this gives them the feeling of participation. For they need simple thoughts, elementary explanations, a ‘key’ that will permit them to take a position, and even readymade opinions….The man who keeps himself informed needs a framework….the more complicated the problems are, the more simple the explanations must be; the more fragmented the canvas, the simpler the pattern; the more difficult the question, the more all-embracing the solution; the more menacing the reduction of his own worth, the greater the need for boosting his ego. All this propaganda – and only propaganda – can give him.[vi]

Another way of saying this is that people want to be provided with myths to direct them to the “truth.”  But such so-called truth has been preconceived within the overarching myth provided by propaganda, and while it satisfies people’s emotional need for coherence, it also allows them to think of themselves as free individuals arriving at their own conclusions, which is a basic function of good propaganda. In today’s mass technological society, it is essential that people be convinced that they are free-thinking individuals acting in good faith.  Then they can feel good about themselves as they lie and act in bad faith.

Culpable Ignorance

It is widely accepted that political leaders and the mass media lie and dissemble regularly, which, of course, they do. That is their job in an oligarchy.  Today we are subjected to almost total, unrelenting media and government propaganda. Depending on their political leanings, people direct their anger toward politicians of parties they oppose and media they believe slant their coverage to favor the opposition.  Trump is a liar.  No, Obama is a liar.  And Hillary Clinton.  No, Fox News. Ridiculous! – it’s CNN or NBC. And so on and so forth in this theater of the absurd that plays out within a megaplex of mainstream media propaganda, where there are many shows but one producer, whose overall aim is to engineer the consent of all who enter, while setting the different audiences against each other.  It is a very successful charade that evokes name-calling from all quarters.

In other words, for many people their opponents lie, as do other people, but not them. This is as true in personal as well as public life.  Here the personal and the political converge, despite protestations to the contrary. Dedication to truth is very rare.

But there is another issue with propaganda that complicates the picture further.  People of varying political persuasions can agree that propaganda is widespread.  Many people on the left, and some on the right, would agree with Lisa Pease’s statement in her book on the RFK assassination, A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, that “the way the CIA took over America in the 1960s is the story of our time.” [vii]  That is also what Garrison thought when he spoke of the doll’s house.

If that is so, then today’s propaganda is anchored in the events of the 1960s, specifically the infamous government assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, and RFK, the truth of which the CIA has worked so hard to conceal. In the fifty or so years since, a vast amount of new information has made it explicitly clear that these murders were carried out by elements within the U.S. government, and were done so to silence the voices of four charismatic leaders who were opposed to the American war machine and the continuation of the Cold War. To turn away from this truth and to ignore its implications can only be described as an act of bad faith and culpable ignorance, or worse.  But that is exactly what many prominent leftists have done. Then to compound the problem, they have done the same with the attacks of September 11, 2001.

One cannot help thinking of what the CIA official Cord Meyer called these people in the 1950s: “the compatible left.”  He felt that effective CIA propaganda, beside the need for fascist-minded types such as Allen Dulles and James Jesus Angleton, depended on “courting” leftists and liberal into its orbit. For so many of the compatible left, those making a lot of money posing as opponents of the ruling elites but often taking the money of the super-rich, the JFK assassination and the truth of September 11, 2001 are inconsequential, never to be broached, as if they never happened, except as the authorities say they did. By ignoring these most in-your-face events with their eyes wide shut, a coterie of influential leftists has done the work of Orwell’s crime-stopand has effectively succeeded in situating current events in an ahistorical and therefore misleading context that abets U.S. propaganda. They truncate the full story to present a narrative that distorts the truth.

Without drawing a bold line connecting the dots from November 22, 1963 up to the present, a critique of the murderous forces ruling the United States is impossible.

Among the most notable of such failures are Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, Howard Zinn, and Chris Hedges, men idolized by many liberals and leftists. And there are many others who have been deeply influenced by Chomsky, Cockburn, and Zinn and follow in their footsteps.  Their motivations remain a mystery, but there is no doubt their refusals have contributed to the increased power of those who control the doll’s house.  To know better and do as they have is surely culpable ignorance.

From Bad to Worse

Ask yourself: Has the power of the oligarchic, permanent warfare state with its propaganda and spy networks, increased or decreased in the past half century?  Who is winning the battle, the people or the ruling elites?  The answer is obvious. It matters not at all whether the president has been Trump or Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, Barack Obama or George H. W. Bush, Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter.  The power of the national security state has grown under them all and everyone is left to moan and groan and wonder why.  All the while the doll’s house has become more and more sophisticated and powerful with the growth of electronic media and cell phone usage.

The new Cold War now being waged against Russia and China is a bi-partisan affair, as is the confidence game played by the secret government intended to create a fractured consciousness in the population.  This fragmentation of consciousness prevents people from grasping the present from within because so many suffer from digital dementia as their attention hops from input to output in a never-ending flow of mediated, disembodied data.

Trump and his followers on one side of the coin; liberal Democrats on the other. The latter, whose bibles are the New York Times, NPR, The Washington Post, Democracy Now, The Guardian, etc. – can only see propaganda when they can attribute it to Trump or the Russians. The former see everything as a liberal conspiracy to take down Trump.  The liberals have embraced a new McCarthyism and allied themselves with the deep-state forces that they were once allegedly appalled by, including Republicans. Their embrace of the formerly despised war-monger John Bolton in the impeachment trial of Trump is a laughable case in point, if it weren’t so depraved and slimy.

It surely isn’t the bloodthirsty policies of the Trump administration or his bloviating personality, for these liberals allied themselves with Obama’s anti-Russian rhetoric, his support for the U.S. orchestrated neo-fascist Ukrainian coup, his destruction of Libya, his wars of aggression across the Middle East, his war on terror, his trillion dollar nuclear weapons modernization, his enjoyment of drone killing, his support for the coup in Honduras, his embrace of the CIA and his CIA Director John Brennan, his prosecution of whistle-blowers, etc.  The same media that served the CIA so admirably over the decades became the liberals’ paragons of truth.  It’s enough to make your head spin, which is the point.  Spin left, spin right, spin all around, because we have possessed your mind in this spectacular image game where seeming antinomies are the constancy of the same through difference, all the presidents coined by the same manufacturer who knows that coin flipping serves to entertain the audience eager for hope and change.

This is how the political system works to prevent change.  It is why little has changed for the better over half a century and the American empire has expanded.  While it may be true that there are signs that this American hegemony is coming to an end (I am not convinced), I would not underestimate the power of the U.S. propaganda apparatus to keep people docile and deluded in the doll’s house, despite the valiant efforts of independent truth-tellers.

How, for example, is it possible for so many people to see such a stark difference between the despicable Trump and the pleasant Obama?  They are both puppets dancing to their masters’ tunes – the same masters.  They both front for the empire.

In his excellent book, Obama’s Unending Wars: Fronting the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State, Jeremy Kuzmarov assiduously documents Obama’s crimes, including his CIA background.[viii] As Glen Ford, of Black Agenda Report, says in the first sentence of his forward, “Barack Obama may go down in presidential history as the most effective-and deceptive-imperialist of them all.” Read the book if you want all the details.  They form an overwhelming indictment of the con artist and war criminal that is irrefutable.  But will those who worship at the altar of Barack Obama read it?  Of course not.  Just as those deluded ones who voted for the reality television flim-flam man Trump will ignore all the accumulating evidence that they’ve been had and are living under a president who is Obama’s disguised doppelganger, carrying out the orders of his national security state bosses. This, too, is well documented, and no doubt another writer will arise in the years to come to put it between a book’s covers.

Yet even Jeremy Kuzmarov fails to see the link between the JFK assassination and Obama’s shilling for the warfare state.  His few references to Kennedy are all negative, suggesting he either is unaware of what Kennedy was doing in the last year of his life and why he was murdered by the CIA, or something else.  He seems to follow Noam Chomsky, a Kennedy hater, in this regard.  I point out this slight flaw in an excellent book because it is symptomatic of certain people on the left who refuse to complete the circle.  If, as Kuzmarov, argues, Obama was CIA from the start and that explains his extraordinarily close relationship with the CIA’s John Brennan, an architect, among many things, of the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program, and that Obama told CIA Director Panetta that the CIA would “get everything it wanted,” and the CIA killed JFK, well, something’s amiss, an enormous gap in the analysis of our current condition.

The doll’s house is a mind game of extraordinary proportions, orchestrated by the perverted power elites that run the show and ably abetted by their partners in the corporate mass media, even some in the alternative press who mean well but are confused, or are disinformation agents in the business of sowing confusion together with their mainstream Operation Mockingbird partners. It is a spectacle of open secrecy, in which the CIA has effectively suckered everyone into a game of to-and-fro in which only they win.

Our only hope for change is to try and educate as many people as possible about the linkages between  events that started with the CIA coup d’état in Dallas on November 22, 1963, continued through the killings of Malcolm X, MLK, RFK and on through so much else up to September 11, 2001, and have brought us to the deeply depressing situation we now find ourselves in where truthtellers like Julian Assange, Chelsey Manning, and Edward Snowden are criminalized, while the real perpetrators of terrible evils roam free.

Yes, we must educate but also agitate for the release of this courageous trio. Their freedom is ours; their imprisonment is ours, whether we know it or not.  The walls are closing in.

Lisa Pease is so right: “The way the CIA took over America in the 1960s is the story of our time, and too few recognize this.  We can’t fix a problem we can’t even acknowledge exists.”

If we don’t follow her advice, we will be toyed with like dolls for a long time to come.  There will be no one else to blame.

*

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.

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. Visit the author’s website here.

Notes

  1. Interview with Jim Garrison, District Attorney of Parish of Orleans, Louisiana, May 27, 1969 at https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/garrison-interview-05-27-1969-trans.pdf
  2. Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, Jacques Ellul, Vintage Books, 1973, pp. 17-18
  3. https://steemit.com/news/@zen12/cia-mind-control-morphed-into-pschiatry
  4. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sirhan-sirhan-stabbed-robert-f-kennedy-assassin-hospitalized-after-prison-stabbing-2019-08-31/
  5. Escape from Freedom, Erich Fromm, Rinehart & Company, Inc., 1941
  6. Ellul, op cit., p. 140
  7. A Lie Too Big To Fail, Lisa Pease, Feral House, 2018, pp.500-501
  8. Obama’s Unending Wars: Fronting the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State, Jeremy Kuzmarov, Clarity Press, 2019

Featured image is from Another Day in the Empire

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on The United States of America’s Doll House: A Vast Tapestry of Lies and Illusions

Selected Articles: Coronavirus Global Emergency

February 3rd, 2020 by Global Research News

Palestine: Legally Overriding a UN Security Council Veto. In Response to Trump’s Annexation Scheme

By Stephen Lendman, February 03, 2020

In response to the Trump regime’s annexation scheme of the century, Palestinians have binding recourse — in the General Assembly, not the Security Council.

US veto power prevents adoption of a SC resolution that upholds their rights under international law.

By invoking General Assembly Uniting for Peace Resolution 377 (1950), SC actions can be overridden by a two-thirds majority vote of UN member states.

Trump’s “peace deal” for Israel, and it is breathtaking

By Craig Murray, February 03, 2020

I have read through the entire 181 pages of Trump’s “peace deal” for Israel, and it is breathtaking. It is not just that the “solution” it proposes is ludicrously one-sided, it is the entire analysis of the problem to be solved which reads as pure, unadulterated zionist propaganda.

For example, the word “violence” is used repeatedly. But it only ever refers to violence by Arabs. There is not one single mention of violence by Israel against the Palestinians, even though the ratio of killing between Israelis and Palestinians over the last ten years is approximately 80:1 . The only mention of violence against Palestinians at all relates to Kuwaiti expulsion of Palestinian refugees after the first Gulf war.

Palestinians Have Only One Option Left: Stay and Fight

By David Hearst, February 02, 2020

It was the demographic fact that, in that space, there were more Palestinians than Jews. According to 2016 figures from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) that were provided to the Israeli Knesset’s foreign affairs and defence committee, there were 6.5 million Muslims and 6.44 million Jews between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, although those figures are out of date now. The committee referred to Muslims rather than Palestinians, thus excluding Palestinian Christians.

Coronavirus Has Been Declared a Global Emergency. What’s Happening in China

By Tom Clifford, February 01, 2020

Workers returning to the capital next week after the Chinese new year break face quarantine, regardless of whether they went overseas or stayed in China. Those coming back are being told to stay at their places of residence for at least a week under self-quarantine. China’s State Council, the cabinet, announced on January 27 that the Lunar New Year / Spring Festival holiday will be extended to February 2 across the country; the holiday week was originally from January 24 to January 30. Some companies are telling their employees not to return to work until February 9, to factor in the quarantine period. This may again be extended.

Coronavirus Epidemic: WHO Declares a “Fake” Global Public Health Emergency

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 31, 2020

In the course of the last two weeks, the World Health Organization (WHO) had already pointed to a possible Global Public Health crisis in relation to China’s novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) categorized  as a viral pneumonia. The virus outbreak is centred in the city of Wuhan, a city in Eastern China with a population in excess of 11 million.

On 22 January, the members of the WHO Emergency Committee “expressed divergent views on whether this event constitutes a PHEIC or not”.

China’s Coronavirus: A Global Health Emergency is Launched. What are the Facts

By Larry Romanoff, January 31, 2020

While this coronavirus is indeed serious and is causing deaths, one wonders if the responses, especially in the West, are reaching out of control.

Canada, with a population about the same as Shanghai, has so far this flu season had more than 20,000 confirmed cases, 2,200 hospitalisations, and 85 deaths, roughly the same as all of China with the new corona virus at the same time. But there is no panic in Canada about the flu, and United Airlines isn’t cancelling all flights to Canada.

World Health Organisation Officially Declares Coronavirus a “Global Health Emergency”

By James Cogan, January 31, 2020

The World Health Organisation (WHO) yesterday decided to formally declare the outbreak of 2019-nCoV, the new coronavirus first identified in the Chinese city of Wuhan, as a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).” The PHEIC classification was only established by WHO in 2005 following the 2002–2003 SARS pandemic. It has been declared on five occasions since, in response to the 2009 Swine Flu, the outbreaks in 2014 of Ebola and polio, the 2016 Zika virus and the 2019 resurgence of Ebola in central Africa.


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

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

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

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Coronavirus Global Emergency

A public demonstration took place on Friday morning in front of the offices of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in Los Angeles to demand a halt to the sale of the .ORG domain registry to the private equity firm Ethos Capital for $1.135 billion.

The “SaveDotOrg” protest was organized by a coalition of technology industry organizations and nonprofits that oppose the sale of the .ORG domain because it “could impact millions of individuals and organizations who have a .ORG website, opening the door to potential censorship and price increases on domain registration and renewals.”

The conversion of .ORG into a for-profit enterprise is by definition an attack on public access to news, information and digital media. Among the threats it poses to the nonprofits and other organizations using the .ORG domain are higher domain registration fees, censorship-for-hire schemes, selling browsing data and diminished technical maintenance and support.

As of this writing, 660 organizations, 21,000 people and six members of Congress have endorsed a letter from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) that ICANN—the nonprofit umbrella organization responsible for the internet’s domain name system—stop the planned sale of the .ORG domain by the Public Interest Registry (PIR).

The letter is addressed to Andrew Sullivan, President and CEO of the Internet Society and says, “Non-governmental organizations all over the world rely on the .ORG top-level domain. Decisions affecting .ORG must be made with the consultation of the NGO community, overseen by a trusted community leader. If the Internet Society (ISOC) can no longer be that leader, it should work with the NGO community and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to find an appropriate replacement.”

PIR, also a non-profit organization, was created by the Internet Society in 2002 to manage the .ORG registry. As of 2015, there were 10.5 million domains registered with the .ORG designation. According to surveys of consumers, the public perceives .ORG websites to be more trustworthy and “Respondents were more likely to turn to .ORG websites in a crisis, more likely to post content on .ORG sites and to trust information on a .ORG domain.”

In response to the growing opposition, PIR announced on January 17 that the 30-day review period had been extended to February 17 to allow for “additional information” to be provided “so that ICANN has a full understanding of the Transaction.” However, the PIR statement says that “ICANN is not providing or withholding its consent at this time.”

The .ORG registry is what is known as a top-level internet domain. It is one of seven such domains—the others being .com, .gov, .edu, .mil, .arpa, and .net—that were established in 1985. The domain name system (DNS) was created by internet pioneers to make it easier for users to remember the location of computers on the network. Instead of memorizing their all-numeric IP addresses, users were able to type the second-level domain (WSWS) followed by its top level (.ORG) domain to find the desired resource on the internet.

The sale of the top-level domain was originally announced on November 13. In a press release, the ISOC and PIR said the terms of the deal involve the acquisition of “PIR and all of its assets from the Internet Society” by Ethos Capital. Andrew Sullivan is quoted in the statement saying, “This transaction will provide the Internet Society with an endowment of sustainable funding and the resources to advance our mission on a broader scale as we continue our work to make the Internet more open, accessible and secure—for everyone.”

It is significant that the Internet Society, a nonprofit organization and user of the .ORG domain itself, which was founded in 1992 to provide leadership and establish standards for the functioning of the world’s critical information infrastructure, is now compelled to sell off a significant asset in order to “sustain funding” and “make the Internet more open, accessible and secure.”

A group of 11 executives of major international NGOs—including Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—issued an open letter to ISOC and ICANN from the World Economic Forum in Davos last Wednesday opposing the sale.

Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU said, “Free expression around the world is increasingly endangered by government and corporate players, which is why we are joining other civil society organizations in making public our concerns over the .org sale. The internet is crucial to the integrity of civil liberties and human rights work, and also the safety of those doing it. The security of civil society should not be entrusted to private equity.”

Ethos Capital was founded in 2019 and appears to have been created for the purpose of purchasing the .ORG registry. The firm’s CEO Erik Brooks, a well-connected Harvard MBA, specializes in “companies in which technology can be used to automate, optimize and transform traditional business models into faster growing, more efficient organizations.”

The purpose of selling to private equity is obviously to transform the previously non-profit PIR into a for-profit organization with investors of the $1 billion expecting a return on their money. When asked who the investors are, Ethos Capital said, “this is a US-based private transaction in which investors and corporate directors have a right to privacy.”

The justifications provided by Sullivan, the Internet Society and his investors for selling are based largely on the fait accompli of the internet’s transformation from an open public resource into a structure dominated by the Silicon Valley tech monopolies.

In response to the mounting criticisms, Nora Abusitta-Ouri, Chief Purpose Officer of Ethos Capital wrote on Wednesday, “nonprofits rely on for-profit businesses every day to achieve their online goals—from registrars to web designers, to Internet providers, to hosting services, and beyond. The Internet was built by for-profit companies with the resources and capabilities to innovate, and we want to make sure that the registrants of .ORG, like every other domain in the world, have the benefit of being served by a company with the ability, desire and resources to innovate and compete on a global scale.”

The concerns of the opponents of the hiving off of .ORG to private equity investment vultures are legitimate. Promises by Ethos Capital that it will keep increases in domain registration fees to 10 percent cannot be trusted. Additionally, there will be pressure to monetize the .ORG assets by collecting browsing activity and tracking visitor demographics, and offering this data up to marketers for lucrative fees. There is nothing to stop the firm from turning this data over to the surveillance state.

It should be expected that the private owners—beholden to powerful financial and political interests—will use their control of the top-level domain for online censorship of websites that are considered objectionable by their stakeholders on Wall Street and in Washington DC.

The backdrop to the .ORG transaction is the ongoing vendetta against WikiLeaks.org and its founder and editor Julian Assange. Assange is currently being held illegally in a London prison, facing proceedings for his extradition to the US on charges of violating the Espionage Act of 1917, for publishing the truth about the crimes of imperialist states and corporations against the public.

Meanwhile, many political parties and organizations—including the World Socialist Web Site and the Socialist Equality Parties throughout the world—use the .ORG domain for their online presence. It can be expected that private control will lead to arbitrary suspensions of domain registration and targeting left-wing and socialist political opponents and critics of corporate and state policy.

As was the case when net neutrality was officially abolished by the FCC in June 2018, the growing public opposition to the privatization of yet another resource of the internet will be run roughshod over. Appeals to the executives of the organizations making the decision to sell the .ORG asset will not stop the process from moving forward and being completed.

The defense of an open internet and its maintenance as a public utility that is available to all requires a mass political struggle against the capitalist system. Only the independent mobilization of the working class—including workers in the internet and tech industries—on the basis of a socialist and internationalist program, can prevent the further conversion of the information infrastructure into private property that is integrated with the police and military-intelligence apparatus.

*

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: Protesters outside of the office of ICANN in Los Angeles on Friday (Photo credit-thepublicsradio.com)

The attitude of the US towards Latin peoples has been one of domination, imposition and imperialism. The core of this policy is in the American ideology itself, based on the Monroe Doctrine of the 19th Century, which, enunciating an “America for Americans”, promoted the American expansion towards other lands of the New World. Specifically in South America, external interference in national policies became even more evident with the advent of the military dictatorships of the last century, which, with the shallow excuse of avoiding a “communist threat”, promoted long decades of misery and persecution whose only end had been to preserve the subjugation of those countries to Washington’s commandments during the Cold War.

The process of redemocratization in Latin America was a flawed and vulnerable one. The transition of power witnessed by the exchange of the Armed Forces for civilian politicians represented nothing but the very interests of the same groups that had financed and supported the military’s takeover. In fact, when the American objectives bequeathed to the military were already achieved, they authorized the transition of power, pacifying national policies with the capitulation of the left, which abandoned the armed struggle in favor of the democratic pact.

Since then, outside interference in Latin America has been triggered by the cooptation of parliamentary factions, feeding gigantic networks of corruption that “fight each other” publicly, when, truly, they work for the interests of the same foreign power. This is the case of the reactionary parties and of the groups from the new left – concerned with the “identitarian” agenda of liberalism and omitted in relation to social problems and national sovereignty.

While the theater of public confrontation of these groups is functioning, the American foreign occupation works perfectly, without major challenges and threats. However, any deviation from this reality is understood as an affront and gives room for the resurgence of Washington’s interference. The most recent cases corroborating this fact are the failed attempted coup against the legitimate Bolivarian government in Caracas and the successful coup d’état carried out against Bolivian President Morales, both in the past year.

In general, American attacks on independent peoples of the South have intensified in recent years. This, most likely, is due to the fact that the period before the current one was marked by the growth of the political left, which, although subordinated to the liberal hegemony, acted with an agenda reasonably linked to social struggles, delaying, even if very little, the neoliberal plans. Now, these same countries are facing the extraordinary advance of reactionary rights, with a greater emphasis on Brazil.

A member of the BRICS, Brazil, with all its potential to achieve prestigious status in international order, has been suffering the worst period in its recent history. The rise of Bolsonaro brings with it the worst in the country: the growth of the harmful influence of neo-Pentecostal groups – whose greatest commitment is to the interests of Washington and Tel Aviv; the paramilitary armed militias that control organized crime in the poorest regions of the country, truly acting as a mafia and; the business sector as a whole, with enormous progress in dismantling labor laws and permitting agribusiness, with the legalization of pesticides and the criminal burning of native forests for the formation of pastures for livestock. Brazil is going through one of the worst deindustrialization processes ever witnessed in history.

Argentina recently completed this cycle of reactionary ascension and is now witnessing a return of the “soft left”, with the return of the Kirchner Party. The negative legacy of Fenández. Macri’s will not be wiped out so quickly and the left now in power does not seem committed to the complete break with external interests, but to the perpetuation of the liberal-parliamentary cycle.

The most striking cases, however, are the aforementioned examples of Venezuela and Bolivia, countries victimized by American imperialism. Fundamentally, one must realize how both cases reveal real occurrences of foreign invasion, even if camouflaged with a democratic appearance. Venezuela perceived the opposition’s articulations as a true case of war and managed to gain control over the situation: activated the Bolivarian National Guard, intensified security policies and ignored internal and external opposition pressure. As a result, Maduro remains in power and the coup has become an international joke. On the other hand, Morales did not have the same perspicacity and gave way too much to the opposition, falling and being forced to leave the country and hand it over to the coup d’état.

In Chile, recent political unrest is having a positive effect. The claims against neoliberal Piñera, carried out through violent protests that have already given rise to the State of Emergency, are successful and little by little the government is forced to yield to popular pressure.

Currently, the panorama of South America is terrible. With the exception of Venezuela, which is in an undeniable crisis, all countries are, in one way or another, hostages to American interests, with some under governments that make this reality more explicit – like Brazil – and others under more camouflaged regimes. There is no doubt about the fundamental point that American imperialism has never been as aggressive in South America as it has been in recent years. The reason is simple: in the face of progress in the formation of a multipolar world, the geopolitical north is becoming increasingly reactive.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida is a research fellow in International Law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Guaido’s Failed Foreign Tour Ends with a Flop

February 3rd, 2020 by Kevin Zeese

Juan Guaidó proclaimed himself the president of Venezuela a year ago but despite multiple coup attempts, he never took power and his support there rapidly disappeared. Now, with his foreign tour concluding, Guaidó’s support is shrinking around the world as well. Rather than looking presidential, he appears clownish. Rather than developing new plans to try to topple President Maduro, he is left without any concrete promises from European governments, which have been more resistant than the United States toward imposing more sanctions despite Guaidó‘s pleading for support.

Despite his failures, according to US law, as long as President Trump recognizes him as the President of Venezuela then the courts will go along with the charade. Such is the situation we will face when we go to trial on February 11 for the charge of “interfering with certain protective functions” by the Trump administration. In the courtroom, Guaido is the president even though outside the courtroom he has never been president. Learn more about the trial and what you can do to support us and our co-defendants at DefendEmbassyProtectors.org.

Protesters greet Guaido in Spain outside of Foreign Ministry, January 22, 2020.

Guaidó Will Return Even Weaker Than When He Left

In his grand finale in the United States this weekend, Guaidó made clear his desire to meet President Trump. There were three opportunities — at Davos, Trump left before Guaidó arrived; in Miami, Trump skipped the Guaidó rally to play golf; and at Mar-a-Lago Guaido was not invited to the super bowl party. Guaidó was a short drive from Mar-a-Lago but President Trump never called him. The Washington Post reported, “the lack of an encounter — even a photo opportunity — could be taken as a sign of Trump’s lack of interest in Venezuela at a time when Guaidó is seeking to keep his crusade against Maduro alive…” The Post also noted that Trump did not show up for Guaidó’s event in Miami, although several politicians including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Marco Rubio were there.

Geoff Ramsey, director of the Venezuela program at the right-wing anti-Maduro, Washington Organization on Latin America told the Post, “Going to the United States without meeting with Trump is a risk for Guaidó,” adding that not meeting with Trump shows “that for Trump, the issue of Venezuela is not a priority.” Michael Shifter, president of the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue, which also supports the coup, told the Associated Press, “If Trump does not meet with Guaidó, that would raise serious questions about the administration’s continuing commitment to Venezuela’s interim president.”

Guaidó was in steep decline at home when he left Venezuela, losing the presidency of the National Assembly as even much of the opposition to Maduro now oppose him. His support has primarily emanated from the United States and President Trump. The US has been keeping right-wing governments in Latin America and its western allies from openly giving up on the failed coup. But now with Guaidó losing the visible support of President Trump, it will become more difficult to keep these countries’ support. The feeble shrinking puppet may be on his final tour as a fraudulent “president.”

One year after his self-declared presidency and five failed coup attempts, Guaidó has not been president of Venezuela for one day, or even one minute. Trump’s open coup failed repeatedly because the people of Venezuela support President Maduro and the military are staying loyal to the constitutional government. On January 6, the NY Times summarized the situation with a subheadline: “America threw its might behind Juan Guaidó when he claimed the presidency, a direct challenge to President Nicolás Maduro. A year later, the Trump administration has little to show for its efforts.”

Guaidó’s foreign tour was a last-ditch effort to revive his dwindling coup. He had a brief photo-op with Prime Minister Boris Johnson a few hours before the Parliament voted to leave the EU. Guaido then turned to the fragmenting EU for more photo-ops. He called for more illegal sanctions against Venezuela, which will surely anger the Venezuelan people and further his spiraling political decline.

The Anniversary of an Imaginary Government

Latin America is revolting against neoliberalism and paradoxically Guaidó went to the heart of it at the Davos gathering of global oligarchs. Even the pro-coup New York Times gave Guaidó bad reviews. They wrote: “This time last year, Juan Guaidó would have been the toast of Davos. . . But as Mr. Guaidó made the rounds at this year’s gathering of political and business figures — having come to Europe in defiance of a travel ban at home — he seemed like a man whose moment had passed.” The Times reported that “Nicolás Maduro, [is] still firmly entrenched in power.”

Venezuelanalysis reports that at Davos “the opposition leader was set to meet with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the summit. However, the face-to-face encounter did not materialize…” Mision Verdad summarized it, writing “Guaidó will not bathe in glory but in the wrath of global society and the intrigues that his crash cart tour has left for European leaders.”  Guaidó’s failure at Davos is a “good way to portray the first anniversary of his imaginary government.”

The focus of his trip was on his repeated failures, as the Times reported, “the embattled Venezuelan spent most of his time answering questions about why he had not succeeded in toppling Mr. Maduro.” Guaidó, the Times added, has no new ideas, writing,  “Guaidó struggled to offer fresh ideas for how governments could tighten the pressure on Mr. Maduro. Venezuela is already under heavy sanctions, which have so far failed to dislodge him.”

While the New York Times remains a vehicle of misinformation about Venezuela and President Maduro, they did get this summary correct: “But a year of high-stakes maneuvers by Mr. Guaidó — like trying to persuade the military to turn against the president and trying to bring in much-needed humanitarian aid across the border — failed to bring down Mr. Maduro, who retains firm control of the military and of the country’s resources.”

After Davos, Guaidó went to Spain where Spain’s new left-wing coalition refused to grant the politician an audience with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. Instead, Foreign Minister Arancha González Laya held a brief meeting with him. To add to that insult, Transport Minister José Luis Ábalos met at Madrid’s airport with Venezuela’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, who is banned from stepping into EU territory. In Canada, he had a photo-op with Justin Trudeau but Guaidó showed his amateurish incompetence when he claimed that Cuba should be part of the solution to the political conflict in Venezuela. Officials in both Canada and the United States swiftly rejected this idea.

He concluded his journey in Miami, waiting for President Trump’s phone call — a call that never came.

Guaido protested in the United Kingdom on January 21, 2020 from The Canary

The Failure Of Guaidó Was Evident As Soon As He Declared His False Presidency

For those of us who follow Venezuela closely, the failure of  Guaidó is not a surprise. His self-appointment violated Venezuelan law and it was evident that Maduro legitimately won re-election with widespread public support. The people of Venezuela have a deep understanding of US imperialism and will not give up the independence and sovereignty they have fought so hard for since the election of Hugo Chavez in 1998.

On the anniversary of his self-declaration as president, Supuesto Negado mockingly reported: “Guaidó did not come to his anniversary party… It was expected that January 23 would be considered again the day of freedom, the end of the dictatorship, but no one really celebrated anything. Not a candle, not a piñata. No one remembered it. No one called to congratulate him. No one came to the party.”

Instead, members of the National Assembly danced to celebrate Guaido’s defeat as president of the Assembly and President Maduro spoke at a massive rally in Caracas at the Miraflores Palace saying, “A comedy began on January 23, 2019. A year ago they tried to impose a coup d’etat on our people, and the gringos went out into the world to say this is going to be quick and easy, and a year later we have taught North American and European imperialism a lesson!” He also announced a dialogue with the opposition so that the National Electoral Council can prepare elections for the National Assembly and confidently invited the UN to appoint a delegation of international observers for the parliamentary elections along with Mexico, Argentina, Panama, and the European Union. He urged Trump to give up on “the boob” and said, “if the president of the United States, Donald Trump gets tired of the lies of Mike Pompeo and Elliott Abrams, the Venezuelan government is willing to engage in dialogue.”

Even though Guaidó’s visit to the UK was kept under wraps until Monday 20, he was met by protesters on the 21st at the first stop on his failed European tour. The Canary reports “a protest was organized in London against Guaidó’s visit. Demonstrators called for Guaidó to be “put on trial,” not legitimized by UK government. Jorge Martin, who founded Hands Off Venezuela following the failed 2002 coup said: “This person should be arrested and put on trial in Venezuela for having attempted to overthrow the democratically elected government.”

Wherever he went there were protests. In Brussels, a woman was arrested for hitting Guaidó with cake. In Spain, activists from different social organizations gathered in front of the headquarters of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Madrid to repudiate the visit of Guaidó with posters that described Guaidó as “clown manufactured by the empire.”  AP reported that protesters referred “to the politician as ‘clown’ and ‘puppet’ of the US.  ‘No to imperialist interference in Venezuela and Latin America,’ read a big banner that also showed support to ‘Venezuela’s people and Nicolás Maduro.’”

In Florida, opponents of the coup published a statement saying, “On the occasion of the visit of US puppet Juan Guaidó to Miami this weekend, the US Hands Off Venezuela South Florida Coalition denounces Washington’s policy of sanctions, currency freezes, and other forms of economic warfare now burdening the people of Venezuela. . . Over the past year, Washington has used Juan Guaidó as a tool in its attempt to replace the elected government of Venezuela.” Even in the stronghold of support for the coup in the US Guaidó only spoke to a crowd of 3,500 announcing his plan to return to Venezuela.

Guaido with Mike Pence, US Vice President.

The US Spends Hundreds of Millions on the Farce Coup

The United States, seeing the incredible riches of Venezuela – oil, gold, diamonds, gas, precious minerals and freshwater – has spent hundreds of millions to put in place their puppet. The corruption of Guaido and the corruption tied to US dollars was one reason he lost control of the National Assembly, which is now investigating US funding.

While Guaidó has been shrinking, Maduro has been growing stronger. Maduro has signed more than 500 bilateral agreements with China that put in place a long-term economic relationship. Russia has provided military, intelligence, and economic support. He has signed new agreements with Iran for medicine, food, energy, and healthcare. Venezuela has met its goal and delivered more than three million social housing units for more than 10 million people. This year economists are predicting the Venezuelan economy will expand and people are seeing the country as a paradox of stability. Some suggested that Maduro was the man of the year for successfully standing up to the Trump coup.

The never-in-power and disappearing Guaido is especially ironic for us as we will be going to trial on February 11 for what Telesur described as “an epic act of resistance in the trial of our times.” The strange thing is the courtroom is likely to be a fictional space where Guaidó is president due to US court decisions that do not allow courts to question foreign policy decisions of the president. It is not clear whether we will get a fair trial, but we are continuing our fight to end US imperialism and for justice for the people of Venezuela. It is time for the US economic war and tragic regime change campaign to end.

*

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

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from Club Orlov

‘The US Has Become a Force of Evil’: Oliver Stone

February 3rd, 2020 by Oliver Stone

The United States has become a “force of evil” against the people who want to reform things, renowned director Oliver Stone told former Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa during an interview Wednesday in his RT show ‘Conversando con Correa’ (Speaking With Correa).

The conversation started with an overview of Stone’s life and career, before plunging into the subject of politics, the world’s current woes, the role played by the U.S. in global politics and the presidency of Donald Trump.

Midnight Express’s author considers that Trump has done “horrible things” like pulling out of the Paris climate accords and the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. However, he argued that at least, he had the merit to ask why the U.S. needs to fight with Russia, alarming thus the mainstream media who kept on attacking him from the first day.

“It’s all right-wings fighting with right-wings […] Democrats are no better than Republicans,” Stone said, adding that “there is no party in the United States, no democratic voice except third parties that are small, that would say ‘Why are we fighting wars?’”

“Hillary Clinton and her group, and Joe Biden, are just as pro-war as any Republican Dick Cheney.”

In short, the U.S. is “the greatest hypnosis the world has ever seen (…) It sells the same story, again and again, that it is the best country in the world,” the filmmaker claimed adding that all evidence shows the opposite and the U.S. has been responsible for the death of millions of people all around the world, from Iraq to Syria, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, among other countries.

Correa and his guest also evoked the documentary film ‘Al Sur de la Frontera’ (South of the Border) made by Stone, released in 2009, in which the filmmaker interviewed then progressive leaders of Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Cuba, and Ecuador.

“[Hugo] Chavez was the base, the nucleus, who introduced me to all the leaders: we went to visit Lula, Nestor Kirchner and Cristina Kirchner, [Fernando] Lugo in Paraguay, and you in Ecuador, and Cuba … And Bolivia … it was an experience that opened my eyes,” Stone said, adding that the documentary was totally ignored by the mainstream media in the U.S.

“I was an enemy,” he said, recalling that he was once invited to the New York Times where journalists asked him how he had come to respect Chavez.

“It was then clear to me: there is no way to win the debate on South America,” he noted, describing events such as those that occurred in Brazil when former President Dilma Rousseff was impeached and Lula imprisoned, as a “comedy.”

Stone concluded that what happened with the Soviet Union will happen to the US.

“Something is going to happen because we have pushed ourselves to the limit, we are completely corrupting history. Unfortunately, because I want my country, we have become a force of evil. A force of evil against people. Against people who want reforms, who want to change things.”

*

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: U.S. director Oliver Stone during an interview with former Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa in his RT show. | Photo: RT

A five-alarm fire has broken out in a little known, but critically important area of the financial system where high-quality bonds are swapped for cash. The “repo” market, which is short for repurchase agreements, is part of the nondeposit, shadow banking system that remains largely unregulated despite the fact that it was ground zero in the 2008 financial crisis.

On September 17, 2019, the repo market was whipsawed by a sudden spike in short-term interest rates that rose from the Fed’s target rate of roughly 2% to an eye-popping 10% in a matter of hours. The incident, that put traders into an immediate frenzy, sent the Fed scrambling for the printing presses where it swiftly rolled-off $75 billion to finance additional short-term loans and to add liquidity to a market badly in need of cash. The Fed’s efforts did in fact bring rates back down to the 2% target-range but at great cost to its credibility. Despite repeated assurances that the financial crisis was over, the Fed has resumed pumping $60 billion per month into a market that is liquidity-starved and dangerously out-of-whack. In truth, the only thing preventing another spike in rates followed by an excruciating debt cascade, is the Central Bank’s ability to bury the problem under a mountain of freshly-minted dollar bills. Absent that, another cataclysmic crash would be unavoidable. Check out this excerpt from an article from Wall Street on Parade:

“According to the data made available on the public website of the New York Fed, since September 17, 2019 it has funneled a cumulative total of $6.6 trillion to some of the 24 trading houses on Wall Street that are known as its “primary dealers.” The giant sum has been sluiced to Wall Street in the form of repurchase agreement (repo) loans without any details being provided to the elected representatives in Congress as to which firms are getting the money or what it’s being ultimately used for.” (“Fed repos have plowed $6.6 trillion to Wall Street in 4 months”, Wall Street on Parade)

The Fed is swapping cash for collateral of unknown quality. The public doesn’t know the terms under which these agreements have been made nor do they know whether the banks are concealing their own insolvency as they did following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. What we do know, however, is that the Fed has provided a “cumulative total of $6.6 trillion” at the discounted rate of 1.55% to the most distrusted institutions in America without any congressional oversight, without any independent review of the process, and without the American people having the slightest idea of the risks that are involved in blindly rolling over trillions of dollars of short-term loans to these thoroughly corrupt and totally unreformable financial institutions.

The Fed has no intention of allowing the public to know what’s really going on behind the scenes. Remember, the Fed “battled in court for more than two years to keep the details of its loans a secret from Congress and the American people”, so they’re certainly not going to do an about-face and open up today. No, what they are going to do is push the envelope as far as they can, operate far beyond their legal mandate, and conceal their inappropriate or illegal activity behind an iron wall of obfuscation and denial. Keep in mind, no one knew the extent of the Fed’s lavish handouts until years after the dust had settled. Check it out:

“When the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, the General Accountability Office (GAO), tallied up the cumulative total that the Federal Reserve had secretly sluiced to Wall Street from December 2007 through July 21, 2010, it came to $16.1 trillion. But the GAO did not include all of the programs that came out of the New York Fed. When those other programs are added, the Levy Economics Institute, using the Fed’s own data, arrived at the tally of $19.559 trillion to the Wall Street trading houses and another $10 trillion in central bank liquidity swaps, bringing the bailout figure to over $29 trillion.” (“Fed Repos Have Plowed $6.6 Trillion to Wall Street in Four Months”, Wall Street on Parade)

So “over $29 trillion” was shoveled into the banking system without congressional approval and without the American people having any idea of how they were being finagled. We should probably expect the same underhanded goings on in the current crisis, in fact, that looks to be the case. The Fed is not going to acknowledge what it is doing and the media is not going to publish the details. It’s a conspiracy of silence.

Some readers may remember the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that was created to purchase the “toxic assets” that were supposedly “clogging” the financial system and dragging the Wall Street banks towards insolvency. Originally, that program was rejected by Congress which triggered a panic on Wall Street sending stocks into a steep 700-plus point nosedive. Following that bloodletting, the Fed decided to bypass Congress in the future and, instead, usurp extraordinary powers it was never intended to have. And since the Fed has never been challenged on the matter, it has made the brash assumption that it can meddle in the markets whenever it chooses printing as much money as it likes.

The results of the Fed’s chronic interventions, its uber-accommodative policy, and its perennial low interest rates, are plain to see. Stock and bond prices have gone through the roof soaring to record highs on an almost daily basis. To appreciate the magnitude of this unprecedented 11 year bull market, it helps to know where it all began, that is, with the first round of Quantitative Easing (QE) that was launched in December 2008 when the Fed purchased $600 billion in mortgage-backed securities(MBS) and $100 billion in other debt. Naturally, when hundreds of billions of dollars are pumped into the financial system, prices rise. And rise they did. Take a look at the “highs and lows” of the three main indices since the end of the Great Recession in 2009:

On March 6, 2009, the The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) touched a low of 6,547. Today, (January 28, 2020) the Dow is 28,722 points, more than 4 times higher. On March 9, 2009, the S&P 500 hit a low of 676 points. Today it is 3,276 more than 4 times higher. As for the NASDAQ which dropped to 1,268 on March 9, 2009. Today, the index has climbed to 9,269 nearly 7 times its 2009 value. At the same time, business investment remains at historic lows, personal consumption is flat, wages have stagnated, and the economy is still in the throes of the weakest expansion in the post WW2 era. Bottom line: The stock and bond markets have not thrived because of a strong economy but because the Fed is engaged in the greatest bubble-blowing experiment in history. The $60 billion per month infusions into the repo market just adds more helium to the bubble.

So, what impact have the Fed’s capital injections into the repo market had?

By boosting liquidity and acting as lender of last resort in the daily swapping of cash for collateral, the Fed has been able to calm the markets and keep interest rates where it wants them. But the additional flood of cash has also ignited a stock market rally similar to earlier incidents when the Fed used QE to increase reserves. So, what impact have the Fed’s injections had on stock prices? Check out this clip from market analyst Jim Bianco at Mish Talk:

“There is no such thing as a one-factor model to explain the stock market. Metrics such as the Fed’s balance sheet, repo, etc. cannot explain the stock market’s movements in isolation.

That said, when the Fed injects money, funds generally flow to the best-returning market. During the financial crisis, it was the bond market. Today, as was the case in 1999, it is the stock market….. a big part of this year nearly 30% stock market gain has come on the heels of Fed moves, much like last year’s 20% decline was coincident with the Fed’s hawkish rhetoric.” (“Jim Bianco Says This Is QE, Like Y2K”, Mish Talk)

For more clarity on this point, we turn to a brief clip of an interview with economist David Rosenberg who explains that, when the Fed pumps liquidity into markets, stocks rally.

“This is a liquidity and momentum driven market. It’s been that way for the past four months where the correlation between the S&P 500 and the Fed’s balance sheet has expanded to a 95% relationship. This is a case of a very accommodative Fed policy. The double-digit growth in the money supply is bypassing the real economy and has entered into asset markets broadly, and specifically into equities. So as long as the Fed is in the game priming the monetary pump, shorting stocks is going to be a very dangerous game to play….

The power of the Fed has become so acute that it has replaced the economy as a principle influence over the stock market to the point where there is only a 7% correlation between GDP and the S&P 500. Historically, in any given cycle that relationship was anywhere between 30% and 70%.” (“David Rosenberg Warns “We’re Going To Have Helicopter Money”, Zero Hedge)

The scale of the Fed’s manipulation is truly breathtaking. Stocks are not rising on the strength of the economy, but on the jet-fuel from digitally-generated money produced with the flip of a switch in the basement of the Eccles Building. Has there ever been a bigger fraud perpetrated on the American people?

But what are the downside risks of such an operation?

Once again, Wall Street on Parade helps to answer this question in a recent article. Here’s an excerpt:

“On Monday, a member of the New York Fed’s own Investor Advisory Committee on Financial Markets, Scott Minerd, published a critique which he headlined as follows: “Global Central Banks Fueling a Ponzi Market,” with this scary subhead: “Ultimately, investors will awaken to the rising tide of defaults and downgrades.”

The thrust of the article is that central banks (which include the New York Fed’s Wall Street money spigot that was launched on September 17, 2019) are creating a Ponzi scheme of liquidity that is hiding the true state of risk in both the stock and bond markets. The implication is that without the Fed’s cheap money flooding markets, interest rates on questionable debt would be much higher, thus providing a red flag for investors. Minerd develops his thesis as follows:

“The disturbing trend is that despite the rally in risk assets in the prior year, the number of defaults rose by approximately 50 percent, according to data compiled by J.P. Morgan. Additionally, the number of distressed exchanges increased by 400 percent.

“This correlates well with our observation that the number of idiosyncratic defaults has been increasing. … However, that day of reckoning when spreads rise is being held off by the flood of central bank liquidity and international investors fleeing negative yields overseas.” (“The Man Who Advises the New York Fed Says It and Other Central Banks Are “Fueling a Ponzi Market” Wall Street on Parade)

Defaults are rising because corporations and financial institutions can no longer roll over the prodigious pile of debt they’ve accumulated in the last few years due to the Fed’s easy money policies. So even though stocks continue to steadily climb higher, the rot at the foundation of the system is becoming more and more apparent. As defaults increase, more liquidity will be sucked from the system, deflationary pressures will build, the economy will stall, and stocks will fall back to earth.

But the greatest threat posed by the Fed’s reckless “repo” policy is not the threat of another giant asset bubble but the possibility that US Treasuries will lose their exalted role as the world’s preeminent “risk free” asset of choice. Keep in mind, that the way the Fed finances these repos, is identical to the way it conducted QE, by buying U.S. Treasury bills and other high-rated securities from the banks for cash. These securities serve as collateral for the underlying loan, and the banks buy them back with interest. This unconventional expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet calls into question the true value of USTs which are increasingly used as a tool for preventing crises. Former Fed governor Kevin Warsh pointed out the pitfalls of the Fed’s strategy in an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “The New Malaise”. Here’s what he said:

“The Fed’s increased presence in the market for long-term Treasury securities also poses nontrivial risks. The Treasury market is special. It plays a unique role in the global financial system. It is a corollary to the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. The prices assigned to Treasury securities–the risk-free rate–are the foundation from which the price of virtually every asset in the world is calculated. As the Fed’s balance sheet expands, it becomes more of a price maker than a price taker in the Treasury market. And if market participants come to doubt these prices–or their reliance on these prices proves fleeting–risk premiums across asset classes and geographies could move unexpectedly. The shock that hit the financial markets in 2008 upon the imminent failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac gives some indication of the harm that can be done when assets perceived to be relatively riskless turn out not to be.” (“The New Malaise”, Kevin Warsh, Wall Street Journal.)

With the National Debt hovering at $23 trillion, one would think the Fed would be more cautious in its misuse of USTs to shore up transactions in the repo market. If present trends continue, it’s only a matter of time before foreign central banks trim their stockpiles of USTs and seek a more reliable source of value. Any significant shift away from risk free US debt will send shock-waves through the global economy. It would portend an abrupt changing of the guard and the onset of a new order.

*

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

Featured image is from The Unz Review

Ten Acts of Gross British Misgovernment Since 1945

February 3rd, 2020 by Prof. Philip Allott

As the UK leaves the European Union, Philip Allott (University of Cambridge) reflects on ten occasions when Britain has badly misjudged and mishandled challenges to its hegemony – both internal and external – and traces the cause to the dominance of the executive branch.

An alternative British political history since 1945 could focus on a remarkable series of failures by British governments which have seriously damaged the country. We who have lived through them have tended to regard them as natural and inevitable. They are not.

suez canal

National humiliation … Suez. A cutaway from The Eagle magazine, November 1956. Image: ausdew. Public domain

Unusually, it is possible to identify the probable cause. After World War One, the executive branch of government found that it had acquired a de facto dominance over the House of Commons, which thereafter became its poodle. Lord Hewart called it ‘the new despotism’ (1929). Lord Hailsham called it ‘elective dictatorship’ (1976).

Liberal democracy, as practice and philosophy, is Britain’s greatest achievement. It is the fruit of a continuous process of constitutional evolution from Anglo-Saxon times, as the country adapted, to use the Darwinian word, to our ever-changing circumstances with an almost miraculous intuitive intelligence. We have not made the mistake made by so many other countries of adopting a written constitution, transient selfie of the distribution of power at the time when it is written. It is time for us to adapt yet again, before it is too late.

It was inevitable that India would become independent soon after World War Two. It was not inevitable that it would do so in a state of chaos whose effects are felt to the present day.

It was inevitable that we would give up our empire, under the pressure not least of the insidious populist doctrine of self-determination preached by a self-interested United States. It was not inevitable that we should do so in such haste in countries often lacking the most basic structures of modern society.

It was inevitable that President Nasser of Egypt would take control of the Suez Canal. It was not inevitable that our government would cause it to be a national humiliation affecting every aspect of our foreign policy for years to come.

It was inevitable that the United States would take over from us as a global imperial power. It was not inevitable that it would do so on such terms as those dictated by the US at Bretton Woods, or that our government would believe the illusion that the ruthless government of the United States is our special friend.

It was inevitable that the war-torn nations of Europe would create a new basis of their co-existence other than diplomacy and war. It was not inevitable that we would join the new European system late, without any enthusiasm and without any plan for playing our part. At that time we had what were probably the best civil service and diplomatic service in the world. We might have played a leading role.

Gross British misgovernment and disdain of Ireland over the course of centuries had made some sort of Irish independence inevitable. Ireland has always been, since earliest times, a source of cultural and personal enrichment for Britain. It was not inevitable that a form of agreement would only be found after years of violence and suffering.

It was inevitable that, sooner or later, we would have to modernise our position in relation to the smaller Arab states bordering the Persian Gulf. It was not inevitable that in 1971 the government would abandon a great achievement of British diplomacy, dating from 1820, leaving the fabulous wealth of the area to the reconstituted states and to global oil and gas corporations.

It was inevitable that, after the collapse of the Soviet empire in Eastern Europe, a new structure would be created for their relationship with the new Europe. To this day, it is not clear why the government took the lead in a policy of more or less immediate full membership for the ex-Soviet states, leaving the suspicion that they had the vague idea that it would dilute the coherence of the EU of which the UK itself, with amazing tolerance on the part of the other member states, had already made itself into a semi-detached member.

It was inevitable that age-old sentiment in Scotland about its place in the United Kingdom would have to be faced by the British government. It was not inevitable that this would be done in a referendum which did not seek the opinion of the whole population of the United Kingdom. Scotland has contributed an enormous amount to the history, the culture, the social order and the economy of this country, and to the making and managing of the Empire. It was not inevitable but scandalous that its future and the future of the United Kingdom would be made to rest on such a one-off ‘in or out’ basis.

It was inevitable that government would have to respond to gathering opposition to British membership of the European Union. It was a legitimate political decision to consult the British people and to decide to implement the outcome of a referendum. It was not inevitable that implementing those decisions would be carried out in political and diplomatic chaos, profoundly unsettling the future of the country for many years to come.

The remedy for all this misgovernment must be found in restoring the dialectical secret at the heart of Britain’s unique form of liberal democracy, in which government and opposition struggle vigorously and co-operate effectively in the task of good government, with everyday public opinion and occasional general elections always having the last word.

*

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

Philip Allott is Professor Emeritus of International Public Law at Cambridge University, a Fellow of Trinity College, and a Fellow of the British Academy. He was at one time a legal adviser in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

In response to the Trump regime’s annexation scheme of the century, Palestinians have binding recourse — in the General Assembly, not the Security Council.

US veto power prevents adoption of a SC resolution that upholds their rights under international law.

By invoking General Assembly Uniting for Peace Resolution 377 (1950), SC actions can be overridden by a two-thirds majority vote of UN member states.

This step if taken and adopted by the GA cannot be overturned by SC veto.

GA Res. 377 can be invoked immediately by a UN member state at times when SC members fail to act as required to maintain international peace and security.

The State of Palestine exists — on the one hand as a PLO-represented observer state.

More importantly, the PLO  adopted the Palestinian Declaration of Independence on November 15, 1988 — drafted by Law Professor Francis Boyle, its legal advisor at the time.

He explained that Palestinian statehood is “determinative, definitive, and irreversible,” adding:

Palestine satisfies all essential criteria for sovereign independence and full de jure UN membership.

All UN Charter states (including America and Israel) provisionally recognized Palestinian independence in accordance with UN Charter article 80(1) and League Covenant article 22(4).

As the League’s successor, the General Assembly has exclusive legal authority to designate the PLO Palestine’s legitimate representative.

The Palestine National Council (PNC) is the PLO’s legislative body. It’s empowered to proclaim the existence of Palestine.

According to the binding 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order in Council, Palestinians, their children and grandchildren automatically become citizens.

So do diaspora Palestinians.

Those living in Israel, Jordan, and elsewhere have dual nationalities.

Occupied Territory residents remain “protected persons” (under Fourth Geneva) until a final peace settlement is reached.

According to the following characteristics, Palestine qualifies for world community recognition as a de jure UN member state — with all rights and privileges of other world body members:

It’s territory is determinable even though not necessarily fixed, its borders negotiable, the state comprised of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza — where Palestinians have lived for thousands of years, deserving legal recognition of sovereignty over their homeland.

Palestine has a fixed population and functioning government. It supports peace, stability, and cooperative relations with other nations.

It accepts UN Charter provisions and can administer them on their own, along with the ability to establish diplomatic relations with other states.

Palestine fully qualifies for world recognition as a UN member state. If gotten, it can render Trump’s no-peace/peace scheme stillborn.

The General Assembly has sole UN member state admission authority, not the SC.

By invoking GA Res. 377, Palestinians can petition the General Assembly for de jure recognition as a UN member state.

Yet Israeli installed Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas never took this step and is highly unlikely to go this route ahead — why new leadership is essential to pursue fundamental rights Palestinians have been long denied.

Francis Boyle earlier predicted that Palestine “would eventually achieve de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states” if its leadership formally seeks it.

He prepared the roadmap for its recognition as a UN member state — by “invok(ing) the UN General Assembly’s Uniting for Peace Resolution…to overcome US vetoes at the Security Council.”

Never taken before, now is the time to go this route in the wake of Trump’s annexation scheme.

Separately I said united under new leadership there’s hope for Palestinians. Divided under traitors in Ramallah serving Israeli interests as its enforcer there’s none.

On Friday, Trump regime UN envoy Kelly Craft warned Palestinians against pursuing their case in the Security Council.

Its UN envoy Riyad Mansour said he’d seek SC support for a draft resolution that counters Trump’s scheme by upholding Palestinian right — a dead-on-arrival initiative.

If followed by invoking GA Res 377, General Assembly UN member states can override the SC veto as explained above.

Mansour said no “Palestinian official will meet with American officials now after they submitted an earthquake, the essence of it the destruction of the national aspirations of the Palestinian people.”

Israel’s UN mission said it’s working to thwart (Palestinian) efforts, and will lead a concerted diplomatic campaign with the US.”

Palestinians have a choice. Invoke GA Res. 377, seeking a two-thirds UN member state majority for their rights or face continued subjugation under Israel’s repressive boot — fully supported by the US and West.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Palestine: Legally Overriding a UN Security Council Veto. In Response to Trump’s Annexation Scheme
  • Tags: , , ,

America at War Forever

February 3rd, 2020 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Film-maker Oliver Stone has won 12 Academy Awards for his films.  But this outstanding record doesn’t help when he seeks financing for a film critical of one of America’s wars.

“You do those kinds of stories, it’s not going to happen.”  Stone said that his dissent from the pro-war narrative has brought him “economic censorship.” See this. 

Hollywood practices the same censorship as CNN, the New York Times, and the rest of the presstitutes who champion war. Stone notes that we never hear the point of view from the countries that are labeled “threats,” such as Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela.  

The Democrat and Republican political parties are also all for war. The Democrats won’t even let Tulsi Gabbard participate in the New Hampshire presidential Town Halls, because she is not a partisan of war.

Stone says that the fact that Democrat leaders such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are as pro-war as Dick Cheney and the Zionist neocons “shows you how locked up America is.”  As Putin said in the interviews Stone did with him, “It doesn’t make a difference who is President of the United States.”  Washington’s  policy is hegemony achieved through war.

Trump said that he wanted to get America out of war.  Trump said he would normalize relations with Russia and withdraw American forces from the countries that George W. Bush and Obama had invaded with US troops or with proxies called “freedom fighters.”  However, under pressure from “Russiagate” and “impeach-gate,” Trump has fruitlessly sought protection from the powerful Israel Lobby, all for naught.  The most active people in Trump’s impeachment are Jewish members of the Democrat majority in the house and most of the contrived and false witness testimony against Trump was from Jews.  

Nevertheless, Trump has put his presidency at the service of Israel.  Trump recently said that he withdrew from the solid multi-state agreement with Iran, which Iran kept by ceasing to enrich uranium that could be used for weapons, because Israel wanted him to.  Here is Trump in his own words kowtowing to Netanyahu at a joint press conference with indicted felon Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, in Washington on Tuesday, January 28, 2020, a performance by an American President that must embarrass every American and make them feel deep shame:

“As everyone knows I have done a lot for Israel; moving the United States embassy to Jerusalem [al-Quds], recognizing the Golan Heights, and frankly perhaps most importantly, getting out of the terrible Iran nuclear deal,” said the US president to a roaring pro-Israel audience at the White House.

Trump’s movement of the US embassy to Jerusalem is contrary to the position held by the rest of the world and by Washington until Trump violated the UN position.  Trump does not own the Syrian Golan Heights, Israeli seized territory that cannot be annexed into Israel according to international law, and has no authority or legal power, other than might is right, to give Syrian territory to Israel.  But Trump did.  

Notice:  Trump provides reasons for impeaching him, but it would have required the Democrats to take a position against Israel, something they will never do.  And neither will the Republicans. Both parties are owned lock, stock and barrel by the Israel Lobby.

Therefore, America’s war in Israel’s behalf in the Middle East will continue.  Israel wants the water resources of southern Lebanon, and as Israel’s two failed attempts demonstrate Israel is unable to achieve this on its own.

Twice Israel sent the vaunted Israeli Army into southern Lebanon to occupy the region, and twice the vaunted Israeli Army was sent fleeing for its life by the Hezbollah militia.

Hezbollah is funded and supplied by Syria and Iran, and this is the reason that Netanyahu is using his puppet, the President of the United States Donald Trump, to continue to create conditions for Americans to die fighting for Israel against Syria and Iran.  

Trump would willfully comply with Netanyahu’s instructions, but Russia is in the way.

The question before us is whether Russia in order to gain acceptance from the West will sell out Syria and Iran in exchange for membership in the corrupt politics and social dysfunction of the Western World.  

Considering the Western interests of significant Russian movers and shakers —oligarchs—who were enriched by the US takeover of Russia during the Yeltsin years, it is not inconceivable that the Russian government would accept Greater Israel in the Middle East in exchange for membership in the Western World.

Russia is very susceptable to being corrupted by the West.  Life under communism, or tales thereof, have prejudiced much of Russian youth against Russia.  There is a belief that America is Nirvana where streets are paved with gold.  The success of American propaganda is world wide, and this is a huge weakness for Russia.  Today Washington-financed NGOs can bring thousands of Russian youth into the streets to protest Putin, which makes headlines in the US and supports Washington’s propaganda that Putin is a dictator who suppresses Russian democracy.  That the Russian government permits this fifth column activity indicates a lack of confidence on the part of the Russian government. Washington seizes on the lack of Russian confidence and increases the pressure.

With Washington and its European vassals operating against Russia every minute of every day, week, month, year, the Russian government could fall again as it did in 1991.  Russia is far from home free. Russian sovereignty is still not guaranteed. 

Washington is the source of war.  Washington is the only country that invades, bombs, demonizes, and threatens other countries.  The threat of war resides only in Washington. 

Trump murdered a high-ranking government official of Iran, Soleimani, who was on a peace mission on a commercial flight to Iraq where he was invited.  This was both a crime and an act of war.  Russia suppressed the Iranian response, so now Washington is threatening to murder the successor of Soleimani.  

The world turns a blind eye.  Americans are indoctrined to see Iran, like Russia and China and North Korea and Venezuela, as an enemy.  So the more Iranians who are killed, the happier the indoctrinated Americans.

Europe and Japan, being Washington’s vassals, are useless in introducing any restraint and intelligence into deterring Washington’s drive for world hegemony in Israel’s service.  

The conclusion is that War Is Our Future.  The coronavirus, assuming it is not just another pandemic hype like bird flu, SARS, swine flue, etc., will kill far less people than nuclear weapons.

Indeed, Washington and its wars are a threat to the life of planet Earth. The world is trapped in Washington and Israel’s ambitions.  As Russia and China refuse to put their foot down and continue to stupidly open themselves to American interference and, perhaps, biological attack, war is our future. When the button is pushed, we will cease to exist.  And so will the animals, the birds, the plants and trees. 

Only ruin created by Washington will remain.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Stumbling into Catastrophe

February 3rd, 2020 by Daniel McAdams

There is a real danger for foreign policy advisors and analysts – and especially those they serve – when they are in a bubble, an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are based on faulty inputs. Needless to say it’s even worse when they believe they can create their own reality and invent outcomes out of whole cloth.

Things seldom go as planned in these circumstances.

President Trump was sold a bill of goods on the assassination of Iran’s revered military leader, Qassim Soleimani, likely by a cabal around Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the long-discredited neocon David Wurmser. A former Netanyahu advisor and Iraq war propagandist, Wurmser reportedly sent memos to his mentor, John Bolton, while Bolton was Trump’s National Security Advisor (now, of course, he’s the hero of the #resistance for having turned on his former boss) promising that killing Soleimani would be a cost-free operation that would catalyze the Iranian people against their government and bring about the long-awaited regime change in that country. The murder of Soleimani – the architect of the defeat of ISIS – would “rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them upon which the [Iranian] regime depends for stability and survival,” wrote Wurmser.

As is most often the case with neocons, he was dead wrong.

The operation was not cost-free. On the contrary. Assassinating Soleimani on Iraqi soil resulted in the Iraqi parliament – itself the product of our “bringing democracy” to the country – voting to expel US forces even as the vote by the people’s representatives was roundly rejected by the people who brought the people the people’s representatives. In a manner of speaking.

Trump’s move had an effect opposite to the one promised by neocons. It did not bring Iranians out to the street to overthrow their government –  it catalyzed opposition across Iraq’s various political and religious factions to the continued US military presence and further tightened Iraq’s relationship with Iran. And short of what would be a catastrophic war initiated by the US (with little or no support from allies), there is not a thing Trump can do about it.

Iran’s retaliatory attack on two US bases in Iraq was initially sold by President Trump as merely a pin-prick. No harm, no foul, no injuries. This despite the fact that he must have known about US personnel injured in the attack. The reason for the lie was that Trump likely understands how devastating it would be to his presidency to escalate with Iran. So the truth began to trickle out slowly – 11 US military members were injured, but it was just “like a headache.” Now we know that 50 US troops were treated for traumatic brain injury after the attack. This may not be the last of it – but don’t count on the mainstream media to do any reporting.

The Iranian FARS news agency reported at the time of the attack that US personnel had been injured and the response by the US government was to completely take that media outlet off the Internet by order of the US Treasury!

Today the US House voted to cancel the 2002 authorization for war on Iraq and to prohibit the use of funds for war on Iran without Congressional authorization. It is a significant, if largely symbolic, move to rein in the oft-used excuse of the Iraq war authorization for blatantly unrelated actions like the assassination of Soleimani and Obama’s thousands of airstrikes on Syria and Iraq.

President Trump has argued that prohibiting funds for military action against Iran actually makes war more likely, as he would be restricted from the kinds of military-strikes-short-of-war like his attack on Syria after the alleged chemical attack in Douma in 2018 (claims which have recently fallen apart). The logic is faulty and reflects again the danger of believing one’s own propaganda. As we have seen from the Iranian military response to the Soleimani assassination, Trump’s military-strikes-short-of-war are having a ratchet-like effect rather than a pressure-release or deterrent effect.

As the financial and current events analysis site ZeroHedge put it recently:

[S]ince last summer’s “tanker wars”, Trump has painted himself into a corner on Iran, jumping from escalation to escalation (to this latest “point of no return big one” in the form of the ordered Soleimani assassination) — yet all the while hoping to avoid a major direct war. The situation reached a climax where there were “no outs” (Trump was left with two ‘bad options’ of either back down or go to war).

The Iranians have little to lose at this point and America’s European allies are, even if impotent, fed up with the US obsession with Saudi Arabia and Israel as a basis for its Middle East policy.

So why open this essay with a photo of Trump celebrating his dead-on-arrival “Deal of The Century” for Israel and Palestine? Because this is once again a gullible and weak President Trump being led by the nose into the coming Middle East conflagration. Left without even a semblance of US sympathy for their plight, the Palestinians after the roll-out of this “peace” plan will again see that they have no friends outside Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. As Israel continues to flirt with the idea of simply annexing large parts of the West Bank, it is clear that the brakes are off of any Israeli reticence to push for maximum control over Palestinian territory. So what is there to lose?

Trump believes he’s advancing peace in the Middle East, while the excellent Mondoweiss website rightly observes that a main architect of the “peace plan,” Trump’s own son-in-law Jared Kushner, “taunts Palestinians because he wants them to reject his ‘peace plan.’” Rejection of the plan is a green light to a war of annihilation on the Palestinians.

It appears that the center may not hold, that the self-referential echo chamber that passes for Beltway “expert” analysis will again be caught off guard in the consequence-free profession that is neocon foreign policy analysis. “Gosh we didn’t see that coming!” But the next day they are back on the teevee stations as great experts.

Clouds gathering…

*

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 UK government updated the Ministerial Code last August. Its introduction is written Boris Johnson and starts like this: “We must win back the trust of the British people, we must uphold the very highest standards of propriety – and this code sets out how we must do so. There must be no bullying and no harassment; no leaking; no breach of collective responsibility. No misuse of taxpayer money and no actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The precious principles of public life enshrined in this document – integrity, objectivity, accountability, transparency, honesty and leadership in the public interest – must be honoured at all times; as must the political impartiality of our much-admired civil service.”

Before even scrutinising this 36-page document any further than page one, I practically choked on my morning brew.

The country is now more divided over Brexit than over any political matter than before the Great War and it was the politicians who divided it – no-one else. The Tory party are the Brexit party – they own it, lock, stock and barrel.

The very highest standards of propriety have either been completely ignored or avoided to achieve this massive gain for the corporations who pumped millions into the next stage of their neoliberal model. Morality, correctness, legitimacy, respectability and suitability are all characteristics of propriety – characteristics that Boris Johnson and his team find both inconvenient and detrimental to their personal ambitions.

The misuse of taxpayer money and conflicts of interest are at the very heart of questions hanging over our Prime Minister right now. Personally, I don’t care what Boris Johnson does in his private life but the Arcuri scandal is about public funds, not his private life, it’s about conflict of interest, not his inability to control himself. And let’s consider ‘integrity, objectivity, accountability, transparency, honesty and leadership in the public interest’ when Johnson answers questions about the involvement of Russia and its funding of the Tory party and interference into our politics. The trouble is Johnson is none of the honourable things we expect from those in high office. The truth will simply not emerge in this informational war against accountability.

As for the ‘political impartiality of our much-admired civil service’ – this government has made no secret of their animosity and contempt towards the department that has been the backbone of the government since the 1850s. Threats and public shaming have been issued to anyone in the service who do not comply. One senior civil servant wrote recently that the service will turn into – “an increasingly partisan US-style civil service that falls into dangerous groupthink.” The service is actually recognised as the most respected civil service in the world and is about to be torn apart by the likes of Dominic Cummings described as a – “shock doctrine aficionado who has seen in Brexit a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ram through policy ideas that couldn’t be implemented at any other time.”

We shouldn’t forget that it was Cummings and Gove that pushed through the effort to turn 9,000 schools in England into ‘academies’ that has since turned out to be little more than a privatisation drive of public education.

The new code also demands that: “The Ministerial Code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life. They are expected to observe the Seven Principles of Public Life.”

These principles are – selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

After reading this – I have a question; where is the advertising standards authority when you need them?

 

Governing with smoke and mirrors

When Bill Deedes was appointed editor of The Daily Telegraph in 1974, he asked his proprietor, Lord Hartwell, if he had any guidance to give as to editorial policy. “Just give Conservative Central Office a ring,” was his Lordship’s advice. Lord Deedes, being a life-long Tory anyway, would not have found that difficult to follow. And so it is to this day – except, the information provided by No10, now regarded as the ‘ministry of propaganda‘ goes without challenge. The Telegraph, along with other gutter papers such as hate rag The Daily Mail, Express and Sun espouse any nonsense now dished out by Downing Street. So unacceptable is this arrangement that Peter Oborne’s truth-fest was nothing more than a scathing attack on his own employers. His blazing words shine out in the fog of the informational war on reality:

“there is now clear evidence that the prime minister has debauched Downing Street by using the power of his office to spread propaganda and fake news. British political journalists have got chillingly close to providing the same service to Boris Johnson that Fox News delivers for Donald Trump.”

The scene of our new political reality has been set. The general public is to be immersed in lies, disinformation and propaganda. And the reason is quite simple. Ask a question about how they will deliver on Brexit, on the crisis that now completely envelopes our public services such as health, education, social services, elderly care, housing and so on – there’s no real answer other than increasing the national debt.

Some of their best answers could be seen at December’s election. A video clip, doctored by Tory party campaigners of Sir Keir Starmer answering a question about Labour’s Brexit policy was falsified to show him lost for words when he had in fact given a full reply without the slightest hesitation. The official Tory answer to Labour’s policy on Brexit was – fake news. It was propaganda of the worst kind.

In the end, it made no difference if you supported the left, right or centre at the last election, the hyper-propagandised anti-Corbyn campaign was the worst political crusade ever witnessed in this country.

The evidence for this came in an 18 page report (HERE pdf) from the London School of Economics, which said British Journalism demonised Jeremy Corbyn by persistently reporting lies about him as if they were fact. They went further to state that ‘scorn, ridicule and personal attacks’ were at the heart of a massive collective disinformation campaign.

Other easy to remember false statements include promises to employ 50,000 NHS nurses, which turned out to be just a play on words and not true. And what of the 20,000 police officers? Boris Johnson claimed it was the police who fired them not his own government. And it wouldn’t be 20,000 extra officers as he claimed – it really meant replacing those that should have been there. Johnson also conveniently failed to mention that 21,000 police support staff had been fired too. And that was only political hot potato in the first place because the Conservative government of Cameron, May and Johnson got its policies all wrong. Somehow, reversing austerity was to be used as campaign material, not an admission of societal breakdown due to their own political failures.

But at least we now have The People’s PMQs. This is something no-one asked for but channels its way into the ‘people’s parliament‘ narrative. It is rambling nonsense. A disjointed 15-minute monologue from what looks like a desperate PM responding to questions from the public on fishing rights to his choice of shampoo, all live-streamed on the propaganda channel of choice – Facebook. It’s no wonder this government refuses to legislate against fake news through foreign digital platforms isn’t it!

Is Brexit done?

One of the many stupid clichés of the never-ending Brexit saga is that Brexit will happen at the end of January. Many people somehow actually believe this. During the last election campaign, Boris Johnson himself was calculated to have said: “Get Brexit Done” at least ten times a day if they voted for him. They did – and Boris has since announced that by the end of January – it will be done.

It’s not until you read this piece by Ian Dunt combined with a whole host of expert contributors of what leaving the EU under Brexit entails – that you fully realise the size of the Brexit lie. The article starts with – “We are about to enter the most perilous system-level recalibration of an advanced economy in trading history” and concludes  “The government either does not know what it is doing or is not prepared to reveal what it is doing. We are heading towards a truly disastrous set of outcomes unless that changes.”

All of these lies, these play on words, the issuance of misinformation and disinformation threatens the very basis on which democracy rests. Add to all this the most recent threats to the BBC’s future and the ongoing preparations for curtailing the power of the courts to determine the legality of ministerial actions, and it is clear that scrutiny and transparency is being assaulted from all directions.

Far from the promises of the dawn of a new era, without the truth to make informed decisions, Britain will slide into darkness and obscurity. Brand UK – looked up to and revered by so many countries around the world will decay in an environment such as this. The damage already done will take years to unravel – if ever it does.

Informed people know this government is only in power because of its lies. Does anyone really think that a ministerial code, with promises written by Boris Johnson himself means anything at all? Does anyone really think these same people will change their strategies and tactics used to lever themselves into power? The reality is, they will double down, they will commit even further the more they get away with it.

We are now in an informational war against reality. And our commander is on the wrong side of that war. And just like all the other disastrous political decisions Britain has made since 1945, and there’s been a few – Brexit will be the one that finally immerses us under the weight of our mistakes. The consequence is that the people of Britain will need a new illusion of reality that all is good.

*

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

Featured image is from TP

I have read through the entire 181 pages of Trump’s “peace deal” for Israel, and it is breathtaking. It is not just that the “solution” it proposes is ludicrously one-sided, it is the entire analysis of the problem to be solved which reads as pure, unadulterated zionist propaganda.

For example, the word “violence” is used repeatedly. But it only ever refers to violence by Arabs. There is not one single mention of violence by Israel against the Palestinians, even though the ratio of killing between Israelis and Palestinians over the last ten years is approximately 80:1 . The only mention of violence against Palestinians at all relates to Kuwaiti expulsion of Palestinian refugees after the first Gulf war.

The analysis of the refugee issue is the same. Nowhere can the paper bring itself to note the key historic fact, that the Palestinian refugees were expelled from Israel. The paper treats Palestinian refugees as if they had simply materialised as an inconvenient phenomenon, like a plague of locusts. This “othering” of Palestinian refugees permeates the entire paper:

It must be stressed that many Palestinian refugees in the Middle East come from war torn countries, such as Syria and Lebanon that are extremely hostile toward the State of Israel

No. Palestinian refugees were driven by violence from the land that is now Israel. Families who lived there two generations ago have been displaced in favour of families who claim the land because their ancestors lived there eighty generations ago. That is a matter of indisputable fact.

You can claim that displacement of the Palestinians from Israel was justifiable because of the urgent need for a state for Jewish people after the Holocaust. You can claim that the displacement of Palestinians from Israel is justifiable because it is divinely ordained. You can claim the displacement of Palestinians from Israel is regrettable but irreversible. Make what argument you wish, but to refuse to acknowledge the basic fact that the Palestinian refugees were driven from Israel is a pathetic act of cowardice that underlines the sheer intellectual shoddiness of the paper.

The “deal” makes a direct equivalence between Palestinian refugees and “the Jewish refugees who were forced to flee from Arab and Muslim countries”. The language here is extremely revealing. The Jewish refugees “were forced to flee”. There is no hesitation about this claim of victimhood. Whereas there is no acknowledgement at all that the Palestinian refugees “were forced to flee” by the Israelis.

It is undoubtedly a valid point that many Jews were disgracefully and involuntarily driven out by Arab nations, and their suffering is too often overlooked. However to claim the numbers are equivalent is to ignore the fact that a significant portion of the Jewish population of Arab states moved voluntarily to the new homeland, whereas none of the Palestinians expelled from Israel left voluntarily. But the more glaring fact ignored in the paper is that the majority of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands were given the property of Palestinian refugees in Israel. The claim that both sides are in equal need of compensation is therefore a nonsense.

The failure to admit the Palestinian refugees were driven out of Israel panders disgracefully to the most extreme zionist propaganda, which claims that the land was empty before the Israelis settled it in 1948. This is a classic colonist origin myth, used repeatedly by the British Empire, by white settlers in the USA, and of course by apartheid South Africa. When the Trump deal was first published, I was genuinely astonished to find twitter awash with thousands of tweets claiming the Palestinians do not exist as a people. This is an extraordinarily prevalent racist trope among zionists and appears to be not policed on the internet at all. I have read hundreds of articles about the hateful phenomenon of anti-semitism in the mainstream media. I don’t think I have ever seen this extreme zionist racism of “there is no such thing as Palestinians” ever mentioned in the MSM as a problem. But zionist racism is a huge problem, and it underlies the fundamental analysis of the Trump paper.

If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge, even once in 181 pages, that the Palestinian inhabitants were driven out of Israel, there is no chance the proposals built on these fundamentally dishonest foundations will be solid.

The Trump paper has three fundamental “solutions” to the Palestinian refugee issue.

1) Only those originally displaced to be deemed refugees, not their families.
2) Not one single refugee to be allowed to return to Israel (yes, it does actually say that)
3) No compensation to be paid to refugees by Israel

I have often pointed out that the proposed “two state solution” for Palestine has always been no more and no less than the old apartheid policy of “Bantustans” in South Africa, where the indigenous population were herded into six self-governing and four supposedly “independent states”.

It is worth pointing out that the apotheosis of the apartheid system, the Bantu Self-Governing Act of 1959, was given Royal Assent by Queen Elizabeth II, a point now rather skated over by a false narrative that apartheid was a solely Afrikaaner project post-Independence.

The major similarity that I had been pointing out with Bantustans was revealed by the map: fractured lands, not forming any kind of economically viable unit. Trump proposes Israeli annexation of the whole of the Jordan Valley, of North Jerusalem and large areas of the West Bank, the remnant of which is to be shattered by 15 Israeli sovereign settlements connected by Israeli only roads. Trump’s “Palestine” is very plainly not viable.

But the Trump proposals for how “Palestine” will run, make the Bantustan comparison still more stark. Indeed, the restrictions on the so-called “state” of Palestine under the Trump plan from having its own military or security forces are even greater than those imposed on the Bantustans by apartheid South Africa. Trump also proposes that Israel should have the right to stop Palestinian refugees from the wider diaspora entering the new “state” of Palestine.

A “state” not permitted to define its own citizens is not a state.

It does not stop there. The “state” is to have no right to a territorial sea or exclusive economic zone, with its sea to be given to Israel in contravention of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is not to be allowed to conclude treaties without Israeli consent. It is not even to be allowed to open a port but to be forced to import and export goods through Israeli ports – in other words, the Israeli economic blockade is to continue on the new “state”. Plainly, even apart from the unviable fracturing and the shrunk territory, the administrative arrangements proposed make no attempt to reach the level of statehood.

Surely, then, the proponents of the “two state solution” must have reacted strongly to this betrayal of their proposal?

Well, no.

In many ways the most incredible thing about the Trump proposals is how welcoming the western powers were. The general reaction from all European governments was that these are serious proposals with which the Palestinians must engage. While the ridiculous assessment from Dominic Raab that “this is clearly a serious proposal” is perhaps what you would expect from a state looking to the US for economic crumbs, the Palestinians might legitimately have expected better from the EU than the official response, which welcomed Trump’s “commitment to a two state solution”, of France which “welcomes Donald Trump’s efforts”, and of Germany which “appreciates that the president is sticking to the two state solution”.

The Palestinians were probably less disappointed by the support of the traitorous dictatorships of the Saudi and other Gulf States for their close Israeli ally, which is par for the course. But the fact that the international community recognises as a proposed “two state solution” a paper which in no sense whatsoever establishes a Palestinian state within any normal definition of the word, should tell us something important.

As I have repeatedly stated, those who trumpeted the “two state solution” have always been con-artists who do not believe in a viable Palestinian state at all. The fact that Blair and Bush, two dedicated ultra-zionists, stood in the Rose Garden and promised a “two state solution” as part of their propaganda for the Iraq War and other Middle East invasions, really should have shown people of goodwill this was a blind alley. The Trump proposals are a betrayal of the Palestinians, of course. But they are not unique to Trump and they are exactly what Blair, Bush and all the zionist apologists intended all along.

The “two state solution” was always a con.

There is no viable two state solution. To create a viable Palestinian state alongside a viable Israeli state would now involve highly undesirable further forced movements of population. The only long term solution for Palestine/Israel is, as with South Africa, a single state in which everybody has a vote and everybody is treated equally, irrespective of ethnicity, creed or gender.

Trump may, peculiarly, have done one good thing with these ludicrously unfair proposals. He has exposed the hollowness of the “two state solution”, and the pretence that it offers any justice to the Palestinians of way forward towards peace.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

Palestinians Have Only One Option Left: Stay and Fight

February 2nd, 2020 by David Hearst

An elephant trap has for years now laid in the path of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s messianic plans to establish the state of Israel between the river and the sea.

It was the demographic fact that, in that space, there were more Palestinians than Jews. According to 2016 figures from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) that were provided to the Israeli Knesset’s foreign affairs and defence committee, there were 6.5 million Muslims and 6.44 million Jews between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, although those figures are out of date now. The committee referred to Muslims rather than Palestinians, thus excluding Palestinian Christians.

This means that Netanyahu’s annexation plan on its own cannot work. The huge concrete infrastructure with which Israel has cemented its occupation of the West Bank – settlements, walls, roads and tunnels – and its apartheid state as cruel and as complete as anything manufactured in South Africa, are all palliatives – medicines which reduce the pain to a Jewish majority state but not the cause.

Another Nakba

You can announce as many times as you like, as US President Donald Trump did yesterday, that Israel will take over the Jordan Valley and thus about 30 per cent of the West Bank, and establish Israeli law over the settlements. But without physically moving greater and greater numbers of Palestinians out of the expanded state of Israel, little changes. Annexation just becomes another form of occupation.

Population transfer, mass population transfer, another Nakba or Catastrophe, therefore, lies at the heart of Trump’s and Netanyahu’s “vision” for peace.

This is a peace of sorts. It’s the silence you hear in the Palestinian villages in 1948, in Beit Hanoun in 2014, when Israel bombed a UN school in northern Gaza crowded with hundreds of displaced civilians killing 15 and injuring 200 people, or in East Aleppo or Mosul, after each in turn have been bombed to a pulp. It’s the peace created in the total and complete defeat of the Palestinian struggle for a state built on their own land.

The hidden plan

So, for me, the heart of the apocalyptic vision lay not in the supremacist speeches of Trump or Netanyahu, in which both proclaimed “mission accomplished”, and the complete victory of the Zionist movement over the Palestinian people. It lay in a paragraph buried deep inside the 180-page document, the most detailed document Trump bragged that had ever been produced about this conflict. Precisely.

It’s the paragraph which says that land swaps by Israel could include both “populated and unpopulated areas”. The document is precise about the population it is referring to – the 1948 Palestinian population of the so-called northern triangle of Israel – Kafr Qara, Baqa-al-Gharbiyye, Umm al-Fahm, Qalansawe, Tayibe, Kafr Qasim, Tira, Kafr Bara and Jaljulia.

bb

The document goes on:

“The Vision contemplates the possibility, subject to agreement of the parties, that the borders of Israel will be redrawn such that the Triangle Communities become part of the State of Palestine. In this agreement, the civil rights of the residents of the triangle communities would be subject to the applicable laws and judicial rulings of the relevant authorities.”

This is the hidden and most dangerous part of this plan. The triangle is home to about 350,000 Palestinians – all of whom are Israeli citizens – perched beside the north western border of the West Bank. Umm al-Fahm, its main city, has been the home of some of the most active defenders of Al Aqsa.

Yousef Jabareen, a member of the Israeli Knesset from the Joint List, told me:

“Umm al-Fahm is my hometown, Wadi Ara is my lifeblood. The Triangle is home to hundreds of thousands of Arab-Palestinian citizens living in their homeland. Trump and Netanyahu’s annexation and transfer programme remove us from our homeland and revoke our citizenship; an existential danger to all Arab minority citizens. Now is the time for Jews and Arabs who value democracy and equality, to stand and work together against this dangerous plan.”

Official ‘ethnic cleansing’

For years now the “static transfer” of this population out of Israel has been toyed with by Israeli leaders of the centre or the right. The idea of a population and land swap was alluded to by former prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon. But it was only Avigdor Lieberman who took the expulsion of Palestinians up consistently as a cause.

He advocated stripping a suggested 350,000 Palestinians in the Triangle of their Israeli citizenship and forcing the other 20 per cent of the Israeli population, who are non-Jews, to make a “loyalty oath” to Israel as a “Jewish Zionist state”, or face expulsion to a Palestinian state.

Two years ago, Netanyahu proposed to Trump that Israel should rid itself of the Triangle. Today these plans for ethnic cleansing have been sealed in an official White House document.

As Palestinian member of the Knesset, Ayman Odehtweeted, Trump’s announcement was “a green light to revoke the citizenship of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arab citizens who live in northern Israel”.

Supporting Trump

The presence of the Emirati, Bahraini and Omani ambassadors in the audience was the other remarkable feature of the announcement in the White House on Tuesday. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE welcomed the plan without reservation. Qatar did too, although it added that the Palestinian state should be negotiated on 1967 borders and Palestinians should retain their right of return.

Trump said he was amazed at the number of calls he received from world leaders in support of his plan. Not least from our very own British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Ditching four decades of British foreign policy on an equitable and just two-state solution, Johnson threw the UK’s weight behind the Trump plan. British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab also released a statement to say they “welcome” the deal. “This is clearly a serious proposal, reflecting extensive time and effort,” he said.

“I cannot believe the amount of support this morning has,” Trump bragged. “I have been called by leaders, Boris [Johnson] called; so many called. They’re all saying, ‘whatever we can do to help”.

There are some, however, who realise the danger of this plan. Senator Chris Murphy is one of them. He tweeted:

“The unilateral annexation of the Jordan River valley and existing settlements, deemed illegal under US and international law, will set back the peace process decades. And it risks real violence and massive destabilization inside places like Jordan.”

Home alone

No-one should underestimate the historic nature of the declaration that has just taken place. The two-state solution or the idea that a viable, contiguous Palestinian state can be created alongside a Jewish majority state is dead. It was dead long before Oslo Accords.

Arab peacemakers like King Hussein of Jordan was told in terms by both the Soviets – Yevgeny Primakov – and James Baker, then secretary of state, that an independent Palestinian state would never be achieved. This was even before the Madrid conference which preceded Oslo. The king did not need to attend the funeral of his friend Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated in 1995, to realise this. He knew it already. But it really is dead now.

The US has now given its official imprimatur to the eastern borders of the state of Israel. The map Middle East Eye published says it all. The Palestinian state envisioned by the plan looks like an MRI scan of the brain of an Alzheimer’s victim. The Palestinian state has been entirely eaten away.

The message of this map to Palestinians of whatever faction is now crystal clear. Forget your divisions, forget what happened between Fatah and Hamas in Gaza in 2007, cast aside claims of coups, and unite. Unite against an existential threat.

The Palestinians are truly alone. All of the staples of their negotiating position have gone. They have no Jerusalem, no right of return, no refugees to return, no Golan Heights and now no Jordan Valley. They have no Arab allies. Syria is wrecked, Iraq divided, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are now Israel’s playthings. The Palestinians have lost the support of the most populous Arab nation and its richest one.

They have nowhere to flee to. Europe is closed for any future mass migration. They have only one option: to stay and fight. United, they can undo Israel’s supremacist plans for ethnic cleansing. They have done this before and they can do this again.

A new struggle

Palestinians now have to face this reality. The PLO’s recognition of Israel, in 1993, has finally hit the dead end that this road was always going to lead to. The US, international law, UN resolutions were never going to come to their rescue, and in this sense alone, Trump’s brutal plan has done Palestinians a favour. It has blown away decades of fantasy.

What has to start now is a new wave of struggle for equal rights in one state on all of the land of historic Palestine. This will involve a huge fight. No-one should underestimate what will happen if the Palestinian people rise up again. But no-one should be in any doubt too, of the consequences of acquiescence.

This is the first time since 1948 that all Palestinians can join together to do this. They have to seize this opportunity or wither away as a footnote in history.

*

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

David Hearst is the editor in chief of Middle East Eye. He left The Guardian as its chief foreign leader writer. In a career spanning 29 years, he covered the Brighton bomb, the miner’s strike, the loyalist backlash in the wake of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in Northern Ireland, the first conflicts in the breakup of the former Yugoslavia in Slovenia and Croatia, the end of the Soviet Union, Chechnya, and the bushfire wars that accompanied it. He charted Boris Yeltsin’s moral and physical decline and the conditions which created the rise of Putin. After Ireland, he was appointed Europe correspondent for Guardian Europe, then joined the Moscow bureau in 1992, before becoming bureau chief in 1994. He left Russia in 1997 to join the foreign desk, became European editor and then associate foreign editor. He joined The Guardian from The Scotsman, where he worked as education correspondent.

Brexit Day

February 2nd, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Parliament Square is the site, muddied by rain, trodden by hundreds who have made it their celebratory space.  The Leave Means Leave official website had been busy for weeks, thrilled about January 31 and the fact that that Britain would finally be leaving that beastly collective they know as the European Union.  Those who promised to be in attendance were the usual suspects of the Little England brigade who had been so successful in convincing citizens that leaving the European Union was tantamount to gaining one’s freedom from a stifling oppressor.  Over time, the EU had become a figure no less savoury and vicious than Hitler, an achievement of branding if ever there was one.

London is ground zero for the anti-Brexit sentiment that clings to this city with depressing dedication.  It is the Leavers’ primary target, and affirmation they have won.  Vae victis – woe to the vanquished – is a sentiment they seem to relish, though few would know the provenance of the term.  There are parties taking place celebrating the event across this wounded city, daggers into the heart of the metropolitan centre.  During the day, London talkback radio was bubbling and humming with an upbeat note in the morning, occasionally moving into a state of delirium.  Some, it seemed, had already been on the sauce.  Bikers for Brexit, for instance, were happy to share their views about the “revelation” that their freedom was being returned; that the “tyranny” of the European Union was finally being overthrown.

A good number of callers could not see what the fuss was all about.  “We can trade with Europe; we can still trade with Europe,” suggested a sozzled David, who promised to be nursing a brandy as the celebrations commenced.  But beyond trade, David’s true colours showed.  The EU had been responsible for the sort of immigration that that had produced “beggars” and the “homeless” problem in Britain.  No mention was made of the industrious contributions of those millions, spearheaded by the Poles.

Robert was particularly irate at the divisions.  As an arch Leaver living in a Remain borough, he faced the cancellations of play dates for his children, a feeling of having contracted leprosy.  His account was marked by breezy uses of “apparently” (“Old people voted for Brexit, apparently”.)  But the caller was clear: he was definitely not racist, because “I’m black.”

Anecdotes seemed to be the order of the day, an easy if questionable form of data sampling.  Craig from Shoreditch spoke of “the Pole, the Israeli, and the Czech” who told him what a good thing Britain was doing against a seventy-year old effort to initiate a “global takeover”.  One had to “fight the system”.  This, it seemed, entailed voting for the very same man with system etched on his forehead. 

By the afternoon, the mood had moderated, though still dominated by the theme of hope that Prime Minister Boris Johnson had reiterated for months.  On radio, Vincenzo from Sheffield felt he had little to celebrate.  He had been in Britain for four decades as had others of his generation. “They forgot us,” he lamented.  Another spoke of moving to Ireland and chasing up his business contacts there, abandoning this sceptred Isle of Idiots.  

By 5 in the evening, the dissenters had vanished from Parliament Square with their mild, even defeated voices, with placards such as “We’ll be back” and “You have destroyed my future career and dreams.”  Predictably, the statue of Winston Churchill found itself the subject of much attention.  There were posters such as the “Restoration Bill 2020” appended at the base, a document scatterbrained and meandering in its clauses.  The authors wished for all EU flags to be removed from buildings, fishing rights restored exclusively to Britain, a re-instatement of the Magna Carta and the abolition of hate-speech laws.  Evidently unaware that British law and EU law have nourished and influenced each other over almost a half century, such documents become parochial venom to direct at those in disagreement.  Just to keep with that theme, a rotund gentleman, cheeks red and defiantly moving his placard around before Churchill’s indifferent gaze, was giving tips on how to tell a “Remoaner from a Remainer.”  The former, spat his message, are offered money to betray their country.

There are pockets on the square gradually growing in number, but at this time, they resemble devotees of a cult.  Like Sadhus in a trance, several men dance before drum beats, their eyes shut, limbs a jumble of ecstatic movements and gyration.  Donald Trump inspired imitation Stetsons are handed out, albeit sporting the Union Jack on flimsy material.  Others in attendance seem to resemble an animal species preserved in a sanctuary, making Parliament Square something of a historical zoo.  A man decked in full Union Jack regalia from head to toe, his dark skin and flashing grin a striking contrast to his outfit, terrifies some of those who have decided to see spectacle. 

As the Brexiters had failed in getting their Big Ben to bong for 11 in the evening, a makeshift miniature was assembled on the square, with the more modest title of “Little Ben”.  Makeshift Little Ben was plastered with “Democracy”, “Sovereignty”, boasting a small bell to sound by anybody wishing to partake.  The drum attached below the small makeshift tower, which resembled a haphazard paper construction, was belted with manic delight.

Covering the show was an entire regiment of press officials and support staff from any number of countries.  They seemed as bemused as anybody else, adjusting their cameras and mikes between the statues of Churchill and Jan Smuts, with an illuminated Westminster as the backdrop.  A few interviewees were already being drawn in, their eyes sparklingly enthusiastic about what is to come.

The hour duly arrived and, impressive as ever on timing, comes Nigel Farage, a man who has been paid from EU funds as a member of the European Parliament for years, yet has never won a seat in Britain’s parliament.  To be paid by the enemy, it seems, is not a form of betrayal, except when others do it.  “The war is over,” he declares emphatically.  “The vast majority of people who voted Remain now say we’re a democratic country and its right we accept Brexit.”

The sense that this is done and dusted for those who wished to exit the EU is unshakeable.  It ignores the obvious point that the machinery that will extricate Britain is still to be hammered out, sorted and implemented between British negotiators and their counterparts in Brussels.  The EU strategy on this is to bring in the squeeze after those months are out, imposing what will be a form of moderated misery.  January 31 is but a symbolic day; the practical cruelties and nastiness will only be felt once the transition period expires, when the bureaucrats so loathed by the populists will have their say.  For now, Britain continues to pay EU dues without any representation. Not exactly independence, by any stretch of the imagination.

*

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

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

Featured image is from TruePublica

Brexit? What Brexit? Anti-Climax as Britain Leaves EU

February 2nd, 2020 by Johanna Ross

It’s January 31st and Brexit is upon us. The day many thought would never come is finally here. But far from the pomp and circumstance that could have been expected from No.10, the affair itself looks pretty low-key. Ironically, after years of Brexit dominating the media headlines, Britain’s actual exit from the EU is something of an anti-climax. Nigel Farage, you can be sure, will have his champagne ready, his Union Jacks flying (and a party set for parliament square) but Boris Johnson’s preparations are nothing more than a pre-recorded speech, to be broadcast at 11pm, and a ‘countdown clock’ which is to be beamed on to 10 Downing Street in the final hours.

It’s hardly surprising however that the government has chosen this low-key approach. Brexit is an issue that remains deeply divisive. Half the country will be in mourning tomorrow, as the UK’s future out of Europe is shrouded in uncertainty. Boris Johnson may have won the December election on a mandate to ‘Get Brexit Done’ but it’s far from being an oven-ready Brexit deal. There are still many details needing ironed out. Take travel, for instance. Brits are still unclear as to what Brexit will mean for their travel plans. According to research by the ABTA, 31% are unsure about how Brexit will affect their future travel. Hits to their Brexit advice page have increased by 376% as people try to get what information they can. Previously, with a No Deal Brexit looming, the government had stated that people would need at least six months left on their passports to be able to travel to the EU after Brexit. This advice has now been replaced with assurances that until December 2020, travel arrangements with the EU should remain the same. All in all, there is a sense of complete confusion as so little information has been provided by the government on this key issue.

Efforts have gone into other more controversial endeavours – such as the minting of a new coin to commemorate Brexit. With an alarming cost of £11.5 million to the taxpayer (in addition to the £100 million advertising campaign launched for the expected No Deal Brexit which was due to take place on October 31st, but never did), several prominent figures have declared they will boycott the coin completely. Tony Blair’s former spin doctor Alastair Campbell, an ardent Remainer, said that the message the coin bears – ‘Peace, Prosperity and friendship with all nations’ – goes against everything that Brexit stands for. But despite the angst to be felt by EU supporters tomorrow, as has been pointed out by several commentators already, the fact is that there are no Remainers now -we are all Leavers.

Nevertheless, all is not quite so straightforward, as another threat to Johnson’s post-Brexit stability is looming: Scottish independence. On Brexit day, celebrations down south will be contrasted not only with vigils north of the border, where Brexiteers are in the minority, but with a speech due to be made by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, setting out her ‘next steps’ for a second referendum on Scottish independence. Sturgeon’s request last month for powers to be transferred to the Scottish parliament in order to call a second vote on leaving the Union were denied by Boris Johnson, who must surely have thought that would be an end to the matter. But to think this would quell the independence movement is naive on his part. As Sturgeon herself has indicated, the less cooperative Westminster is, the more determined indyref2 supporters become. The EU flag is to be kept flying at the Scottish parliament for the time being, it was decided this week, and Scottish politicians voted again on Wednesday to “reassert the principle that it is the right of the people of Scotland to determine their future”.

Scotland is not going to give up the fight for self-determination any time soon. The Brexit furore may have subsided, but further divisions lie ahead for the United Kingdom as the battle for Scottish independence ensues and the other nations of Wales and Northern Ireland begin to reevaluate their positions in the Union. Far from resolving the Brexit issue, the withdrawal deal forged by Boris Johnson is only a temporary plaster on a deep wound in Britain’s side. The real story of Brexit is only just beginning as Britain begins a new life outside the EU, for which many of the rules have not yet been written. Let the Brexit experiment commence…

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

It is another one of those contests and disagreements where the contestants should all loose, or at the very least, be subjected to a torturous stalemate.  Hillary Clinton remains the nasty sprinkle on the Democratic Party in the United States, ever hopeful that some door might open to enable her to come sliding in, taking the reins to what she regards as her possession: the White House.   

Not winning in 2016 against Donald Trump, a person considered less electable than most cartoon characters, requires more than sessions of therapy and good dozes of mind numbing medication.  Clinton’s therapy has been one of self-denial and accusation of others, strained through a device that gives her miraculous exoneration for her own failings.  That device lies in the realm of information, because this individual, renowned for her own sharp slant on it (remember those fictional sniper bullets she apparently dodged during a visit to Bosnia in 1996?), feels she has been terribly hard done by.  The US may have attempted to thrown off aristocracy in becoming a republic, but it has done a good job of finding sawdust substitutes.   

The dish served up to interviewers and journalists regarding Clinton’s defeat is always the same: I would have won had I not encountered the roadblocks of that impossible James B. Comey and “Russian WikiLeaks”.  She remains obsessed by rites of self-purification that ignore the inner workings of the parasitic machine she and her husband created, marked by an inability to understand the blue collar revolt that fell into Trump’s lap.

Having isolated the cause of defeat as mind controlling “fake news” and “misinformation”, a seedy strategy that ignores the information that was discomfortingly accurate in a populist election (in bed with Wall Street profiteers, the problems with free trade, foreign interventions), she sees the enemy as those who dish out information she does not like.  Those who provide such material must be motivated.  They must have an agenda against her, however mummified she seems to be.  More to the point, having such an agenda miraculously dispenses with the need to confront the details.

This leads to her latest splenetic spray.  Her claim made in an interview with The Atlantic sounds like a lingering old home rant, somewhat demented, totally resentful.  Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook are in Trump’s pocket, she claims.  This is far from a useful designation, because the only pocket Zuckerberg has ever been in is his own, and my does it go deep.  She claims to have a ring side seat to reading his mind, suggesting “that it’s to his and Facebook’s advantage not to cross Trump.  That’s what I believe.  And it just gives me a pit in my stomach.”

The approach is very much in the mould of Clinton, and builds upon the idea that facts are supposedly immutable, accept when they apply to you.  But the failed candidate insists that she has found this one fact: that Facebook is “not just going to re-elect Trump, but intend[s] to re-elect Trump.”  The Atlantic is thrilled to suggest a scoop on the Zuckerberg view on this.  Senator Elizabeth Warren, for instance, is not favoured because she nurses notions of regulating Facebook.  What a stunner of a revelation! 

The tech behemoths have been besieged by opponents who insist they are anti-democratic and authoritarian.  There are neither, being shallow information streams that merely reflect the corrugated perversions of their users, the voyagers on the Internet who do not seek to be enlightened so much as reassured.  More importantly, much of that material is generated by users themselves.  “Facebook is, in a sense, the world’s first technocratic nation-state,” argues Adrienne LaFrance.  Missing here is the understanding that it is more akin to a city-state of information, having monetised it for use and encouraged citizen users to participate.  It is of little concern to FB where such material goes; the quality of merchandise might be shonky, yet still find a buyer or user.   

What Zuckerberg’s opponents never supply is a way of circumventing the tendency inherent in such companies: that they feed instinct, desire and interest.  In doing so, a confusion arises; entertainment is muddled with political sensibility; information that is merely opinion serving as engagement.  It has nothing to do with reasoned debate, whatever the utopians might have thought.     

What is popular is what is extreme; what ranks in searches and information is what is controversial not necessarily what is accurate.  Facebook merely performs a role Roman emperors were familiar with and what the dark lord of the press world Rupert Murdoch always practised: give the people what they want, because their self-respect only rises as far as the next supplement will take them.  Do readers of trashy but election turning paper The Sun wish for a critical debate format on political candidates?  Does the consumer of the Facebook “feed” desire counter-narratives and a range of sources to reach a decision?  The answer to both is a resounding no.  The decisions are already made, prejudices merely re-enforced.  

Zuckerberg, like Clinton, has his own confusions about democratic practice.  He is only to be trusted the way a press mogul should be.  “In general, in a democracy, I think people should be able to hear for themselves what politicians are saying,” suggests the billionaire sociopath.  The principle, for all that wimpy enthusiasm, is a hard one to dismiss.  But he confuses how his platform, through its algorithmic bazaar, has become the means to merely reassure people about their set views rather than change them. Facts have nothing do with it. 

There are others, of course, that also exercise Clinton’s concerns.  This is a person filled with vengeful regret, and it shows.  She has taken against Democratic Presidential contender Tulsi Gabbard, accusing her, in the very counterfeit news she despises, of being a “Russian asset”.  Gabbard has returned the serve in the way that public figures in the US love: through the courts.  A defamation suit has been filed.  Clinton also keeps the dagger sharp for Bernie Sanders, suggesting that “nobody likes him” (old habits die hard for Clinton) for being something she knows all too well: a career politician. 

Such ruminations are not helpful for either Clinton or the Democrats.  They are, however, most useful for Trump, who has, better than his opponents, found the means to deploy the mechanisms of information, accurate or otherwise, in his favour.  The issue is not Zuckerberg, however attractive he seems as a target.  What social media has done is provide the mass dissemination tool that makes distraction the norm and correction impossible.  There is no dialogue in such a debate, because the debate has changed within a matter of hours, if not minutes.  Either ban Facebook and its emissaries, or let it be.  The path to regulation is already proving hopelessly messy and will, in time, prove dangerous.  

*

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]

Russians have been terrorized for the past several months by online bomb hoaxes spread throughout the country by anonymous email services based abroad, which represent a cutting-edge threat to the modern world’s way of life and thus necessitates a concerted response by the international community if this scourge is to ever be fully defeated.

A new form of terrorism has been waged against Russia over the past several months through online bomb hoaxes spread across the country by anonymous email services based abroad. This cyber terrorism saw hundreds of public facilities evacuated since November 2019 out of an abundance of caution, only for each and every one of them to have been false alarms. The authorities discovered that the Netherlands-based Startmail.com was being used by the cyber terrorists and thus banned the service earlier this month, but it’s since been reported that the Swiss-based Protonmail.com replaced it as the new method of conveying these false threats. It, too, has just been banned, but it’s predictable that another one will once again take its place, and so and on so forth until the logical conclusion of the authorities’ security campaign has been reached by banning all anonymous email services in the country.

Cyber terrorism of this sort is especially dangerous because it’s intended to sow panic among the population and make them believe that they’re living in a state of non-stop siege. Furthermore, it’s also meant to test the authorities’ responses in anticipation of what might eventually be a genuine bomb threat sometime in the future that could be perfected for maximum damage if the perpetrators manage to discern any shortcomings in the security services’ method of handling these hoaxes. Even if none are discovered, then it goes without saying that the authorities might naturally grow fatigued having to respond to so many false alarms all the time, after which they might either become complacent or sloppy in their responses and thus miss an actual bomb in the event that one is ever really planted at a targeted facility. Of course, the argument can also be made that these hoaxes provide the security services with extra training, but they also become tiresome after so long too.

These online bomb hoaxes are a cutting-edge threat to the modern world’s way of life even though this form of cyber terrorism is only being waged against Russia at the moment, and it’ll require a concerted response by the international community if this scourge is to ever prevented from spreading and ultimately defeated. The problem, however, is that there’s barely any foreign media coverage about this issue, making one wonder whether others abroad simply aren’t all that aware of what’s happening or if they fear that reporting on it could trigger copycat attacks against their own countries. It’s therefore difficult to discern whether decision makers abroad are even really aware of the enormity of this threat and the scale with which it’s been waged against Russia or not. Of course, it can be speculated that a foreign intelligence agency or possibly even several might be somehow connected to these cyber terrorist attacks, but for the time being at least, that can’t be proven.

In the spirit of good faith, Russia should therefore consider the wisdom of discussing this threat in prominent international fora, especially the UN, in order to make the world aware of what it’s been facing over the past several months. Anonymous email services by their very nature make it difficult to trace who’s sending what, so the natural solution is to shut them down worldwide. That, however, probably won’t happen because of privacy concerns in some mostly Western countries and the fear that governments would be overstepping their authority by attempting to regulate this space. They likely won’t act, if ever, unless they’re one day targeted on a large scale like Russia presently is, but they could at the very least be politely dissuaded from potentially condemning the authorities’ response of banning these services. Any politiczation of the government’s policy of shutting down those sites’ reach in Russia would suggest Machiavellian motives on their part.

After all, while it can’t be proven (at least at this point in time) that any foreign intelligence agencies are involved in these cyber attacks, it would speak volumes about the self-interested and shameless opportunism of other countries if they use the Russian authorities’ response as an excuse to continue with their infowar crusade against the country. There was already tremendous uproar in the foreign press over the state’s internet survival exercise last month (inaccurately reported as a “shut-down”), so it’s conceivable that some forces might seek to exploit Russia’s latest cyber security moves to continue advancing the fearmongering narrative that the Kremlin is supposedly cracking down on cyberspace ahead of a so-called “power grab” by President Putin. Nothing of the sort is transpiring, though speculatively alleging as much serves to erode Russia’s moral standing in the world by misportraying it as a “dictatorship” that’s supposedly “scared of its own people” whereas it’s really just a national democracy doing its utmost to protect its citizens from the threat of cyber terrorism.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

In the period from 1820 to the Civil War the great profits which the New England factory owners accrued were dependent upon the fact that the owners paid women half of men’s wages, though they worked as hard and as long as men. But the super-profits the factory owners amassed were based upon slave labor in the South. The raw material, cotton, which the Northern manufacturers depended upon, was very cheap, owing to the    exploitation and oppression under which unwaged enslaved people labored.   

Factory owners did not want slave labor in their mills. Millworkers bought everything they needed, and could not grow or make their own goods as they had done when they were on the farm. So, the Northern industrialists and merchants, boardinghouse owners and farmers did not want a workforce that had no money.

They wanted workers to plough their wages back into the purchase of   commodities. They wanted the workers to send money home as remittances so the families that workers left “back on the farm” could pay off their mortgages or debts for new equipment or land.   Farmers and businessmen and bankers depended upon the cash nexus which enhanced their enterprises.  Slavery in the North would cut into profitability.

The textile and other industries expanded Southern slavery.

The expansion of slavery West and South involved US Army invasions and ethnic cleansing in the South.   The wars against the indigenous people and the Indian Removal Act spurred both the expansion of slavery and   the growth of the textile industry in the North.

The wars enabled the extension of slavery and the growth of Cotton Kingdom. Conditions for the enslaved people deteriorated as the slavocracy doubled their land holdings and political power. The internal slave trade grew to provide more hands for the new cotton fields in the South and West, separating people from their loved ones, increasing the “breeding” of children for human trafficking  to distant plantations..

Conditions and wages for industrial workers were also worsening as the mill owners’ profits were growing.  Slave holders were enriching themselves too, thanks to the US industrial revolution in textiles, and Britain’s increasing demand for US cotton.

By the middle of the 19thcentury, the development of steamships, railroads and other infrastructure, called “Internal Improvements,” sent raw cotton and then textiles everywhere, to the North, West, and overseas. Cotton calico was durable and its tight patterns hid stains, so millions of farm and industrial women workers bought it and made their dresses from it.

The new products of US industry were protected by tariffs hotly debated in Congress. Tariffs were always favorable to the manufacturers. The purpose of tariffs, taxes on goods coming into a country, was to make foreign goods more expensive than US-made ones.  These tariffs appeared to be the basis of the conflict between the ruling classes of the North and the South. Tariffs angered the leaders of the South where industrial development was rare, and many Congressional debates centered around them. The Southern planter class was angry that tariffs raised the prices of imported manufactured goods forcing Southern planters to buy the less-expensive Northern industrial goods like cloth and tools.

The Political Economy of Slavery vs: Pre-Industrial Capitalism  

If the ruling class in the South, the “Slavocracy,” had industrialized their region, they would have had their own manufactured goods, but that was impossible. The plantation system prevented the Southern ruling class from having enough available “liquid” capital to industrialize.   It was the slave system itselfthat made the South dependent on Britain or the North for manufactured goods.   Southern senators several times threatened to secede from the Union over tariffs. But their antiquated economic system was the cause of their problems.

It began to be clear to Northerners that slave labor in a growing capitalist economy was an anachronism. Neither enslaved people nor poor whites in the South could afford to buy any industrially-produced commodities. The South was economically a dead zone, where little commerce or industry could succeed, while the North was economically advancing both industrially and agriculturally, and expanding its infrastructure to advance commerce. Its population was larger and bought the new commodities the factory workers produced.

New farm machinery and scientific agronomy were intensifying agricultural production in the Northeast and the Middle West.  New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio, the “breadbasket” Middle States, produced grains on large estates and family farms.  Northern industrialists and Northern farmers began to see that Southern slavery as unhelpful to their financial advancement. They could not sell much to the South. The South was agriculturally self-sufficient, consuming their own grains, greens, and hogs.  The industrialists could not make a profit from a region of the US where abject poverty ruled. When the depressions- the Panics of 1837, the economic downturn of the 1840s, and the Panic of 1857 hit, the South was slow to recover.

The North was dominated by businessmen, and in the North, working classes bought cloth and bonnets, shoes and books, while Northern farmers bought the new improved farm equipment, clocks, tools or calico or anything being produced in those Northern factories. Free workers and free-soil farmers’ cash could pay for these commodities.  In the South, only the Planter class was wealthy, and they bought mostly luxuries for themselves, and cheap tools for the enslaved to use.The enslaved people, always managed to “lose” or break these tools, and that was a mark of ongoing resistance to slavery throughout the South.

Source: https://face2faceafrica.com

Northern capitalists and British bankers or textile industries essentially controlled the Southern economy.  Planters were usually in debt to Northern or British bankers.   In what historian Eugene Genovese described as thePolitical Economy of Slavery[1], amongst Southern ruling class, capital was “frozen.” Their actual money was sunk in buying and maintaining their enslaved Black people, buying luxuries, paying back debts, and buying new land to expand the Cotton Kingdom. Plantation land was literally used up by cotton farming, and the soil was useless after a few seasons. They did not teach the enslaved people modern methods of soil improvement because they did not teach enslaved people anything that might enhance their knowledge and lead to escape.

Wars against the Indigenous for the extension of slavery

The Planters got land when the US government passed laws to remove “Indians.” And with every military incursion against the indigenous, they took the fertile acres the government acquired for them for the expansion of the Cotton Kingdom.

This planter class was responsible for promoting every ante-bellum US war:  The War of 1812, the Seminole Wars in Florida(1817–18, 1835–42, 1855–58), and the Mexican War (1846-48).  US always claimed they were under attack by “Savage Indians.” The US Army made wars for the Slavocracy, and justified US colonization and white settlement of the continent as advancements for “civilization.”

Slavery, the system, was connected to everything in the United States. The US army killed Indigenous People to enlarge the Cotton Kingdom.  Laws were created to expand it. Indigenous were exiled from their homelands to enrich the Slavocracy.  Andrew Jackson even flouted a Supreme Court ruling, Worcester v. Georgia, which said that the 1830 Indian Removal Act by which the US army forcibly removed over 100,000 indigenous peoples from their lands, was unconstitutional. Jackson’s refusal to abide by the Court’s decision produced the Trail of Tears, the ethnic cleansing the South of the major Indigenous nations of the region, causing the deaths of 4000 Cherokee, 8000 Muscogee (Creek), 500 Seminole, 500 Chickasaw, and 2000 Choctaw people. Over 15,000 indigenous people died on these death marches.  Those surviving faced forced migration to Oklahoma, so Southern planters could grab land for the expansion of slavery and the cotton kingdom. [2]

This was how the Constitution worked.   The army worked for the slavocracy to invade and seize territory. The Slavocracy ran the government. They got what they wanted, except for the tariff laws.

Transportation advancements, and Internal Improvements -like New York’s Erie Canal and railroads – transported the commodities enslaved Africans produced, as well as the goods and crops Northern farmers and industrial workers made.  Steamships enabled the growth of coastal and internal river commerce, including the internal slave trade, and carried people away from their loved ones forever. By the 1850s, hundreds of thousands of enslaved people were routinely torn from their families and moved South and West by railroad.

A former slave wrote:

“While the cars were at the depot, a large crowd of white people gathered, and were laughing and talking about the prospect of negro traffic; but when the cars began to start and the conductor cried out, ‘All who are going on this train must get on board without delay,’ the colored people cried out with one voice as though the heavens and earth were coming together, and it was so pitiful, that those hard hearted white men who had been accustomed to driving slaves all their lives, shed tears like children. As the cars moved away, we heard the weeping and wailing from the slaves as far as human voice could be heard; and from that time to the present I have neither seen nor heard from my two sisters, nor any of those who left Clarkson depot on that memorable day.”

My Life in the South, by Jacob Stroyer.[3]

*

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

Notes

[1] Eugene D. Genovese, The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South,

Wesleyan University Press, 2014

[2] Elizabeth Prine Pauls, (Trail of Tears.) https://www.britannica.com/event/Trail-of-Tears 

[3] Susanna Ashton I Belong to South Carolina: South Carolina Slave Narratives, University of South Carolina Press, 2010.

Featured image is from https://unzippingthepast.weebly.com

Maneuvering Hell for Our Advantage

February 1st, 2020 by Robert C. Koehler

When the mainstream media writes about war, even critically, the image that often comes to mind for me is an infant wrapped in plastic. That infant is naked reality, a.k.a., the present moment, suffocating and screaming for its life; the plastic smothering it are the journalistic euphemisms by which murder and terrorism turn into abstract acts of national necessity.

Thus, the recent news that the United States clobbered war-torn Afghanistan with a record number of bombs and missiles in 2019 came to us via Stars and Stripes in language protecting all concerned from raw awareness and flying shrapnel:

“American aircraft released 7,423 munitions in the country in 2019, according to figures published Monday by U.S. Air Forces Central Command. Coalition aircraft flew nearly 8,800 sorties during the period, over a quarter of which carried out strikes.

“The tally surpasses the previous record set last year when 7,362 munitions were released and comes amid ongoing discussion between American and Taliban officials aimed at ending America’s longest war.

“Talks between the two sides continued for most of 2019 as American bombs were dropped.”

This is, basically, the language of gamers. I bring it up not to criticize a single story but to throw a wild question into the wind: What if the media suddenly denied war its free moral pass? What if acts of military mayhem were not discussed as chess moves in a global game of competing national interests but sheerly for what they were: acts of slaughter, blood and psychological hell?

Maybe there was a time when war could be seen as rational and contained. After all, the major wars of the 20th century were neatly distinguished by Roman numerals. Peace prevailed for the rest of the century, right?

In point of fact, war begets nothing but war, a reality that’s getting harder and harder not to acknowledge here in the 21st century. But the language of war — “releasing munitions,” let us say, rather than blowing the arms and legs off children — lets the game proceed, at least beyond the national borders and national consciousness. If something awful happens on the home front, the reporting’s a bit different, of course. The events of Sept. 11, 2001, for instance, were covered for what they were, not from al-Qaeda’s strategic point of view. Compare that, let us say, to the shock-and-awe bombing of Iraq a year and a half later.

Here, for instance, was CNN reporting on March 22, 2003, shortly after the invasion was underway. We were in the process of killing 6,000 people in the initial bombing campaign, but the U.S. strategic (and humanitarian!) viewpoint was the prime focus of the coverage:

“Rumsfeld said that the strike had taken place ‘on a scale that indicates to Iraqis’ that Saddam and his leadership were finished. He added that the allies would work to search for, capture, and drive out terrorists who had found safe harbor in Iraq, as well as to deliver humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people.”

Perhaps the media can’t be blamed because things didn’t work out the way the pols said they would, but when does enough become enough? Are we at the point where, as endless war consumes ever larger segments of Planet Earth, it’s now time to declare that it’s out of control and stop writing about war in the same terms used by those who wage it? War is not a chess game. Whatever strategy it employs involves killing people, mostly civilians, and we should at least begin acknowledging that the ramifications of doing so are never strategically contained.

Back to Afghanistan and the fact that we bombed this ravaged country more heavily last year than we have since we started keeping count, which was in 2006. Why? We’ve been pummeling Afghanistan since 2001.

Luke Mogelson, writing last year in The New Yorker, pointed out:

“In 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared, ‘We clearly have moved from major combat activity to a period of stability.’ Since then, more than a hundred and fifty thousand people have been killed in Afghanistan, and about seven hundred and fifty thousand Americans have served there. The U.S. has spent about eight hundred billion dollars on military operations and on a multitude of economic, governance, education, health, gender-equality, and counter-narcotics initiatives. Today, most Afghans live in poverty, corruption is endemic, literacy and life-expectancy rates rank among the lowest in the world, approximately a third of girls become child brides, and no country exports more illicit opium. The Taliban control or contest more than half the country.”

There’s more going on here than strategic failure. War is hell in all directions, and perhaps it’s time to question the sanity of trying to maneuver hell for your own advantage.

One way that hell comes back home is via veterans’ suicides, which continue at a rate of about 20 per day. More and more people studying the matter are clutching hold of the term “moral injury” to describe the cause. Moral injury means a damaged conscience, a pierced sense of self, often due simply to following orders and helping inflict hell on a dehumanized enemy. Indeed, waging war requires dehumanizing fellow human beings. We couldn’t have released 7,423 munitions last year on people we valued.

But a dehumanized enemy can suddenly rehumanize herself in a veteran’s conscience. As Tyler Boudreau has pointed out: “Moral injury by definition includes the memories of those who have been harmed.”

The dehumanization process of war comes home in other ways as well. Domestic mass murders — which are growing ever more commonplace here in the greatest country on Earth — borrow the morality of war. The killer, avenging whatever grievance haunts him, employs the “principle of social substitutability” to kill people he doesn’t know, because for whatever reason they stand for the enemy he has chosen to punish.

And eighteen years on, we’re bombing Afghanistan more savagely than ever. We’ve already destroyed the country, but we can’t stop trying to save it.

*

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

In retaliation for the Trump regime’s assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani on January 3, the IRGC struck two Pentagon bases in Iraq days later.

Iranian missiles successfully penetrated US air defenses, striking targets with pinpoint accuracy — causing significant damage and injuries to US forces.

What Trump dismissively called “headaches and a couple of other things…not very serious…no Americans…harmed,” the Pentagon admitted otherwise in delayed after-action reports.

After initially saying nothing, then  reporting 11 US military personnel evacuated from Iraq with concussion-like symptoms, the Pentagon raised the number to 34, then 50 and now 64, perhaps a larger number to be revealed ahead.

They’re being treated in US military hospitals for traumatic brain injuries (TBI) — from powerful missile blasts.

According to the Mayo Clinic, TBI “usually results from a violent blow or jolt to the head or body.”

Mild TBI affects “brain cells temporarily.” More serious TBI can result in “long-term complications or death.”

Symptoms include:

  • Loss of consciousness for seconds or minutes
  • Being dazed, confused or disoriented
  • Headaches
  • Nausea or vomiting
  • Fatigue or drowsiness
  • Problems with speech, sleeping, or requiring more of it than usual
  • Dizziness or loss of balance (vertigo)
  • Blurred vision
  • Tinnitus (ringing in the ears) or hearing loss
  • Sensitivity to light or sound
  • Memory and/or concentration problems
  • Mood changes
  • Feelings of depression, anxiety, irritability and/or anger
  • Convulsions or seizures
  • Dilation of the pupil of one or both eyes
  • Fluid emissions from the nose or ears
  • Weakness and/or numbness in fingers and/or toes
  • Loss of coordination
  • Epilepsy
  • Loss of consciousness or coma in severe cases

Any or a combination of the above symptoms can be short-term or persist much longer — longterm injury called “persistent post-concussive symptoms.”

Athletes participating in football, basketball, and other contact sports are vulnerable to traumatic brain injuries — most always publicly called concussions, downplaying them.

Affected players and others experiencing TBI are at greater risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease or other forms of dementia later in life.

A 2013 Harvard University study showed the lifespan of former NFL players on average are nearly 20 years shorter than the US average for men overall.

“(P)rofessional football players in both the United States and Canada have life expectancies in the mid-to late-50s,’’ Harvard researchers explained.

Professional football, basketball and hockey are combat by other means, players smashing one another and getting smashed, risking significant brain damage.

TBI is potentially very serious, longterm effects taking time to show up.

According to the Mayo Clinic, individuals most vulnerable to TBI include young children, adolescents and young adults aged 15 – 24, adults aged 60 or older, and males of any age, adding:

“(C)omplications can occur immediately or soon after a traumatic brain injury. Severe injuries increase the risk of a greater number and more-severe complications.”

TBI can be mild or have serious longterm effects. It’s too soon to know the severity of injuries to dozens of hospitalized US military personnel, including those discharged and returned to duty.

The Pentagon called their injuries “mild,” what may or may not be true, what most likely won’t be reported otherwise if symptoms worsen ahead and persist for some of all US military personnel diagnosed with TBI.

Treatment in US military and VA hospitals is notoriously poor. The American College of Surgeons reported that procedures performed in 16 large military hospitals had higher rates of post-surgery complications than in civilian hospitals — including infections and improperly performed procedures.

According to military doctors and nurses, the problem stems from a culture of secrecy and failure to prioritize patient health and safety.

The poorly run system results in deaths and permanent harm to ill or injured US military personnel.

Annual suits by veterans result in millions of dollars paid by Washington to malpractice victims.

Active duty military personnel are prohibited from suing the government. According to a Congressional Budget Office estimate, if permitted to sue, the amount would be triple the annual payout to victims.

The difference in treatment between civilian and military hospitals is world’s apart.

As a US army veteran circa 1950s, I personally experienced poor outpatient VA treatment and learned about more of the same from conversations with Vietnam War vets — ill-treated by the government post-service.

Former US army surgeon general Dr. Mary Lopez called the patient-safety system “broken,” adding:

“It has no teeth. Reports are submitted, but patient-safety offices have no authority.”

“People rarely talk to each other. It’s ‘I have my territory, and nobody is going to encroach on my territory.’ ”

An earlier Pentagon patient safety “analysis” falsely said the “harm rate (is) unknown.”

Medical error is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths and injuries in the US medical system overall —especially in military hospitals for active duty personnel and vets.

Independent studies show military suicides way exceed war deaths, little publicly reported.

Victims are consumed by unbearable emotional pain — on active duty and after returning to civilian life, unable to adjust.

Often unheeded warning signs include depression, withdrawal, lethargy, loss of interest in usual activities, poor appetite, loss of weight, sleep and other behavioral changes, recurring suicidal thoughts, and feelings of hopelessness and despair.

Daily stress is bad enough. Combat theater deployments exacerbate it. It’s intolerable for many. The little known human cost of war raises disturbing questions. America consumes its own.

Epidemic post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) levels affect hundreds of thousands of combat forces and vets.

VA and DOD officials consistently understate problems. Independent reports reveal more. Some say nearly half of Afghan and Iraq vets have emotional and/or physical combat injuries.

Veterans of all US war theaters are vulnerable PTSD and physical injuries.

The toll of war on US military personnel is way underreported and largely concealed.

How many US military personnel deployed to combat theaters return home physically or emotionally scared?

How many stay that way longterm? How many are traumatized from war theater experience?

How many are ill-treated at home when no longer needed to serve US imperial interests?

Many war theater deaths are misreported, little said publicly about them. Many veteran suicides are covered up, slipping under the radar unnoticed.

How many countless thousands of troubled vets are untreated or ill-treated?

How many TBI service personnel from Iraq and other US war theaters will be affected longterm from what they experienced — largely forgotten and ignored when return to civilian life?

A Final Comment

According to the Arabic-language Kuwaiti broadsheet Al-Qabas, the Pentagon is downplaying the severity of injuries to US forces in Iraq from retaliatory Iranian missile strikes.

Aside from PTI injuries, the paper claimed at least 16 US military personnel were severely burned and/or sustained shrapnel wounds, taken to a Pentagon hospital in Kuwait for surgical treatment — currently in ICU for observation.

IRGC aerospace commander General Ali Hajizadeh was quoted saying:

Although Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes on US bases in Iraq tried to avoid casualties, “tens of US troops have likely been killed and wounded and were transferred to Israel and Jordan on 9 sorties of C-130 flights,” adding:

Had the IRGC intended to cause mass casualties, thousands of US military personnel could have been killed and injured.

*

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.

This new edition of David Edgerton’s book The Rise and Fall of the British Nation is timely and apposite given the unprecedented Conservative landslide in traditional Labour seats in the recent general election. Inevitably in the world of day-to-day, parliamentary politics, analyses of the defeat and prescriptions for Labour’s future have been short term and even superficial, but given the scale of the defeat which has taken place during a generational change in Britain’s relations with Europe, a deeper historical examination of the issues involved is needed. 

The verdict of received wisdom is that Labour’s “Red Wall” — its traditional heartland of support in the North and Midlands — fell in the December 2019 election, inflicting the worse defeat since 1935, because the party failed to speak the patriotic language of the working class.  Edgerton’s characterisation of Labour and Britain in the post-war period casts an interesting light on the assumptions underlying this reading of Labour’s electoral disaster.

The first point to be made is that considering Labour was rent with splits in 1935 it actually did rather well. This was when the foundations of the so-called Red Wall were laid. Labour’s heartlands do not as is often supposed go back to the dawn of the industrial revolution. They are a twentieth century creation and owe most to the nationally oriented policies of post-war Labour governments. If the language of the working class in these constituencies is patriotic it is the Labour Party that taught them to speak it.

As Edgerton points out “Labour presented itself in 1945 as the true national party. Its manifesto barely included the word ‘socialism’ (which appeared once), or ‘socialist’ (which appeared twice).”  Often taken to be an icon of socialist policy, the 1945 manifesto concentrated on a national programme of economic development. Welfare reform came a poor second.

The National Health Service, Edgerton admits, was a remarkable creation, unprecedented its universal character. Yet it had not been envisaged in any Labour manifesto and no new hospitals were built when it was created. Labour constructed “an austerity welfare state.” The increase in welfare spending had been greater after the First World War. British spending on social services and health remained low until the 1970s compared to other rich countries.

Where Labour was prepared to spend money was on the military. Britain’s military expenditure amounted to 10% of GDP during the 1950s, more than it had been in 1913 or 1938 and continued at more than 5% into the 1970s. Britain was, in Edgerton’s view more of a warfare state than a welfare state.

Labour was committed to maintaining Britain’s remaining colonial territories. It fought a savage war in Malaya, perpetuating conscription to do so. The Kenyan Uprising took place under a Conservative government but Labour had made no move to abolish the pass laws that were one of the main grievances. The RAF base at Khoramaksar in Yemen was expanded. Repression of the Greek Cypriots continued, ultimately leading to a bloody civil war.

Edgerton resists calls to define the post war period as one of British decline, except in a relative sense. Statistics, he argues, show that Britain was at its most industrialised in the 1950s and 1960s rather than the 1850s or during the industrial revolution.  Manufacturing workers peaked as a proportion of the total workforce in this period. “For the British working class the years from 1950 to at least the late 1960s were years of success.”

Many of the older working class voters who opted for Brexit in the referendum and Boris Johnson in the general election remember this period as one of relative prosperity. Their political consciousness was formed at a time when “Labour could be seen as a nationalist party after 1945, indeed as the nationalist party. It put nation before class, it invoked national victories from the past, and not class victories (or defeats). It is not accidental that Labour prime ministers invoked the national interest again and again, nor was it a mere cliché.”

Even as international competition intensified the Labour Party offered a solution in the form of a technocratic critique of British capitalism. British capitalists, Labour leader Harold Wilson argued, remained “Gentlemen in a world of Players”. We, Wilson told the Labour conference in 1963, “are re-stating our Socialism in terms of the scientific revolution”. Britain would be “reforged in the white heat of this revolution”

Edgerton makes it clear that there was no deficit of nationalism on the part of the Labour left. He admits that Aneurin Bevan objected to the level of military spending proposed by the Labour government. His principle reason for doing so, Edgerton argues, was that it risked damaging the national economy. He acknowledges that Bevan rebelled against the hydrogen bomb in 1955 but points out that he had come round to the idea by the 1957 Labour Party conference.

When he became Labour leader Michael Foot was pilloried by the tabloid press for his lack of patriotism but it was he who led calls in the House of Commons to send a naval task force to the Malvinas Islands. On economic policy too the left was above all national in outlook. The 1983 Labour Manifesto argued for national revival in terms not so very different from Wilson or Callaghan.  The Alternative Economic Strategy championed by Tony Benn was, Edgerton concludes a “modernizing, techno-nationalist, productionist, autarchic programme” comparable to that of 1945.

However useful it is in understanding the political character of Labour, Edgerton’s analysis has some contentious features. Firstly, he rejects any notion of an absolute, long term decline of British capitalism. Decline, in so far as Edgerton admits it, was only relative to other major powers. It is a view that can be challenged. Relative decline translates into lost deals, lost opportunities for expansion, lost investment and, for the nation state concerned, lost power and status. Old empires die hard and in the process can do a lot of damage.

The other contentious term is “nation”. Edgerton argues that the name “Britain” only became standard in political life and history books after 1945 when a British nation replaced the British Empire and the cosmopolitan economy of the pre-war period. Using the term “nation” in this way presents a number of problems. Can we really afford to ditch the concepts of nation and nationalism in the run up to the First World War or the Boer War?

As E. H.Carr warned, all historians have bees in their bonnets. Edgerton’s concepts of “nation” and “decline” might seem to be purely idiosyncratic bees in one historian’s bonnet, except that Edgerton’s bees seem to be buzzing in a particular direction. Writing in the New Statesman before the election Edgerton characterised Brexit as a sign of “a new politics with freshly invented pasts and futures” After the election, he was looking ahead to the break up of the United Kingdom under the impact of Brexit bringing an end to the “short-lived fantasy of the ‘British nation’.” Edgerton sees hope in the prospect of a new English nation emerging from the break up of the UK. Shorn of its pretensions to power, England would be “Less cocksure and more understanding of its real place in the world”.

The idea that we live in imagined realities and that nations are imagined communities is now well rehearsed. Edgerton’s kinder, warmer English nationalism, a nationalism with its imperialist claws clipped so to speak, belongs to that intellectual tradition, or perhaps to an Ealing comedy. Nationalisms are not imagined, they are forged by real economic interests and cannot be re-shaped at will.The concept of the imagined nation is a failure of moral and intellectual courage in the face of the horrors produced by nationalism. It is not so much a better form of nationalism that the left needs as internationalism

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Rise and Fall of the British Nation. The Land that Labour Built
  • Tags: ,