With 169 votes in favor, nine abstentions, and two votes against, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Friday extended the mandate for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) until June 30, 2023.

“The General Assembly… expresses special commendation to the Agency for the essential role that it has played for almost seven decades since its establishment in providing vital services for the well-being, human development and protection of the Palestine refugees and the amelioration of their plight and for the stability of the region,” the UN resolution states.

Favorable reactions to the UNGA decision were immediate, especially among those who know from their own experience the consequences of the Israeli military occupation.

“We welcome the decision to renew the international mandate to UNRWA and we see it as another failure to hostile U.S. policies to the Palestinian rights,” the Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri said.

Established in 1949, the UN humanitarian agency provides housing, education, health, relief services, and microfinance assistance to more than 5 million Palestinian refugees who are currently living in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi also praised the vote and said it was the UN’s responsibility to combat the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Palestinian refugees.

“All attempts at trying to limit the mandate of the UNRWA, defund it or attack it have failed, and we hope that the international community will continue to come to the rescue,” she said.

The U.S. and Israel, which have been leading a smear campaign accusing UNRWA of mismanagement and anti-Israeli incitement, voted against the resolution entitled “Assistance to Palestine Refugees.”

The nine abstentions came from Cameroon, Canada, Guatemala, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, and Vanuatu.

*

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.

Screaming Impeachment

December 16th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Most US establishment media call for impeaching Trump — for the wrong reasons, ignoring real impeachable offenses.

Like most of his predecessors and vast majority of congressional members, past and present, along with a legion of current and former high-level and other apparatchiks, Trump is guilty of crimes of war and against humanity, of serving monied interests exclusively, and flagrantly betraying the public trust.

He breached virtually every positive pledge made. In his inaugural address, he falsely said the following:

Up to now, there’s been “little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.”

“That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment. It belongs to you.”

“January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.”

“The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer…The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.”

“I will fight for you (ordinary Americans) with every breath in my body – and I will never, ever let you down.”

All of the above was and remains BS rubbish. In nearly three years in office, he handed trillions of dollars to Wall Street, the military, industrial, security complex, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and other corporate predators — at the expense of ordinary Americans he betrayed.

His colossal tax cut heist was and remains all about a massive wealth transfer to corporate America and high-net worth households — wanting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other social programs slashed to pay for it.

Social justice is on the chopping block for slow-motion elimination, a longtime GOP goal supported by hardline/neoliberal undemocratic Dems.

Throughout his campaign and post-election, the NYT waged editorial war on Trump. Its latest edition screamed: “Impeach.”

Its editors never forgave him for triumphing over media darling Hillary. On election day 2017, it said she “has an 85% chance to win,” adding:

Her “chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an NFL kicker misses a 37-yard field goal.”

A supposed sure thing didn’t turn out that way. The Times never forgot or forgave. It’s waged near-daily war to demonize Trump, largely for the wrong reasons, the most important right ones ignored because the broadsheet supports them.

The Times: Trump “abused the power of his office by strong-arming Ukraine, a vulnerable ally, holding up hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid until it agreed to help him influence the 2020 election…”

Ukrainian President Zelensky debunked the above Big Lie.

The Times: Trump “show(ed) ‘unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance’ in the face of multiple subpoenas (sic).”

“He made it impossible for Congress to carry out fully its constitutionally mandated oversight role, and, in doing so, he violated the separation of powers, a safeguard of the American republic (sic).”

The impeachment process by undemocratic Dems is a colossal scam, one of the most disturbing political spectacles in US history, modern-day McCarthyism no one should support.

No credible evidence presented backs it, no legitimate constitutional grounds, no quid pro quo as falsely claimed, no bribery or other criminal act, no obstruction of justice.

No US president was ever impeached for non-criminal actions or phony abuse of power claims.

Time and again, US presidents push foreign leaders to serve US interests. By that standard, virtually all Trump’s predecessors should have been impeached and removed from office.

What’s going on to continue in the new year is all about an attempt by Dems to gain a political advantage in 2020 elections — a scam that may backfire and hand Trump a second term, perhaps giving the GOP a chance to control both houses.

On all things Trump and most other major domestic and geopolitical issues, the Times abandoned journalism for advocacy, operating as a mouthpiece for powerful interests.

The same goes for other establishment media, featuring managed news misinformation and disinformation exclusively over journalism the way it’s supposed to be.

The neocon/CIA connected Washington Post supports the impeachment scam.

Its latest edition discussed what it called “a growing roster of national and regional newspapers that” support impeachment, naming the following ones:

The NYT, LA Times, USA Today, Tampa Bay Times, Orlando Sentinel, Boston Globe, New York Daily News, Chicago Sun-Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and San Francisco Chronicle — along with its own editorial board.

Last week, Wall Street Journal editors went the other way, headlining: “The Incredible Shrinking Impeachment,” saying:

“(G)rounds (by Dems) for ousting Trump are weak—and damaging to constitutional norms,” adding:

“After all the talk of obstruction of justice, collusion with Russia, bribery, extortion, profiting from the presidency, and more, House (Dems settled for) abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Honey, we shrunk the impeachment” — to illegitimacy.

New polls show most Americans oppose impeachment. Give credit less to their understanding of the facts, more to failure by Dems to present a credible case.

Months of anti-Trump huffing and puffing by Dems and supportive media laid an egg.

According to the Arizona Republic’s editorial director Phil Boaz, Dems “will impeach.”

“The Republican Senate will acquit. And then we’ll have an election. The rest is all posturing.”

US voters will have the last word next November.

A Final Comment

Trump is a political anomaly, the first billionaire businessman, reality TV personality elected US president, defying the odds and pre-election polls.

In office, he escalated wars he inherited, handed trillions of dollars to monied interests, supporting dirty business as usual throughout his tenure.

Why would beneficiaries of his agenda want him removed? They don’t.

Dems and supportive media want him ousted for winning an election he was supposed to lose.

Pre-election, power brokers were likely divided. Hillary may have lost because a majority of their numbers decided she was damaged goods, too contentious to lead.

Polls showed most voters disliked both candidates. Most likely a deal was struck with Trump to continue dirty business as usual. He didn’t disappoint.

Dems and supportive media want revenge because their candidate lost — Hillary snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

That’s what the impeachment scam is all about, its outcome to unfold in the new year.

No matter what happens ahead, peace, equity, justice, and the rule of law have no chance against US dark forces opposing these values.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Windover Way Photography

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Screaming Impeachment

“They opened Pandora’s box and hatred came out,” they write. Government Minister Arturo Murillo publicly threatened them: “Be careful, we are watching you.”

“This government has unleashed a huge racial hatred. They opened pandora’s box and a thousand demons came out who are expressing themselves in situations of profound violence,” says jurist Luis Arias, one of the members of the Argentine delegation that traveled to Bolivia. On Thursday, a group of forty social and human rights leaders arrived in the neighboring country with the aim of preparing a record of the deaths and abuses suffered by the population since the coup d’etat against Evo Morales was consummated.

Disappearances, murders, arbitrary detentions, rapes, torture and hospitals that refuse to take care of those wounded by the repression were some of the events recorded during the first day of work. They were held and kicked at the airport by a pro-coup mob. Then the Minister of Government of Añez, Arturo Murillo, came out to threaten them publicly:

“Be careful, we are watching you.”

From the moment they stepped on Bolivian soil, the delegation -composed of Juan Grabois (CTEP), the lawyer Roberto Carlés, Pablo Pimentel and Mauricio Rojas (APDH), Victoria Freire (Observatory of Gender and Public Policies of the City), Daniel Catalano (ATE), Marianela Navarro (FOL), Sergio Smietniansky (CADEP), among many others – had to face the attacks, threats and misgivings of the de facto government of Jeanine Añez.

On Thursday night, the members of the delegation arrived at the airport of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, to connect with another flight to La Paz. Upon arrival, the Bolivian police detained them, separated them from the rest of the travelers and identified, by name and surname, 12 of the members of the entourage and took them to another room to interrogate them.

“They were waiting for us,” Carles said and added: “They selected the people whose names had appeared in the press and subjected them to an interrogation.” “They started asking us about our plans in Bolivia, where we were going to go and who we were going to visit. They treated us with great hostility and after a few hours they let us go,” said Arias, who was in this group.

On the way to the boarding area, they were accosted by a gang of ten people in civilian clothes.

“We did not know if they were shock forces or people linked to Luis Fernando Camacho. They began to insult us, to threaten us, to ask us what we were doing in Bolivia. They called us ‘communist gauchos’ and ‘homosexuals.’ They made reference to the cartoneros, it was clear they wanted to let us know that they knew who we were and provoke us to react. The place was deserted: they had taken over the area,” said Carlés.

At one point, they started pushing and hitting them, the ATE Secretary General, Daniel Catalano, was kicked.

“From the apparel they wore, we assume they were civilian police forces. Meanwhile, the uniformed police were there witnessing all the harassment and doing nothing,” Catalano said.

After this reception from the de facto government there was another more worrisome event:

“Walk carefully, we are watching you,” the government minister told them through statements to the press, calling them “those foreigners who are coming to try to burn the country.” “The first false step that they take to try to make terrorism or sedition is going to be met with the police,” he threatened. After these statements, some of the members of the delegation visited the Argentine embassy in Bolivia to ask for protection; they were granted some cars to travel in. “We are completely guarded all the time,” Carlés said.

Despite these inconveniences, the delegation continued with the agenda and spent the entire day in El Alto collecting testimonies from relatives of victims who suffered in their own flesh the violence exercised by the security forces. “The stories are frightening,” Arias told Pagina/12 . There are reports of disappearances, arbitrary detentions – among which are the case of three young people with Downs syndrome -, torture of children, murders as a result of repressive actions by police forces, injuries by lead bullets, fires, among other things.

Much of the survey was carried out in the San Francisco de Asís Church, where vigils for the deaths caused by the repression in Senkata had been held. “The situation is very terrible, families report not being treated in hospitals. Many of the wounded are in homes because when they go to hospitals they are charged with terrorism and sedition,” said Marianela Navarro, delegate of the Organizations in Struggle Front. According to the commission, it is not only the security forces who are attacking the population, but there are numerous institutions that are also reproducing the racist hatred that goes through the de facto government violence. “Public hospitals do not want to treat the wounded and the public defenders do not want to defend the victims. There is a deep racial hatred that is directed especially against the most vulnerable sectors and women, ” said Arias.

The commission also identified that there is a deep cruelty against “women with polleras” (traditional indigenous skirt). There have been numerous cases of rapes and sexual assaults against indigenous women and girls, attacked while alive and after their death. At the same time, there have been complaints that claim to have seen mutilated and dismembered bodies.

“People are very much in need of being heard, that the world know the truth of what is happening, because here there is a huge silencing,” said Arias, referring to the silence of the Bolivian media, which played an important role in the legitimization of the de facto government. “They ask us for help, they ask us for justice. What they have suffered has been virtually ignored by the international community. And they feel alone,” Carlés concluded.

*

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: The commission collected testimonies from victims and family members. Image: Pablo Añelli

O revisionismo do Bolsonaro no Brasil

December 15th, 2019 by Danica Jorden

O governo do Presidente Jair Bolsonaro está embarcando em um projeto de revisão histórica e cultural. Em setembro, a Cinemateca Brasileira ficou “ocupada” por militares e politicos da extrema-direita que criticaram o “marxismo cultural” da instituição e prometeram uma futura mostra cinematográfica dedicada a reabilitar a imagem da antiga ditadura militar do país. Tambem em setembro, a Ancine, agência nacional para o desenvolvimento cinematográfico, viu seus fondos  subitamente cortados por quase a metade. O antigo Ministro da Cultura Marcelo Calero expressou que todos os paises devem investir nas artes e no desenvolvimento científico, e que estes últimos ações “são medidas que têm um elemento ideológico muito forte”.

A Associação Brasileira de Documentaristas e Curtas Metragens (ABD) emitiu um comunicado no qual declara que, diante da ocupação da Cinemateca e dos cortes da Ancine, a comunidade cinematográfica do país está vivendo “uma violação material e simbolica por ativistas da extrema-direita”.

Esta semana, o governo anunciou a criação de uma nova série de vídeo sob a égide da TV Escola, intitulada “Brasil: A Última Cruzada”, “vai revelar a história escondida do Brasil”. A produtora Brasil Paralelo promete combater ” idéias esquerdistas” com a série, cujos primeiros episódios podem ser vistos gratuitamente no Youtube, e no futuro estarão disponíveis de base pagado.

O primeiro vídeo abre com o que os produtores sugerem ser a falsa narrativa do Brasil, com imagens do Lula, longas filas e crime. Em seguida, umas tomadas aéreas de monumentos, igrejas e arranha-céus contrastam com pilhas de livros e cabeças falantes, nos quais destaque o teórico da conspiração Olavo de Carvalho, que contesta que a terra é redonda e afirma que Pepsi é adoçada por fetos abortados.

Esta semana, Olavo humilhou o ex-presidente e outro humanitário brasileiro de origem humilde ao comentar sobre o autor de “Pedagogia do Oprimido”: “Que é que o Paulo Freire fez pelo Brasil? Porra nenhuma. Não alfabetizou nem o Lula”.

Uma das missões da Cinemateca é a preservação e a distribuição continuada das obras de um dos períodos mais marcantes da história do cinema, o Cinema Novo, movimento que começou em meados dos anos 50. Influenciado pelo neorealismo italiano, “Deus e o Diabo na Terra do Sol” (Glauber Rocha, 1964) retrata de forma vívido a história desesperada e violenta do sertão, aonde místicos e cangaceiros lutam contra fazendeiros impiedosos para sobreviver à grande seca da região.

pastedGraphic.png

(Imagen do filme “Deus e o diabo na terro do sol”)

Rocha foi forçado ao exílio pela ditadura militar durante dez anos, só regressando quando foi transferido de um hospital português com uma infecção pulmonar, morrendo dias depois aos 42 anos.

“Como era gostoso meu Francês” (1971), de Nelson Pereira dos Santos, que foi filmado quase inteiramente na língua tupí, satirizou o canibalismo literal do povo tupinamba e o canibalismo imperialista cometido pelos europeus nas Américas. Os Tupinambás podem ter comido o francês, mas mais tarde foram dizimados pelo colonialismo.

Em “Bye, Bye Brasil” (1979, Carlos Diegues), uma caravana de atores luta para encontrar um público em uma cidade aparentemente deserta, finalmente acontecendo com uma multidão reunida em torno de um aparelho de televisão.

Enquanto o espetáculo itinerante continua a se mover em busca de melhores perspectivas, eles testemunham a morte e a destruição do deserto pelas mãos dos industriais. Depois de encontrar um grupo de indígenas expulsos de suas terras ancestrais, as mulheres do circo são forçadas à prostituição para ganhar dinheiro. Finalmente, os povos indígenas ficam encantados por sua primeira viagem de avião quando são recrutados como trabalhadores manuais, e os líderes do circo compram uma caravana coberta de luzes de néon com o seu novo dinheiro, declarando que vão trazer a modernidade para o que resta da selva. 

“Pixote (1981, Héctor Babenco) e “Cidade de Deus” (2002, Fernando Meirelles, Kátia Lund) são explorações brutais das vidas de crianças de rua forçadas a se adaptar à violência endêmica das enormes favelas que se agarram às colinas acima ou residem nas periferias de São Paulo, do Rio e de outras das grandes cidades do Brasil. Ambos os filmes usaram atores não-profissionais, como fez Glauber Rocha nos anos 60, vindos de cidades onde crianças sem-teto sofrem de  “limpezas” pela polícia. O documentário “Cidade de Deus – 10 Anos Depois” revisita os protagonistas do filme e descobre que muitos não conseguiram escapar dos problemas.

“Central do Brasil” (1998, Walter Salles) segue uma odisséia que atravessa a vasta extensão do Brasil por ônibus e caminhão com uma professora aposentada e um menino órfão que morava na estação ferroviária. A professora primeiro vende o menino a um comerciante de órgãos para comprar uma televisão, mas depois decide recuperá-lo e levá-lo do Rio de Janeiro até a Bahia em busca de sua família.

Fernanda Montenegro, agora com 90 anos, foi fotografiada em setembro, para a capa da revista brasileira “Quatro Cinco Um”, coberta de corda pesada em cima de uma pilha de livros, referenciando óbviamente à queima de bruxas e de livros. Ela foi chamada de “sórdida” e “mentirosa” pelo falido diretor conservador cristão Roberto Alvim, que em novembro foi nomeado Ministro da Cultura por Bolsonaro.

pastedGraphic_1.png

(Telenovela e favela no filme de Bruno Barreto  “Ultima Parada 174”, 2008)

Enquanto as telenovelas comerciais do Brasil (novelas) se concentram quase exclusivamente na riqueza e nas riquezas, a maioria com atores de ascendência européia, os filmes apoiados pela Ancine e pela Cinemateca exploram a pluralidade e a realidade do Brasil empregando inovações exclusivamente brasileiras.

O Brasil teve uma longa história de censura durante a ditadura militar de 1964 a 1985, e os EUA passou por um periodo de censura das artes alguns anos antes. O artista multimídia brasileiro Vik Muniz, que vive e trabalha entre Nova York e o Rio, adverte que Bolsonaro, ou Trump nos EUA, não é o único culpado. “Você tem que entender que nós elegemos essas pessoas”, aponta ele. “Se você goste ou não, [eles] representam a maioria do povo”.

Mas essa maioria de pessoas não é homogênea, nem estão morando nos bairros glorificados em “A Última Cruzada”. O novo Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano (IDH) das Nações Unidas, divulgado este segunda-feira, 9 de dezembro, coloca o Brasil em segundo lugar entre os países mais desiguais do mundo, com mais de 28% da riqueza do país concentrada nas mãos de apenas 1% da população. Ao se concentrar em descrever apenas os mais ricos do Brasil, Bolsonaro está ignorando a grande maioria do país e a riqueza de suas diversas histórias.

Danica Jorden

Foto : Jeso Carneiro, flickr.com

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on O revisionismo do Bolsonaro no Brasil

Parem já com as mentiras sobre Assange

December 15th, 2019 by John Pilger

Os jornais e outros órgãos de comunicação social nos Estados Unidos, na Grã-Bretanha e na Austrália proferiram recentemente a sua paixão pela liberdade de expressão, principalmente no que toca ao seu direito a publicar livremente. Estão preocupados com o “efeito Assange”.

É como se a luta de reveladores de verdades como Julian Assange e Chelsea Manning seja agora um aviso: que os rufias que arrastaram Assange para fora da embaixada equatoriana em Abril possam um dia vir por eles.


O Guardian na semana passada ecoou um estribilho comum. A extradição de Assange, disse o jornal, “não é uma questão de quão conhecedor o Sr. Assange seja, ainda menos quão afável. Não tem a ver com o seu carácter, nem com o seu discernimento. É uma questão de liberdade de imprensa e do direito do público a ser informado.”

O que o Guardian está a tentar fazer é separar Assange dos seus notórios feitos, que tanto deram a ganhar ao Guardian e expuseram a sua vulnerabilidade, juntamente com a sua propensão a dar graxa ao poder rapinante e a achincalhar aqueles que revelam os seus dúplices padrões.

O veneno que tem alimentado a perseguição de Julian Assange não é assim tão óbvio neste editorial como costuma ser; não inclui a ficção acerca de Assange esfregar fezes nas paredes da embaixada ou a ser horrível para o seu gato.

Em vez disso, as fuinhas referências ao “carácter”, ao “discernimento” e à “afabilidade” perpetuam uma calúnia épica que conta já quase com uma década.

Nils Melzer, o relator das Nações Unidas para a Tortura, utilizou uma descrição mais apta. “Tem decorrido”, escreveu, “uma campanha incansável e sem tréguas acompanhada de assédio público”. Explica este assédio como “um fluxo interminável de afirmações humilhantes, degradantes e ameaçadoras na imprensa”. Este “ridículo colectivo” constitui um acto de tortura e pode levar à morte de Assange.

Tendo testemunhado muito do que Melzer descreve, posso atestar a veracidade das suas palavras. Se Julian Assange sucumbir à crueldade que lhe descarregam em cima, semana após semana, mês após mês, ano após ano, como alertam os médicos, jornais como o Guardian serão também responsáveis.

Há alguns dias, o homem do Sydney Morning Herald em Londres, Nick Miller, escreveu uma pretensiosa e preguiçosa peça titulada “Assange não triunfou, limitou-se a esperar até a justiça caducar”. Referia-se ao abandono por parte da Suécia da dita investigação a Assange.

O relato de Miller não é atípico nas suas omissões e distorções, enquanto se mascara de tribuna pelos direitos das mulheres. Não há qualquer trabalho original, nenhum inquérito real: só calúnia.

Não há nada sobre o comportamento documentado de um bando de zelotas suecos terem sequestrado as “alegações” de má conduta sexual contra Assange e terem feito uma zombaria da lei sueca e da vaidosa decência dessa sociedade.

Não menciona que em 2013 a procuradora geral sueca tentou abandonar o caso e enviou uma missiva electrónica à Procuradoria Geral da Coroa em Londres afirmando que já não iria manter o Mandato de Captura Europeu, à qual recebeu a resposta: “Nem se atreva!!!” (O nosso obrigado a Stefania Maurizi do La Repubblica)

Outros emails demonstram como a PGC desencorajou os suecos de irem a Londres inquirir Assange – o que era uma prática comum – bloqueando assim o progresso de um processo que o teria libertado em 2011.

Nunca houve uma intimação. Nunca houve quaisquer acusações. Nunca houve uma tentativa séria de levar as “alegações” a Assange e de o interrogar – comportamento que o Supremo Tribunal de Apelação da Suécia considerou serem negligência, e que o Secretário Geral da Ordem dos Advogados da Suécia desde então condenou.

Ambas as mulheres envolvidas afirmaram não ter havido estupro. As provas cruciais impressas das suas mensagens de texto foram propositadamente recusadas aos advogados de Assange, claramente por minarem as “alegações”.

Uma das mulheres ficou tão chocada por Assange ter sido preso, que acusou a polícia de a ter pressionado e de ter alterado o seu testemunho. A procuradora geral, Eva Finne, descartou a “suspeição de ter cometido qualquer crime”.

O homem do Sydney Morning Herald omite como um político ambicioso e comprometido, Claes Borgstrom, emergiu por detrás da fachada liberal da política sueca e efectivamente açambarcou e ressuscitou o processo.

Borgstrom alistou uma ex-colaboradora política, Marianne Ny, como nova procuradora. Ny recusou garantir que Assange não seria enviado para os Estados Unidos se fosse extraditado para a Suécia, mesmo embora, como relatou o The Independent, “já tenham decorrido negociações informais entre oficiais suecos e dos EUA sobre a possibilidade do fundador do WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, ser entregue à custódia dos americanos, de acordo com as nossas fontes diplomáticas”. Tal era um segredo conhecido em Estocolmo. Que a libertária Suécia seja detentora de um negro e documentado passado a entregar pessoas às mãos da CIA não é novidade nenhuma.

O silêncio foi interrompido em 2016 quando o Grupo de Trabalho Para as Detenções Arbitrárias das Nações Unidas, corpo que decide se os governos estão a cumprir com as suas obrigações para com os direitos humanos, deliberou que Julian Assange fora ilegalmente detido pela Grã-Bretanha e apelou a que o governo britânico o libertasse.

Tanto o governo da Grã-Bretanha como o da Suécia participaram na investigação da ONU, e concordaram em acarretar com a sua decisão, que detinha o peso da lei internacional. O secretário dos Negócios Estrangeiros britânico, Philip Hammond, foi ao Parlamento e fez pouco do painel da ONU.

O processo sueco foi uma fraude desde o momento em que a polícia secreta e ilegalmente contactou um tablóide de Estocolmo e desencadeou a histeria que iria consumir Assange. As revelações dos crimes de guerra da América pelo WikiLeaks envergonhou as aias do poder e dos seus interesses velados, as quais tomam para si o título de jornalistas; e por esta razão, o inatingível Assange jamais seria perdoado.

Estávamos agora em época aberta de caça. Os atormentadores de Assange na comunicação social copiavam e colavam as mentiras e injúrias uns dos outros. “Ele é mesmo um cagalhão enorme”, escreveu Suzanne Moore, cronista do Guardian. O conhecimento adquirido era de que este tinha sido acusado, o que nunca foi verdade. Na minha carreira, reportando em locais com extrema insurreição, sofrimento e criminalidade, nunca testemunhei nada do género.

Na pátria de Assange, Austrália, este “assédio público” atingiu o seu apogeu. Tão ansioso estava o governo australiano de entregar um seu cidadão aos Estados Unidos ao ponto da primeira ministra em 2013, Julia Gillard, querer tirar-lhe o passaporte e acusá-lo de um crime – até que lhe foi dito que Assange não cometera qualquer crime e que não tinha o direito de lhe retirar a cidadania.

Julia Gillard, de acordo com o portal Honest History, detém o record do discurso mais bajulador alguma fez proferido no Congresso dos EUA. A Austrália, afirmou ela entre aplausos, era a “grande amigaça” da América. A grande amigaça uniu-se à América na sua caça por um australiano cujo crime foi o jornalismo. Foi-lhe negado o direito à protecção e à devida assistência.

Quando o advogado de Assange, Gareth Peirce, e eu reunimos com dois funcionários do consulado australiano em Londres, ficamos chocados quando soubemos que tudo o que estes conheciam acerca do caso “foi o que lemos nos jornais”.

Este abandono por parte da Austrália foi a principal razão pela atribuição do asilo político pelo Equador. Como australiano, considero isto particularmente vergonhoso.

Quando questionado acerca de Assange recentemente, o actual primeiro ministro australiano, Scott Morrison, respondeu, “deve deitar-se na cama que fez”. Este tipo de acto de rufia, despojado de qualquer respeito pela verdade, pelos direitos, pelos princípios e pela lei, é a razão pela qual a imprensa que é na sua larga maioria controlada por Murdoch na Austrália está agora preocupada com o seu próprio futuro, tal como se preocupa o Guardian, e tal como se preocupa o The New York Times. A sua preocupação tem um nome: “o precedente de Assange”.

Sabem que o que acontecer a Assange também lhes poderá acontecer. Os direitos elementares e a justiça que lhe forem negadas também lhes podem ser negados a eles. Foram avisados. Fomos todos avisados.

Sempre que visito Julian no inóspito e surreal mundo da prisão de Belmarsh, recordo-me da responsabilidade daqueles como nós que o defendemos. Neste caso estão em risco princípios universais. Ele próprio costuma dizer: “não sou só eu. É muito mais amplo.”

Mas no centro da sua notável luta – e trata-se, acima de tudo, de uma luta – encontra-se um ser humano cujo carácter, e repito cujo carácter, demonstrou a mais avassaladora coragem. Saúdo-o.

Esta é uma versão condensada da apresentação que John Pilger fez em Londres no lançamento da obra In Defense of Julian Assange, uma antologia publicada pela Or Books, de Nova Iorque.

John Pilger


Consulte também:   www.dontextraditeassange.com

Artigo original em inglês:

The Lies About Assange Must Stop Now

Tradução: Flávio Gonçalves

John Pilger é jornalista e cineasta de nacionalidade britânico-australiana e reside em Londres. O portal de Pilger encontra-se em www.johnpilger.com. Em 2017, a Biblioteca Britânica anunciou a criação de um Arquivo John Pilger com toda a sua obra escrita e filmada. O Instituto Britânico do Filme inclui o seu filme de 1979, “Ano Zero: A Morte Silenciosa do Camboja”, entre os 10 documentários mais importantes do século XX. É colaborador frequente do Global Research.

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Parem já com as mentiras sobre Assange

O capital financeiro mascara-se de verde

December 15th, 2019 by F. William Engdahl

àClima. Quem haveria de dizer. As próprias mega-corporações e mega-bilionários por trás da globalização da economia mundial nas últimas décadas, cuja busca de valor para o accionista e redução de custos infligiu tantos danos ao meio ambiente – tanto no mundo industrializado quanto nas economias subdesenvolvidas da África, Ásia e América Latina – são os principais apoiantes do movimento de base da “descarbonização” com origem na Suécia, Alemanha, EUA e outros lados.

Será um repente de consciência culpada, ou poderia haver uma agenda mais profunda da financiarização do próprio ar que respiramos e muito mais?

O actual movimento em torno das questões climáticas pode ser observado sob muitos ângulos. Mas um que não pode ser ignorado é o que regista o facto de, por trás das suas expressões mais mediáticas, estarem gigantes da finança capitalista global e entidades cujo currículo é não a defesa do planeta mas uma acção danosa global sobre o ambiente e as sociedades humanas.

Mesmo que se acredite nos perigos do CO2 e nos riscos do aquecimento global criador de uma catástrofe global com o aumento da temperatura média de 1,5 a 2 graus Celsius nos próximos 12 anos, vale a pena observar quem está a promover a actual inundação de propaganda e de activismo climático.

Finança verde

Vários anos antes de Al Gore e outros decidirem utilizar uma jovem escolar sueca para ser cabeça de cartaz quanto à urgência da acção climática, ou de surgir nos EUA o apelo de Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a uma completa reorganização da economia em torno de um Green New Deal, os gigantes da finança começaram a elaborar esquemas a fim de direccionar centenas de milhares de milhões de fundos futuros para investimentos em empresas “climáticas” em muitos casos sem valor.

Em 2013, após anos de cuidadosa preparação, uma empresa imobiliária sueca, a Vasakronan, emitiu o primeiro “Título Verde” (“Green Bond”) corporativo. Foram seguidas por outras, incluindo Apple, SNCF e o grande banco francês Credit Agricole. Em Novembro de 2013 a muito esburacada Tesla Energy de Elon Musk emitiu o primeiro título lastreado na energia solar. Hoje, de acordo com a chamada Climate Bonds Initiative, mais de US$500 mil milhões de tais Títulos Verdes estão pendentes. Os criadores da ideia dos títulos declaram que o seu objectivo é conquistar uma grande fatia dos US$45 milhões de milhões (trillion) em activos sob gestão global que assumiram o compromisso nominal de investir em projectos “amistosos com o clima.

O gentil príncipe Charles, futuro monarca do Reino Unido, juntamente com a finança do Banco da Inglaterra e da City de Londres, promoveram “instrumentos financeiros verdes”, liderados pelos Green Bonds, a fim de redireccionar planos de pensão e fundos mutualistas para projectos verdes. Um interveniente chave na ligação das instituições financeiras mundiais com a Agenda Verde é o governador em vias de saída do Banco da Inglaterra, Mark Carney. Em Dezembro de 2015, o Financial Stability Board (FSB) do Banco de Pagamentos Internacionais, presidido na altura por Carney, criou a Força-Tarefa sobre Divulgação Financeira Relacionada com o Clima (Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure, TCFD ), para aconselhar “investidores, credores e seguros sobre riscos relacionados com o clima”. Isso certamente era um foco bizarro para os banqueiros centrais do mundo.

Em 2016, a TCFD, juntamente com a City of London Corporation e o governo do Reino Unido, iniciaram a Iniciativa de Financiamento Verde, com o objectivo de canalizar milhões de milhões de dólares para investimentos “verdes”. Os banqueiros centrais do FSB nomearam 31 pessoas para constituir o TCFD. Presidido pelo bilionário Michael Bloomberg, do sector financeiro, inclui pessoas-chave do JP MorganChase; do BlackRock – um dos maiores gestores de activos do mundo, com quase US$7 milhões de milhões; o Banco Barclays; HSBC, o banco Londres-Hong Kong repetidamente multado por lavagem de fundos da droga e outras origens obscuras; a Swiss Re, a segunda maior resseguradora do mundo; o Banco ICBC da China; a Tata Steel, a petroleira ENI, a Dow Chemical; o gigante mineiro BHP Billington e David Blood da Generation Investment LLC de Al Gore. De facto, parece que são as raposas que estão a escrever as regras para o novo Galinheiro Verde.

Carney, do Banco da Inglaterra, também foi um actor-chave nos esforços para transformar a City de Londres no centro financeiro da Finança Verde global. O Chanceler do Tesouro do Reino Unido que está de saída, Philip Hammond, divulgou em Julho de 2019 um Livro Branco, “Estratégia Financeira Verde: Transformando a Finança para um Futuro Mais Verde”. O documento afirma: “Uma das iniciativas mais influentes a emergir é o Conselho de Estabilidade Financeira, Força-Tarefa do Sector Privado sobre Divulgações Financeiras Relacionadas com o Clima (TCFD), apoiada por Mark Carney e presidida por Michael Bloomberg. Isto foi endossado por instituições que representam US$118 milhões de milhões de activos em todo o mundo. “Parece haver aqui um plano. O plano é a financiarização de toda a economia mundial usando o medo de um cenário de fim do mundo para alcançar objectivos arbitrários, tais como “zero emissões líquidas de gases de efeito de estufa”.

Goldman Sachs actor principal

O omnipresente banco da Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, que desovou, entre outros, o presidente cessante do BCE, Mario Draghi, e o presidente do Banco da Inglaterra, Carney, acaba de revelar o primeiro índice global das acções ambientais mais cotadas, realizado em conjunto com o CDP de Londres, anteriormente o Projecto de Divulgação de Carbono. O CDP, significativamente, é financiado por investidores como HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, American International Group e State Street Corp.

O novo índice, chamado CDP Environment EW e CDP Eurozone EW, visa atrair fundos de investimento, sistemas de pensões estatais como o CalPERS (Sistema de Aposentadoria de Funcionários Públicos da Califórnia) e CalSTRS (Sistema de Aposentadoria de Professores do Estado da Califórnia) com um total combinado de mais de US$600 mil milhões em activos, para investir nos seus alvos cuidadosamente escolhidos. As empresas mais bem cotadas no índice incluem a Alphabet, proprietária do Google, Microsoft, ING Group, Diageo, Philips, Danone e, convenientemente, Goldman Sachs .

Entram Greta, AOC & companhia

Neste ponto, os acontecimentos assumem uma feição cínica quando somos confrontados com muito populares e muito promovidos activistas climáticos, como Greta Thunberg da Suécia, ou Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 29 anos, de Nova York, e o Green New Deal. Por muito sinceros que tais activistas possam ser, existe uma bem oleada máquina financeira por detrás da sua promoção em busca do ganho.

Greta Thunberg faz parte de uma rede bem conectada, ligada à organização de Al Gore, que está a ser cínica e profissionalmente comercializada e usada por agências como a ONU, a Comissão da UE e os interesses financeiros por detrás da actual agenda climática. Como o investigador e activista climático canadiano Cory Morningstar documenta numa excelente série de posts, o que está em jogo é uma rede bem urdida que está ligada ao investidor climático e enormemente rico aproveitador do clima nos EUA, Al Gore, presidente do grupo Generation Investment.

O parceiro de Gore, David Blood, ex-funcionário do Goldman Sachs, como mencionado anteriormente, é membro do TCFD criado pelo BIS. Greta Thunberg, juntamente com sua amiga climática norte-americana de 17 anos, Jamie Margolin, foram listadas como “conselheira e encarregada especial para a juventude” da ONG sueca Não Temos Tempo (We Don’t Have Time), fundada pelo seu CEO Ingmar Rentzhog. Rentzhog é membro dos Líderes de Organização da Realidade Climática de Al Gore e integra a Força-Tarefa de Política Climática Europeia. Foi treinado em Março de 2017 por Al Gore em Denver e novamente em Junho de 2018 em Berlim. O Projecto de Realidade Climática de Al Gore é um parceiro de We Don’t Have Time.

A congressista Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), que causou um grande alvoroço nos seus primeiros dias no Congresso dos EUA por apresentar um “Green New Deal” para reorganizar completamente a economia dos EUA a um custo de talvez US$100 milhões de milhões, também não está sem orientação especializada. AOC admitiu abertamente que concorreu ao Congresso por insistência de um grupo chamado Justice Democrats. Disse a um entrevistador: “Eu não estaria a concorrer se não fosse o apoio dos Justice Democrats e do Brand New Congress. Na verdade foram essas organizações, tanto a JD como o Brand New Congress, que me pediram em primeiro lugar para concorrer. Foram quem me pediu para concorrer há um ano e meio…” Agora, como congressista, os conselheiros de AOC incluem o co-fundador do Justice Democrats, Zack Exley. Exley era bolseiro da Open Society e obteve fundos de, entre outras, a Fundação Open Society e da Ford Foundation para criar um antecessor do Justice Democrats a fim de recrutar candidatos seleccionados para os cargos.

A verdadeira agenda é económica

As ligações entre os maiores grupos financeiros do mundo, bancos centrais e corporações globais à actual promoção de uma estratégia climática radical para abandonar a economia dos combustíveis fósseis em favor de uma vaga e inexplicada economia verde, parece que tem pouco a ver com a preocupação genuína em fazer no nosso planeta um ambiente limpo e saudável para viver. É antes uma agenda, intimamente ligada à Agenda 2030 da ONU para uma economia “sustentável” e para gerar literalmente milhões de milhões de dólares em nova riqueza para os bancos globais e os gigantes financeiros que constituem os poderes reais existentes.

Em Fevereiro de 2019, na sequência de um discurso de Greta Thunberg na Comissão da UE em Bruxelas, o então presidente da Comissão da UE Jean-Claude Juncker, depois de beijar galantemente a mão de Greta, parecia ter sido impelido a uma acção efectiva. Disse a Greta e à imprensa que a UE deveria gastar centenas de milhares de milhões de euros durante os próximos 10 anos no combate às alterações climáticas. Juncker propôs que entre 2021 e 2027, “um em cada quatro euros gastos no orçamento da UE vá para uma acção para mitigar a alteração climática”. O que o astuto Juncker não disse foi que a decisão não tinha nada a ver com o apelo da jovem activista sueca. Fora tomada em conjunto com o Banco Mundial um ano antes, em 26 de Setembro de 2018, na One Planet Summit, juntamente com o Banco Mundial, as Fundações Bloomberg, o Fórum Económico Mundial e outros. Juncker usou espertamente a atenção mediática dedicada à jovem sueca para promover a sua agenda climática.

Em 17 de Outubro de 2018, dias após o acordo da UE na Cimeira One Planet, a UE de Juncker assinou um Memorando de Entendimento com a Breakthrough Energy-Europe, no qual as empresas membros da Breakthrough Energy-Europe terão acesso preferencial a qualquer financiamento .

Os membros da Breakthrough Energy incluem Richard Branson, da Virgin Air, Bill Gates, Jack Ma do Alibaba, Mark Zuckerberg do Facebook, Príncipe Al-Waleed bin Talal da HRH, Ray Dalio da Bridgewater Associates; Julian Robertson do gigante de hedge funds Tiger Management; David Rubenstein, fundador do Carlyle Group; George Soros, Presidente do Soros Fund Management LLC; Masayoshi Son, fundador do Softbank, Japão.

Não se engane. Quando as mais influentes corporações multinacionais, os maiores investidores institucionais do mundo, incluindo BlackRock e Goldman Sachs, a ONU, o Banco Mundial, o Banco da Inglaterra e outros bancos centrais do BIS se alinham por trás do financiamento da chamada Agenda Verde, chamem-lhe Green New Deal ou outra coisa, é hora de olhar para além da superfície das campanhas activistas do clima, para a agenda real. A imagem que surge é a tentativa de reorganização financeira da economia mundial usando o pretexto do clima – algo em que o Sol e sua energia têm ordens de grandeza mais próximas daquilo que a humanidade jamais conseguiu – a fim de tentar convencer as pessoas comuns a fazerem sacrifícios incalculáveis para “salvar o nosso planeta”.

Remontando a 2010, o chefe do Grupo de Trabalho 3 do Painel Intergovernamental das Nações Unidas sobre Mudanças Climáticas (IPCC), dr. Otmar Edenhofer, disse a um entrevistador: “… é preciso dizer claramente que nós de facto redistribuímos a riqueza mundial através da política climática. É preciso libertarmo-nos da ilusão de que a política climática internacional é política ambiental. Isto não tem quase nada a ver com política ambiental, com problemas tais como desflorestação ou o buraco do ozono “. Desde então, a estratégia de política económica tornou-se muito mais desenvolvida.

F. William Engdahl

Versão Inglesa:

Climate and the Money Trail

Este artigo foi publicado originalmente na New Eastern Outlook, o 25 de Setembro de 2019.

Tradução: Resistir.info

F. William Engdahl é orador e consultor de riscos estratégicos, é licenciado em Ciência Política pela Universidade de Princeton e é um autor best-seller nas temáticas relacionadas com petróleo e geopolítica, escreve em exclusivo para a revista digital “New Eastern Outlook” e é colaborador frequente do Global Research.

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on O capital financeiro mascara-se de verde

The important legacy of the late William Blum will live. This article was first posted on GR in June 2016.

***

It is a scandal in contemporary international law, don’t forget, that while “wanton destruction of towns, cities and villages” is a war crime of long standing, the bombing of cities from airplanes goes not only unpunished but virtually unaccused. Air bombardment is state terrorism, the terrorism of the rich. It has burned up and blasted apart more innocents in the past six decades than have all the antistate terrorists who ever lived.

Something has benumbed our consciousness against this reality. In the United States we would not consider for the presidency a man who had once thrown a bomb into a crowded restaurant, but we are happy to elect a man who once dropped bombs from airplanes that destroyed not only restaurants but the buildings that contained them and the neighborhoods that surrounded them. I went to Iraq after the Gulf war and saw for myself what the bombs did; “wanton destruction” is just the term for it. – C. Douglas Lummis, political scientist

The above was written in 1994, before the wanton destruction generated by the bombing of Yugoslavia, another in a long list of countries the United States has bombarded since the end of World War II, which is presented below.

There appears to be something about launching bombs or missiles from afar onto cities and people that appeals to American military and political leaders. In part it has to do with a conscious desire to not risk American lives in ground combat. And in part, perhaps not entirely conscious, it has to do with not wishing to look upon the gory remains of the victims, allowing American GIs and TV viewers at home to cling to their warm fuzzy feelings about themselves, their government, and their marvelous “family values”. Washington officials are careful to distinguish between the explosives the US drops from the sky and “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD), which only the officially-designated enemies (ODE) are depraved enough to use.

The US government speaks sternly of WMD, defining them as nuclear, chemical and biological in nature, and “indiscriminate” (meaning their use can’t be limited to military objectives), as opposed to the likes of American “precision” cruise missiles.

This is indeed a shaky semantic leg to stand on, given the well-known extremely extensive damage to non-military targets, including numerous residences, schools and hospitals, even from American “smart” bombs, in almost all of the bombings listed below.

Moreover, Washington does not apply the term “weapons of mass destruction” to other weapons the US has regularly used, such as depleted uranium and cluster bombs, which can be, and often are, highly indiscriminate.

WMD are sometimes further defined as those whose effects linger in the environment, causing subsequent harm to people. This would certainly apply to cluster bombs, and depleted uranium weapons, the latter remaining dangerously radioactive after exploding. It would apply less to “conventional” bombs, but even with those there are unexploded bombs lying around, and the danger of damaged buildings later collapsing. But more importantly, it seems highly self-serving and specious, not to mention exceptionally difficult, to try to paint a human face on a Tomahawk Cruise missile whose payload of a thousand pounds of TNT crashes into the center of a densely-populated city, often with depleted uranium in its warhead.

A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn’t have an air force.

The bombing list

  • Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
  • Guatemala 1954
  • Indonesia 1958
  • Cuba 1959-1961
  • Guatemala 1960
  • Congo 1964
  • Laos 1964-73
  • Vietnam 1961-73
  • Cambodia 1969-70
  • Guatemala 1967-69
  • Grenada 1983
  • Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
  • Libya 1986
  • El Salvador 1980s
  • Nicaragua 1980s
  • Iran 1987
  • Panama 1989
  • Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)
  • Kuwait 1991
  • Somalia 1993
  • Bosnia 1994, 1995
  • Sudan 1998
  • Afghanistan 1998
  • Yugoslavia 1999
  • Yemen 2002
  • Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)
  • Iraq 2003-2015
  • Afghanistan 2001-2015
  • Pakistan 2007-2015
  • Somalia 2007-8, 2011
  • Yemen 2009, 2011
  • Libya 2011, 2015
  • Syria 2014-2015

Pyongyang 1951

Plus

Iran, April 2003 – hit by US missiles during bombing of Iraq, killing at least one person

Pakistan, 2002-03 – bombed by US planes several times as part of combat against the Taliban and other opponents of the US occupation of Afghanistan

China, 1999 – its heavily bombed embassy in Belgrade is legally Chinese territory, and it appears rather certain that the bombing was no accident (see chapter 25 of Rogue State)

France, 1986 – After the French government refused the use of its air space to US warplanes headed for a bombing raid on Libya, the planes were forced to take another, longer route; when they reached Libya they bombed so close to the French embassy that the building was damaged and all communication links knocked out.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 13, 1985 – A bomb dropped by a police helicopter burned down an entire block, some 60 homes destroyed, 11 dead, including several small children. The police, the mayor’s office, and the FBI were all involved in this effort to evict a black organization called MOVE from the house they lived in.

Them other guys are really shocking

“We should expect conflicts in which adversaries, because of cultural affinities different from our own, will resort to forms and levels of violence shocking to our sensibilities.” – Department of Defense, 1999

The Targets

It’s become a commonplace to accuse the United States of choosing as its bombing targets only people of color, those of the Third World, or Muslims. But it must be remembered that one of the most sustained and ferocious American bombing campaigns was carried out against the people of the former Yugoslavia – white, European, Christians. The United States is an equal-opportunity bomber. The only qualifications for a country to become a target are:

  1. It poses a sufficient obstacle to the desires of the American Empire;
  2. It is virtually defenseless against aerial attack.

The survivors

A study by the American Medical Association: “Psychiatric disorders among survivors of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing”:

Nearly half the bombing survivors studied had an active postdisaster psychiatric disorder, and full criteria for PTSD [posttraumatic stress disorder] were met by one third of the survivors. PTSD symptoms were nearly universal, especially symptoms of intrusive reexperience and hyperarousal.

Martin Kelly, publisher of a nonviolence website:

We never see the smoke and the fire, we never smell the blood, we never see the terror in the eyes of the children, whose nightmares will now feature screaming missiles from unseen terrorists, known only as Americans.

*

This is a chapter from Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower by William Blum.

Notes

1. The Nation, September 26, 1994, p.304 

2. RFE/RL Newsline, April 9, 2003 (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is a “private” international communications service in Europe and Asia funded by the US government.) 

3. Washington Post, January 1, 2003; Australian Broadcasting Company, January 1, 2003; Agence France Presse, September 19, 2003 

4. Associated Press, “France Confirms It Denied U.S. Jets Air Space, Says Embassy Damaged”, April 15, 1986 

5. U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, “New World Coming” (Phase I Report), September 15, 1999, p.3 

6. Journal of the American Medical Association, August 25, 1999, p.761 

  • Posted in Archives, English
  • Comments Off on United States Bombings of Other Countries. America’s “Bombing List”

On November 15, 2019 the UN security Council extended the illegal, immoral and racist 27 years of  arms sanctions on Somalia which was in effect since 1992.

Through a recorded vote, the Security Council today renewed the mandate of the Panel of Experts for the sanctions regime on Somalia until 15 December 2020, while also extending exemptions for the arms embargo and enforcement authorizations for the ban on illicit trade.

“Adopting resolution 2498 (2019) through a vote of 12 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions (China, Equatorial Guinea, Russian Federation), the Council renewed for one year the partial lifting of the arms embargo on Somali security forces and exemptions related to humanitarian aid, as well as the authorization for maritime interdiction of arms imports and charcoal exports that could benefit Al‑Shabaab and other armed groups.

In its restrictions on weapons for the security forces, the Council decided that the delivery to Somali security forces of heavy weapons listed in the resolution’s Annex A requires advance approval by the Committee pursuant to resolution 751 (1992), while light weapons listed in its Annex B require advance notification.  Noting with concern reports that States were not adequately following such notification procedures, the Council reminded States of their obligations in that regard.

The Council also maintained exemptions regarding military weapons, technical advice and training to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Somalia (UNSOM), the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and the European Union Training Mission Somalia.”[1]

Somalia is located in the Horn of Africa region with a 2019 population estimated at 17.44million (HornCSIS.org) estimates done August 27, 2019. It’s the unity of Italian and British Somaliland’s in 26 June 1960 and July 1st, 1960 respectively to form the united Somali Republic.

The country is rapidly expanding with almost 3% annual population growth and a high fertility rate of 6.26 children per woman, which is the 4th highest in the world. Somalia’s population ranks 73rd in the world. Somalia is rich in natural and mineral resources from abundant marine resources off the Somali coast – the longest coastal line in Africa; rich in both rare and strategic mineral resources; Fertile soil for  agricultural production  between the two main rivers of Jubba & shabelle as the  main bread- basket in conjunction with  potential production of animal resources.

Somalia occupies approximately 246,200 square miles (637,657 square kilometers) of area in Africa, on the eastern coast which borders the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden. When calculated with the 2019 population of 15.44 million people, the population density is 62.7 people per square mile (24.2 people per square kilometer) which ranks 155th in the world.

Somalia has been an independent, united, sovereign and geostrategtically very significant  nation from1960-69 with civilian government and a socialist military administration from 1969-91  Until a western influenced, created and  founded hyper-warfare engulfed the country starting the 1980’s with tribally – based rebel movements mostly based in Marxist Ethiopia and UAE.

The civil war of 1991- 2000 completely destroyed the country physically, socially, economically, with high toll in human loss. The ousting of Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991 sparks a decades-long civil war between rival clan warlords and the disintegration of central authority and pitted one tribe against another Former British Somaliland declares unilateral independence.

The Transitional National + Federal Governments of Somalia from 2000-2019

By 2000 Somali political figures and militia leaders got together a peace conference in Arta, a small town outside of Djibouti city, with the election of 245 members of the parliament for Transitional National Government (TNG) and its first President Abdiqassem Salaad Hassasn.  The Transitional National Government of Somalia was the first Somali national government fully recognized by the world community from the AU, United Nations and the League of Arab States. By the end of the TNG term in 2003 there were unease among the political leadership and the general public to where the future of Somali peace, peace-building and sustainable reconciliation.

Foreign interventions and meddling of Somalia by American and European interests using  the fake Global war on terror (GWOT)  via neibouring countries of Ethiopia and Kenya has completely destabilized and destroyed the country from 2003- 2009  thus, using UN security council arms sanctions and foreign military personal and PMC funded by both US/EU  in order to control and subjugate Somalia under their geo-strategic, economic and political interests since 1991.

Therefore, it seems  with 27 years if UNSC arms sanctions to be another form of Neocolonialism and Occupation of Somalia by certain international actors i.e. US/EU /UN  are not really interested fundamentally in finding a sustainable security solutions for Somalia  and those employing and using the United Nations security Council arms sanctions to keep Somalia a trusteeship of United Nations  through decades long arms sanctions which prevent  independent, sovereign Somalia Nation- state the right to Protection of its citizens, Control and security of its territorial borders land, sea and Air space.

Conclusion

The election of 2017 of President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, known as Farmajo, Somali nationalist  and centrist who strongly believes in rehabilitating and re-building the Somali National Army, Police, intelligence, coast and Border Guards have lifted the Somali psychic and  herald for dreaming a better tomorrow. He was a popular prime minister during his brief tenure in 2010 and 2011, with a reputation for making sure soldiers were paid their monthly salaries. And with state finances allegedly being diverted to fund an expensively corrupt electoral process they will be hoping to jump to the front of the queue.

Together with his new Prime Minister Hassan Ali Kheyre and cabinet they set their immediate  national goal of re-building Somali security forces and apparatus form 2400 – to 45000 military and police personal across the country in less than 4 years with the assistance of friendly nations of Turkey, Egypt, and more recently Russia.

Strengthening the national army and police force – in the new federal state that Somalia has become – Their National Goal for preserving, protecting and Preventing Somali security and Unity.

Today, Somalia desperately needs an effective, professional, well equipped and national army to stabilize the country and protect its citizens and country from one of the world’s deadliest militant groups, al-Shabaab and foreign exploitation, occupation, balkanization and pillaging of Somali resources and affairs.

The Somali Federal Government and its 17 Million people’s cannot depend on their Sovereignty, territorial integrity and national security. Somalia needs the Lifting of these illegal, immoral, unsustainable arms sanctions immediately since these sanctions are detrimental to Somali security, economic, political, territorial integrity and soverngity.

As Somali UN amabassador Abukar Dahir Osman called for the lifting of outdated sanctions imposed against his country. The measures fail to take into account Somalia’s new positive reality and are not properly aligned with the Federal Government’s efforts to rebuild a unified, equipped Somali National Army (SNA) capable of safeguarding its own people and territory.  Affirming that Al‑Shabaab remains a serious threat to the peace and stability of Somalia and the wider region, he said that the sanctions lack clearly defined benchmarks in that context.

As well, the millions that the international community has spent on monitoring teams and the Panel of Experts for more than a decade “will not properly address the root causes of the problem”, he continued. Somalia’s partners should instead invest in improving the Government’s capacity in border control in order to curb the flow of foreign fighters and illegal weapons. Noting that the military base in Berbera is in clear violation of Somalia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, he stressed that his country will not tolerate the naming of Somali individuals and business enterprises by the Panel of Experts without a reasonable standard of proof.

“Somalia’s representative, encouraging the Council to see the current challenges in the context of his country have continued upward trajectory and steady path towards the rebuilding process, said steps are being taken to improve relations among the states, combat sexual violence, enhance security and tackle humanitarian challenges.  “A State can only be as strong as the people within it,” he said, noting that efforts are also under way to ensure women’s participation in all aspects of life and to establish free, fair and credible elections.

Also speaking today were representatives of the United Kingdom, United States, Kuwait, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, China, Indonesia, Peru, Belgium, Russian Federation, Germany and Poland.”[2]

It has made significant progress in the political, economic and social spheres.  The backing of countries in the region and support from the United Nations, IGAD and the African Union has been essential to achieving peace and stability and countering the political stalemate. Good relations between different levels of government remain essential to enhancing security, he emphasized, calling on parties to speed up discussions on key issues.

These are the 11 UN Security Council imposed arms Embargo since 1992:

1) In January 1992 the UN Security Council imposed an open ended arms embargo on Somalia.

2) February 2007 the embargo was amended to allow arms supplies to Somali Government Forces.

3) In January 1992 Security Council Resolution 733 established an arms embargo on Somalia in reaction to the ongoing conflict and deteriorating humanitarian situation. This Resolution was unanimously adopted.

4) In June 2001 Security Council Resolution 1356 allowed for exemptions to the embargo for supplies of non-lethal military equipment for use in humanitarian operations.

5) In July 2002 Security Council Resolution 1425 clarified the scope of the arms embargo, making clear that it prohibited the financing of arms acquisitions as well as the direct or indirect sale or supply of technical advice or military training.

6) In December 2006 Security Council Resolution 1725 partially lifted the UN arms embargo on Somalia. The resolution authorized the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD) and African Union member States to deploy a regional intervention force to protect Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and to arm and train the TFG security forces. The resolution maintains the existing embargo but states that its provisions do not apply to transfers of military equipment, technical training and assistance intended for the regional intervention force.

7) In February 2007 Security Council Resolution 1744 limited the embargo to non-state actors. It allowed the supply of weapons and military equipment intended solely for the purpose of helping develop Somali security sector institutions if the sanctions committee on Somalia had been notified in advance and on a case by case basis and if the SC had not made a negative decision within five working days after the notification.

8) In November 2008 Security Council Resolution 1844 amended the arms embargo to target entities that have violated the arms embargo or obstructed the delivery of humanitarian assistance to or in Somalia.

9) In December 2009 the UN imposed an arms embargo on Eritrea, partly in response to reports that Eritrea had violated the arms embargo on Somalia. (For more information see the entry on the UN arms embargo on Eritrea)

10) In March 2013 Security Council Resolution 2093 amended the restrictions and procedures related to arms supplies to the Somali  Government while maintaining the embargo on arms supplies to non-state actors in the country. Security Council Resolution 2111 from July 2013 further clarified the decisions of Resolution 2093. Under the resolutions, for a one-year period, until 6 March 2014, ‘(…) the arms embargo on Somalia shall not apply to deliveries of weapons, military equipment, assistance or training intended solely for the development of the Security Forces of the Federal Government of Somalia, and to provide security for the Somali 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.

Notes

1)   UN Security Council Resolutions https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/sc14021.doc.htm%2 (Accessed 15 November 2019)

2)  https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/sc13925.doc.htm (Accessed 15, November, 2019)

3)  In 2018, UNentities in Somaliahad a combined total budgetof over US$677million across all UNSF Strategic Priorities, of which over US$458 million was delivered.

4)  IPIhttps://www.ipinst.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/1904_Transitioning-in-Somalia.pdf (Accessed on November 20, 2019).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Threat to Somalia’s National Security and Existence as a Nation State. The Right to Self-Defense
  • Tags:

According to the media, The Afghanistan Papers released in early December 2019 by the Pentagon point to ” US dysfunction” ‘We did not know what we were doing’?

Nonsensical. They knew what they were doing. The object of US wars of aggression consists in appropriating the wealth of victim nations. 

Article of relevance to an understanding of America’s ongoing military and economic agenda in Afghanistan as well as its confrontation with Russia and China.

First published in August 2012 (translated from Russian)

****

Curious information surfaced in the media [2012] – based on space reconnaissance, the US Department of Defense put together a map of Afghanistan showing in detail the country’s mineral riches which, as it transpired, may be quite impressive.

The fact that Afghanistan sits on a wealth of (strategic) natural resources was recognized indirectly back in 2010 when the Afghan ministry of mines rolled out a $1b (!) estimate of what the country might have, and The New York Times quoted a source in the US Administration as saying that Afghanistan’s list of reserves included copper, gold, cobalt, and even lithium on which the present-day high tech industry is heavily dependent.

A Pentagon memo actually described Afghanistan’s potential lithium holdings (used to make batteries) as big enough to make it the “Saudi Arabia of lithium”.

Somehow, the news flew below the radars of most watchers worldwide.

 

It must be taken into account that the areas used for poppy in Afghanistan expanded dramatically since the Western coalition invaded the country with an anti-terrorist mission and brought down the Taliban rule.

At the moment, millions of Afghans are involved in poppy farming and processing or in heroin trafficking. A year after the advent of the Western coalition, Afghanistan entered the world stage as a heroin monopoly, with approximately 90% of the global supply of opium. 

Citing the above claims, in the 2000s Washington dropped Afghanistan from the narcotics blacklist and lifted the relevant  sanctions. The US President said the step was in the US national interest.

Actually, Soviet scientists discovered decades earlier that the soils of Afghanistan contained ample mineral resources. Among those, for example, are precious and semiprecious stones: samples of the Sar-e-Sang District Lazurite, whose quality craftsmen praise as exemplary, were found even in Pharaohs’ tombs and during the Troy excavations. The emerald deposit unsealed back in the 1970s in the Panjshir Province ranks with the world’s largest, with gems comparable in quality to the acclaimed ones mined in Columbia.

Moreover, the Soviets were aware of the existence of Uranium reserves in Afghanistan – in Gen. A. Lyakhovsky’s account presented in his Tragedy and Honor in Afghanistan, the threat that the Uranium would be grabbed by Pakistan and Iran to build nuclear weapons was cited as an argument in favor of the future Soviet invasion at a pivotal December 8, 1979 meeting personally chaired by L.I. Brezhnev.

The Soviet explorations which were carried out in Afghanistan till the late 1980s showed that Afghanistan was extremely rich in various types of ores, with the resources hitherto untapped as the country had never been colonized.

The Aynak copper deposit is the biggest in Eurasia, and the Hadjigek iron ore in the proximity of Kabul is believed to be the top one in South Asia. Pegmatite reserves usable as sources of rubies, Beryl, and seldom-found gems – kunzite and hiddenite – are located east of Kabul. Pegmatite fields can, furthermore, serve to derive Beryllium (estimatedly, the corresponding reserves are the biggest known up to date with a total of over 73,500 tons), Lithium, Tantalum, and Niobium, the substances steady demand for which is pressed by the high tech sector along with the nuclear and aerospace industries.

The Pentagon, therefore, confirmed the earlier Soviet findings about the reserves of precious metals, ores, sulfur, Lazurite, Baryte, Celestine, etc. in Afghanistan, and actually went further, systematically  compiling a map of the deposits.

Monica Maggioni is an Italian journalist and is CEO of Rai.com, which broadcasts ‘Rai News 24 TV’, among others.  She interviewed Syrian President, Bashar al Assad, on November 26, and the interview was to be broadcast on December 2; however, it was mysteriously postponed. 

Behind the scenes, at Rai.com there was conflict over the interview, with Fabrizio Salini declaring the interview was not commissioned, therefore it would not be broadcast, while Antonio Di Bella, director of news, declared it was not suitable to be broadcast, and Italian Senator Alberto Airola requested Maggioni to explain her role in the interview and answer charges of creating a diplomatic incident.

What was so explosive in the interview that the Italian news media wanted to hide from the Italian viewers? Many believe it has to do with questions 8 and 9 and President Assad’s response.

Question 8: At this moment, when Europe looks at Syria, apart from the considerations about the country, there are two major issues: one is refugees, and the other one is the Jihadists or foreign fighters coming back to Europe. How do you see these European worries?

President Assad:  We have to start with a simple question: who created this problem?  Why do you have refugees in Europe?  It’s a simple question: because of terrorism that’s being supported by Europe – and of course the United States and Turkey and others – but Europe was the main player in creating chaos in Syria.  So, what goes around comes around.

Question 9: Why do you say it was the main player?

President Assad:  Because they publicly supported, the EU supported the terrorists in Syria from day one, week one or from the very beginning.  They blamed the Syrian government, and some regimes like the French regime sent armaments, they said – one of their officials – I think their Minister of Foreign Affairs, maybe Fabius said: “we send.”  They sent armaments; they created this chaos.  That’s why a lot of people find it difficult to stay in Syria; millions of people couldn’t live here so they had to get out of Syria.

The US-NATO-EU attack on Syria is unprecedented in history.  General Wesley Clark was told there was a plan to ‘take out Syria’ well before the first protests took place in Deraa. This was an internationally coordinated attack on Syria by the US and Europe. This was a classic ‘regime-change’ project, which was instigated between the US and Israel, but agreed to by the EU and NATO members.  From the early stages of the conflict in Syria, the US and Europe provided political, military and logistic support to the ‘rebels’ in Syria and refused to call them terrorists. On 18 August 2011, President Barack Obama stated, “The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” This US statement was fully supported by Europe.

In 2013 President Assad stated he was ready for dialogue with the armed terrorists, but only if they surrender their weapons. However, the US-NATO-EU plan to support the terrorists never included a peaceful surrender of weapons, followed by a national dialog, which would end in a peaceful solution to the conflict.  The plan only called for weapons, training, and European officers to be continuously available to the terrorists, for ‘regime-change’.  Europe only wanted to fuel the fires in Syria, and never planned to be the voice of peace and international law.

What was at first billed as ‘rebels’ and ‘freedom fighters’ soon morphed into sectarian extremists and Radical Islamic terrorists who filled the battlefields under many names and uniforms, but who were all essentially the same terrorists.  Their names ranged from the ‘Free Syrian Army to ISIS. Radical Islam is a political ideology and is not a religion or a sect. Many experts have called Radical Islam a ‘Death-Cult’, which glorifies the killing of unarmed civilians, as well as armed adversaries, even to the point of eating human flesh while recording it on video.

Presidents Obama and Sarkozy convinced the EU to follow their lead.  However, the Syrian people and armed forces fought back.

Some of the refugees left Syria for ideological reasons, they sided with the terrorists and followed the Muslim Brotherhood. Others left for Europe because their homes and livelihoods were destroyed by the terrorists, but many were just economic migrants, and had not lost a home, were from safe areas, and perhaps had never seen any fighting, and they left to seek an income from the charity offered to them in the EU.

EU-NATO support of terrorism in Syria

Bulgaria: Boïko Borissov, Prime Minister from 2014, supplied the drug ‘Captagon’ to the terrorists in Syria on orders of the CIA.  The drug causes the terrorists to lose inhibitions and while under the influence they are capable of horrific atrocities.

Germany: A ship with intelligence ad satellite capabilities was off the coast of Syria providing the terrorists the locations and movements of the Syrian military, as well as intercepted telephone communications. Wolfgang Ischinger, chairman of the Munich Security Conference, said: “If the West supplies arms itself, it has more chance of influencing how they are used.”

Great Britain: British intelligence provided terrorists with information on Syrian military movements. In 2012, SAS Commandos were conducting covert operations within Syrian territory, and provided terrorists with military aid, including communications equipment and medical supplies, and provided intelligence support from its Cyprus bases, revealing Syrian military movements which were passed on to the terrorists. In 2013, Prime Minister David Cameron said that Britain would send weapons to the terrorists. In August 2016, the BBC published photographs that showed British Special Forces soldiers guarding the perimeter of the terrorist’s base at al-Tanf, on the Syria-Iraq border, and the terrorists were shown to be equipped with four-wheel drive Al-Thalab vehicles and weapons such as sniper rifles, anti-tank weapons, and heavy machine guns.

France: The ‘Friends of Syria’ group was initiated by then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2012. They declared their intent to support the terrorists in Syria, “If the regime fails to accept the terms of the political initiative outlined by the Arab League and end violence against citizens, the Friends of Syria should not constrain individual countries from aiding the Syrian opposition by means of military advisers, training, and provision of arms to defend themselves.” In 2013, French President François Hollande said, that France was ready to begin supplying lethal aid to the terrorists, and by 2014 Hollande confirmed that France had delivered arms to the terrorists, and by 2015 had begun airstrikes in Syria.

Italy: On 28 February 2013, the ‘Friends of Syria’ held their meeting in Rome, and among the 11 members were France, Germany, Italy, UK, and the EU.  In a study published in 2019, the number of terrorists from Italy who were in Syria numbered 135 as of July 2018.

The EU: in 2013 Brussels decided assistance to the terrorists would include weapons training.  Jane’s Defense Weekly reported a US shipment of 994 tons of weapons and ammunition in December 2015 from Eastern Europe to Syrian rebel groups, including 9M17 Fleyta anti-tank missiles, RPG-7s, AK-47S, DShKs, and PKMs. In early March 2013, a Jordanian security source revealed that the U.S., Britain, and France were training terrorists in Jordan to begin building a militia that would take over after Assad’s fall. By 2019, the EU issued a statement about Syria in which they now claim to call for peace and political negotiations to settle the conflict of almost 9 years duration and to have supported humanitarian and economic assistance there.  However, when faced with documented history, this statement is a bald-faced lie.  The EU position from the outset of the conflict was to support the armed terrorists and to prevent even chemotherapy drugs to be imported to Syria, because of the EU sanctions, which today prevents any possible rebuilding effort.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a political commentator.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

The world war of Democracy against its people is now official.

On Oct 20, 2019, Chilean president Sebastian Pinera publicly admitted the singular capitalist threat implicitly and silently embraced by virtually all politicians across our embattled Earth: Pinera formally declared war on his people. Said this corporatist salesman of the draconian and ever-expanding horrors of corporatist austerity- better known as greed:

“We are at war against a powerful enemy, who is willing to use violence without any limits.”

Then, Pinera had his army unload their weaponry on the non-violent protesters; attempting to kill the dreams of freedom by these impoverished Chilean people who had reached the limits of their human tolerance for this oppression. As a natural reaction, a million Chileans hit the streets to raise their middle fingers at Pinera and all he and his puppet masters stand for. Then they did it again. They continue to do so this day.

Pinera’s self-serving lie, however, had already been recently translated into English by another corporate lackey also no longer possessed of proper human conscience: disgraced former UK Prime Minister Theresa May, who, while departing No.10 for Brussels with her ever reddening barbed tail thus tucked between her bowed and knee scabbed legs, declared to the world:

“Populism will be the death of the Conservative party!”

In a democracy?!

Occupy Redux? – A Forgotten Spark in a Worldwide Box of Matches

“The greatest crimes in the world are not committed by people breaking the rules… but by people following the rules.”- Banksy

The World is in flames as never before. Humanity has had all it can take. It will take no more.

Now cornered by national oppression orchestrated by an insatiable globalist salivation for untold riches, the human-animal has but one remaining choice. It is now time for strong words and stronger actions. It is time for real populist leadership. It is time– in any national language– for growing worldwide opposition and activism to come together as one. The forces of capitalism fight minute-by-minute in a collective battle against humanity. The world must now rebel with maximum strength, not only as nations but as the global Congress of the Humane.

As seen in so many desperate protests across the globe, this Congress is increasing, but so far without a cohesive effort that transcends boundaries with a common focal point, one that will bring all national protest movements together to fight this corporate enemy of man. After spending a week marching through the streets of London while reflecting with optimism on the increased opposition protests globally, it just may be that Extinction Rebellion- that scourge started mere months ago here in London- will provide effective necessary organization and an epicentre of protest to this overdue worldwide non-violent demand for real systemic governmental change.

Today, the list of truly populist national leaders is a rarity of decimal point proportions. This past month’s’ American backed and capitalist orchestrated horror show coup against newly re-elected Bolivian President Evo Morales well illustrates this in detail each and every day. Those who aspire to true leadership- like Morales- are demonized, marginalized and vilified- or overthrown- by Zio-Corporate interests and a complicit media that exists for the same purpose as Pinera and May and who have no interest whatsoever in populist democracy.

Rather, today’s leaders of each of the purported international democracies- political, spiritual, and societal- are in reality a far-reaching sociopathic conspiracy cloaked within a very antiquated definition of “democracy” long ago dead and gone. These faux leaders are gladly willing to steal the livelihood of the many while defrauding all but themselves of any future prosperity, thus stealing the democratic apple once known as “Hope” and turning it, instead, into nothing more than a dangling carrot.

Yet…they still want more!

Throughout our ever more impoverished world, what these forces of non-stop austerity do not want, will never tolerate, and abhor to the base of their soulless drive for greed- ever – is resistance: A public resistance that becomes a rebellion and then sparks into revolution. This natural humanist cycle –now suffering under similar social conditions as seen today-has been repeated throughout history by humane civilian necessity when the proper conscience of man finally awakens to the vital need for personal or family liberation from…one’s own government!

These “primal forces of nature, Mr Beale”?! Oh, how they detest Extinction Rebellion.

For, it is THEM that we come for!

As I stepped off the train at Paddington Station after a two-hour ride down to London, memories came to mind of arriving in Los Angeles, then New York, then Washington, D.C., in what seemed like aeons ago, but a mere eight years. Like tens of thousands of others back then whose backs had been broken by the last straw of capitalism, I had come to resist. The name of that resistance was called, “Occupy!”

In those heady days, there was an optimism in the air and an understanding, like here this past few weeks at XR, that it was indeed the “system itself” that was-is-the problem, and that we could change it. Would change it. As documented in more than twenty articles from the Occupy camps at that time and recently encapsulated in, “The Day American Activism Died,” a nation rose to fix that endemic problem: to fix the system. Occupy provided a communal epicentre within scores of US towns for common collective protest. We did this so well- all of us– that Occupy was within 30 days of the first Occupy National Assembly and a potential move to a third political party. Better: A return to the proper definition of populist democracy too long ago forgotten.

Then America’s new constitutional scholar president… he crushed it!

That experience in becoming involved with Occupy on both coasts of America, now on this new day, left an indelible and sad memory of what might have been.

So, while marching up the stairs of Charing Cross station in London, a city steeped in populist history that provided sanctuary to Marx and later Lenin and saw the powerful rise of the political epicentres of The Weavers and the Chartists who propagated social revolution in the time of the industrial revolution. Walking over to Trafalgar Square to join my new brethren at the main XR camp, as I tossed down my backpack- the same one as long before- I once again slowly straightened my spine, drew breath and looked about the camp; slowly turning 360 to carefully study this brand new epicentre of protest: it’s colours, it’s tents, its banners, its protesters chatting with impassioned gestures in small groups, the costumes; drummers beating skins, musicians playing and optimism dancing.

Listening with just the right ears to these increasing winds of change, one could hear a special note so rarely heard: that perfect low rumbling pitch…a cadence? A march? Ever-increasing in its frequency, rising high across this XR camp, entwining with every part of it to create a sweet music that only a concert made of the full instruments of human protest can distil into a simple smile. Oh, it had been far, far, too long. So, so many memories roared back in once again before moistened eyes.

But what had we learned?

The world everywhere howls in protest. Worldwide, democracy is now merely oppression rebranded. The old fashioned definition is repeatedly dashed on the rocks of capitalist austerity while the cries of so many nations beg for release from the iron grip of America, IMF, World Bank, EU, and the docket of ever-greedy corporations and their prostitute politicians who provide them with the military support for their crimes. This has been witnessed just this past week in Chile, Guinea, Catalonia, Kashmir, Hong Kong, Honduras, Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, Pakistan, Gaza, Egypt, Lebanon, Haiti, Puerto Rico, and again on the Brexit stained streets here in London; where the same human condition has been squeezed- and squeezed– to rebellion.

These protests are growing. They will not stop.

Worldwide, the problem is now understood by far too many. Silence? Acquiescence? Obedience? No more. World protesters are now righteous in their individual causes and sacrifices. But, they all so far lack the one essential strength- the First Rule of Democracy– necessary to achieve real long-lasting change. So far, they resist alone. To win, all must come together.

 

*

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

Brett Redmayne-Titley has published over 180 in-depth articles over the past ten years for news agencies worldwide. Many have been translated and republished. On-scene reporting from important current events has led to his many multi-part exposes on such topics as the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, NATO summit, Keystone XL Pipeline, Porter Ranch Methane blow-out, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Erdogan’s Turkey and many more. He can be reached at: live-on-scene ((at)) gmx.com. Prior articles can be viewed at his archive: www.watchingromeburn.uk

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Humane Obligation of Conscience. Capitalist Orchestrated Horror. Desperate Protests Across the Globe

The Threat 5G Poses to Human Health

December 15th, 2019 by James Grundvig

The crime scene was straight out of an Alfred Hitchcock movie. One hundred and fifty dead birds lay sprawled on the ground, fallen out of trees in a park in The Hague, Netherlands.

The second such occurrence last autumn made Dutch citizens look up and wonder. With robust starlings turned upside-down at their feet, the usual suspects of disease, pollution, and foul play were dismissed.

The culprit stood atop a nearby train station—a mast with new 5G network antennas. The test of the telecom system failed in more ways than imagined. As a result, the Dutch ministry postponed its 5G-spectrum auction until 2020.

For decades, the telecommunications industry and governments haven’t invested enough money on safety studies of electromagnetic field (EMF) and radio frequency (RF), and their effects on human health.

This neglect is despite a joint 2011 press release from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that stated they found EMF radiation “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

Radio-frequency pollution has been overlooked for its potential health effects on people. It’s not just the rollout of 5G networks that are a cause for concern. Extremely low frequencies from Wi-Fi routers, hotspots, and cellphones also pose a serious threat, particularly to children.

The Promise of the Digital Age

In a couple of years, 5G networks will become the connecting digital tissue for drones, autonomous vehicles, blockchains, the internet of things, supply chains, smart homes, smart meters, smart appliances, smart buildings, and smart cities.

The allure of 5G’s super-fast download speeds will be broad and pervasive, but will come with a hidden cost of invisible RF transmissions, electromagnetic radiation, and constant receiving/transmitting of Wi-Fi signals that most people overlook as benign.

Dr. Martin Pall, professor emeritus at Washington State University and one of the leading EMF experts in the world, presented at the National Institute of Health about the dangers of 5G, stating:

“Each of these EMF effects will lead to existential threats to our survival … In mice, EMF led to a drop in reproduction to essentially zero. … 5G will incur much higher frequencies and pulsations to that of being in a microwave.”

From Pall’s last slide, he read:

“The current plan, which has already been approved by the U.S. Congress and the FCC, is to put tens of millions of 5G antennae, irradiating every single person and other organisms in the whole country, without even a single biological safety test of genuine 5G radiation … That is absolutely insane.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to study EMF effects on human health, failed to create safety standards and, in 1979, stopped measuring EMF radiation. On the agency’s website, there’s a link to an outdated 1992 report, “Questions and Answers About Electric and Magnetic Fields.”

The WHO is even more egregious for its failure to inform the public of the dangers of EMF radiation. A visit to its website and the sparse amount of obsolete material on EMF leads one to question the organization’s charter. Posted on the WHO’s website are six EMF studies: 1981, 1983, 1987, 1993, 2004, and 2007, and four publications that predate 2004.

Coming from the global gatekeeper of human health, which deemed EMF radiation “possibly carcinogenic” eight years ago, the WHO’s failure to inform is astonishing.

While the Trump administration will roll out a plan to reform the U.S. government, streamlining the agencies’ scope, reporting structures, and consolidating different bureaus, the 132-page document fails to mention the telecom industry at its next pivotal evolutionary step.

As a result, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will remain in charge of health and safety of 5G radiation, regardless of its organization chart being light on health-safety oversight.

The Science of EMF Effects

Only last fall did citizens join the chorus of scientists that forced Michigan legislators to hold EMF hearings and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to raise the alarm on 5G.

Blumenthal challenged the telecom industry to “prove 5G is safe.”

During a Skype interview, Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi, director of research at the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, in Bologna, Italy, explained the issues of EMF radiation and the threat that 5G poses.

“Low-intensity spectrum RF is dangerous to humans. The environmental exposures consist of tumors of the brain and the heart nervous cells,” Belpoggi stated.

The mechanisms for that are not at the skin level with thermal heat, such as exposure to the sun, but at the cellular level in all living organisms.

“In Europe, epidemiology studies of cell towers have also found acoustic nerve tumors and facial tumors,” she said. “The effects lie dormant for years. It’s the latency timeline that’s a problem. Cancers often do not appear for 20 or 30 years. With the screens generation, we see cancer-causing problems starting in the embryo.”

“At the cell level, mitochondria (the energy store) and metabolism (diabetes) are deeply affected by ion nervous pulses,” she said. “Millimeter waves are not well known; more studies are needed. I fear 5G might be like asbestos, spreading everywhere through society, only to notice—too late—of the damage it has done.”

Belpoggi emphasized that low frequency has the same effect as EMF with “just shorter wavelengths and different frequencies, but the same overall effect.”

The problem with 5G is that its wavelengths transmit over shorter distances than 4G. That means 5G networks require millions more antennae to be installed over the next decade than today’s 4G cell towers. 5G antennas will be seen out in the open, everywhere, fixed to light and telephone poles and on rooftops at homes, schools, transport hubs, and office buildings. They will be pervasive and widespread.

“EMF and RF waves corrupt human DNA. They contribute to the environmental impact of autism, Parkinson’s disease, cancers, and low sperm count. We need to redeploy money from other parts of society, industry, and government and make this a No. 1 priority,” Belpoggi said, calling the current state an “insane policy, where technology is more important than human health.”

By year-end, Belpoggi’s lab will publish a study on EMF effects on 2,800 rats, with 1,000 rats as control. They will observe all organs. The study was funded by 30,000 local citizens, since the Ramazzini Institute is a nonprofit that no government or industry influences. The institute collaborates with top global scientists with expertise in toxicology and oncology, and has been sharing data with U.S. institutions since 2000.

In the United States, Dr. Sharon Goldberg, an expert witness, responded to an email query of the top three health concerns that 5G and the internet of things pose.

1. “Cataracts account for 60 percent of all eye surgeries and cost Medicare $3.6 billion a year.”

2. “Antibiotic resistance and immune system damage, where millimeter wave technology (MMW) affects antibiotic sensitivity (and growth) of staphylococcus cultures and E. coli. The acute effects of EMF radiation on living systems/cells often are very different from the effects of chronic exposure.”

3. “The big unknown of MMW is the impact on depression/suicide and the opioid epidemic.”

Goldberg’s testimony before the Michigan House Energy Policy Committee captured the state legislature’s attention, and the public’s. A pair of YouTube videos accrued more than 650,000 views.

To date, only teams of scientists—with petitions and hard-to-find websites—have voiced their concern and posted current valuable data on EMF exposure. That should be the impetus for the EPA, FCC, and the WHO to act, invest in research, educate the public, and update their archaic information on technology that will impact all plants, people, insects, and animals.

A moratorium on the installation of 5G networks must be a top priority.

*

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

James Grundvig is the author of “Master Manipulator: The Explosive True Story of Fraud, Embezzlement and Government Betrayal at the CDC.” He lives and works in New York City.

Featured image is from Greek City Times

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Threat 5G Poses to Human Health
  • Tags:

The Bogus Legend of Paul Volcker. The Break with Gold

December 15th, 2019 by F. William Engdahl

Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve during the 1980’s, has died at age 92. Major media are writing words of praise for the banker who “killed inflation” in the wake of the 1970’s oil crises and food price crisis. Volcker’s true legacy is far less positive. No one person did more to bring about the dysfunctional debt-bloated financial system we have today than the former Chase Manhattan Bank economist who spent most of his life in the employ of America’s most powerful oligarch family.

Two major events define the true Volcker legacy. First was in August 1971 when he was a senior official in the US Treasury under Nixon. The second was as Jimmy Carter’s Fed chairman beginning in October 1979. These define the events that led to the deindustrialization of the United States and the economic collapse of most of the once-developing world beginning four decades ago.

The Break with Gold

During the 1960’s the US economy began a serious crisis of under-investment. The world-class industries built up during and just after World War II, from steel to aluminum to Detroit cars were all badly in need of modernization and investment. Europe had rebuilt its industry after the devastation of the war and especially Germany and France were competing with US on the world market with often more advanced state-of-the-art industry. Their economies were earning dollar surpluses for their exports. The problem was that those US dollars were no longer backed by the world’s strongest economy.

By the beginning of the 1960s, as Europe began to grow at rates outpacing that of the United States, it was becoming clear to many that something had to change in the fixed Bretton Woods arrangement. But Washington, under the growing influence of the powerful New York banking community, led by Citibank and David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank, refused to play by the very rules it had imposed on its allies in 1944. New York banks began to invest abroad in new sources of higher profits. This vast outflow of vital investment capital turned the decade of the 1960s into a succession of ever worsening international monetary crises.

New York’s international banks were earning huge profits by walking away from investing in America’s future. Between 1962 and 1965, U.S. corporations in western Europe earned between 12 and 14 per cent return, according to a January 1967 Presidential Report to Congress, double that for US industry investment. By the end of the 1960’s European central banks were holding large dollar surpluses from trade and investment, urged by Washington not to redeem them for gold as allowed under Bretton Woods.

French President Charles de Gaulle, on advice from his economic strategist Jacques Rueff, criticized the Johnson Administration for ignoring the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement by refusing to revalue the dollar price of gold. Rueff had proposed a 100% dollar devaluation to restore fairness and stability to the monetary order. Wall Street and the Washington administration rejected anything of the sort. It would reduce the power of the US international banks.

Bretton Woods was a Gold Exchange Standard which set every currency to the US dollar and only the dollar to gold at the fixed price of $35 it held since the Great Depression in the 1930’s. In 1944 the US was by far the world industrial leader and held the vast majority of central bank gold, so Bretton Woods was reluctantly accepted by other countries. But by the 1960’s exploding US budget deficits, mainly caused by costs of the growing war in Vietnam, in effect exported dollar inflation to US allies. Beginning the mid-1960’s major countries, led by France and later Germany, began to demand the US Federal Reserve redeem their dollar trade surpluses in gold from the New York Fed, custodian for the US Government gold.

In 1959, the external liabilities of the United States still approximated the total value of her official gold reserves. By 1967, the US total of external liabilities had soared to three times that gold reserve at $35 an ounce. European and other central banks began to redeem their dollars and demand gold from the US Government. In 1967 France determined to exchange its dollar and sterling reserves for gold, leaving the voluntary 1961 Group of 10 gold pool arrangement. By 1971 with Nixon as President, the dollar crisis was growing untenable as official gold was down to only 25% of US foreign liabilities. If all dollar holders demanded gold, the US couldn’t redeem. With gold prices on world markets rising by the day, dollar holders were demanding US gold for the paper. Jacques Rueff continued to plead for a $70 gold price, arguing that that would calm speculation and let the US redeem the Eurodollar balances abroad with causing severe US economic damage. It would have made US industrial exports far more competitive and sparked a revival of US industry as well he argued.

Instead, Nixon followed the advice of his Treasury and notably, that of the Under Secretary for International Monetary Affairs, Paul Adolph Volcker. Volcker had come to the Treasury from the post as Vice President at David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank. David Rockefeller and Volcker were to cross paths continuously in the coming decades.

On August 15, 1971, Nixon announced formal suspension of dollar convertibility into gold, effectively putting the world fully onto a fiat dollar standard with no gold backing. He unilaterally ripped up a US Bretton Woods treaty agreement and the world was forced to swallow the huge negative consequences of floating exchange rates.

Four months later in a compromise known as the Smithsonian Agreement, which Nixon called “the most significant monetary agreement in the history of the world,” (sic) the United States formally devalued the dollar a mere 8 per cent against gold, placing gold at $38 instead of the long-standing $35, a meaningless move. Wall Street had beaten Main Street and US industry. It was the actual beginnings of American deindustrialization in favor of what later would be called “globalization.” Years later Volcker would call his role in the suspension of gold convertibility, “the single most important event of his career.”

By 1973 Nixon’s Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, another Rockefeller protégé, orchestrated events that erupted in the October, 1973 Yom Kippur War, a war that was actually manipulated to trigger an OPEC oil embargo that would raise the price of the world’s most valuable commodity by 400% in months. The US dollar, though few understood, had gone from a gold-backed currency to a petrodollar-backed currency. Washington made sure OPEC would sell oil only in US dollars, a pact that held until Saddam Hussein broke it decades later. Paul Volcker’s role in August, 1971 to decouple the dollar free from gold was key to the Petrodollar strategy. Saudi Arabia, Iran and others in OPEC recycled their huge petrodollar gains to London where Chase Manhattan and other New York and London banks relent it to developing countries at low “floating” interest rates.

Fed Chairman ‘Kills’ Inflation

By 1979 the dollar was in a new crisis as the toppling of the Shah in Iran led to a second major oil price spike and a dollar crisis. A troubled Jimmy Carter was convinced by his good friend David Rockefeller to name Paul Volcker as chairman of the Fed to calm markets and stabilize the dollar. Volcker had left Washington in 1974 to become President of the New York Federal Reserve. He was also one of the founding members of David Rockefeller’s highly influential and little-known Trilateral Commission along with Zbigniew Brzezinski and a Georgia peanut farmer named Jimmy Carter. Carter owed his Presidency to David Rockefeller and filled his cabinet with Trilateral members.

When Volcker took control of the Federal Reserve by October, 1979 he unleashed a monetary shock that sent Fed interest rates to 20% in weeks and plunged the US economy into the most severe collapse since the 1930’s. He claimed it was necessary to “squeeze inflation out of the system.” Volcker blamed the inflation on trade unions and small producers who were simply struggling to keep up with soaring prices of energy and food.

When Volcker convinced Nixon to break with gold in 1971, that triggered the first rise of post-1945 inflation as the dollar’s value plummeted making import prices higher. Nixon tried to stop it with wage-price controls in 1971. That restricted business activity, slowed growth.

Before Carter became President in 1977, Nixon had ordered the Fed to get rid of the effects of oil and food in the Consumer Price Index. The result was the fake number known as “core inflation,” minus oil and food. In his interest rate actions after October, 1979 Volcker never mentioned the true inflation came from David Rockefeller’s machinations in the 1970’s with OPEC. Instead he argued the population’s rising living standard was the problem. In defending his controversial monetary shock therapy, Volcker notably told the New York Times’ David McNally, “The American standard of living must decline.”

Decline it certainly did, as the economy was plunged into deep recession from 1980 through 1982, with unemployment above 10% as bankruptcies across construction, farming and industry deepened. By 1982 the soaring dollar interest rates had devastated the entire world economy owing to the primacy of the dollar. It triggered what came to be known as the Third World debt crisis from Mexico, Argentina Brazil to Yugoslavia, Poland and beyond. The Volcker interest rate policy combined with his decoupling of the dollar from gold set the stage for what has been the greatest inflation of all, the world inflation from 1971 through today. Between 1971 and the early 1990’s, shortly after Volcker left the Fed, the volume of dollars in world circulation has expanded by more than 2,500% as gold no longer limited creation of dollars.

Paul Volcker should be remembered, but for what he really did, not the mythology invented by his backers on Wall Street. His entire career, like that of his long-time associate Kissinger, was tied to the Rockefellers. Volcker left the Fed in 1987 and was named to the Trust Committee of the Rockefeller Group. He was long-time member of Rockefeller-founded Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission groups, as well as chairing the Wall Street investment firm, Wolfensohn & Co. of James D. Wolfensohn , who later became president of the World Bank. If we trace the actual actions of Paul Volcker from 1971 on we better understand the origins of the crisis the world economy is in today.

*

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

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

Featured image is from NEO


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Bogus Legend of Paul Volcker. The Break with Gold
  • Tags:

THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world. – Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928) [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)
Since at least as far back as World War I, propaganda has been a major force in our lives, and a critical factor shaping public support for foreign policy.

With time, this propaganda campaign has gotten more sophisticated. Consider, for example, the 1991 Persian Gulf War, acceptance of which was ramped up following a testimony of an alleged witness of atrocities by invading Iraqi soldiers. The incident was eventually exposed as a massive deception as explained in the following video by Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker.

The current conflict in Syria would seem to reveal an unprecedented evolution of this process of mind control in service of imperial conquest.

The general public throughout the West, including many self-described progressives and anti-imperialists, see the Syrian conflict as a civil war. An uprising of democratic rebels against a tyrannical dictator. The Syrian regime, together with the Russian military are, apparently, the main cause of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the dislocation of millions. He stands accused of using chemical weapons on his own people in 2013, 2017, and 2018.

Enter the White Helmets – a team of volunteers rescuers whose exploits have impressed the sympathetic masses as heroes. A documentary about them won an Oscar Award. They have been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. They have also helped foster popular enmity toward president Assad and his government.

As revealed in past episodes of the Global Research News Hour, the Syrian conflict is not a civil war, but an insurgency, backed by the U.S., Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. Articles in the independent press have debunked claims of the government’s use of chemical weapons.

As for the White Helmets, reporters like Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley have revealed them to be a propaganda construct, aligned with the terrorist factions in the country and actually putting together fake videos with the intent of demonizing President Assad and pushing for a U.S. intervention.

An elaborate apparatus has been put in place to protect the Assad-as-bad-guy narrative. Reporters putting forward an alternative narrative on Syria have faced doxxing, smears, defamation and deplatforming. Several journalists working for mainstream and even some alternative publications have put out articles portraying these challengers of the official story as ‘conspiracy theorists’, agents of Bashar al Assad or Russia, and even ‘antisemites.’

This episode of the Global Research News Hour will focus on this network of well financed interests and how they are manufacturing consent for the overthrow of governments in the Middle East with Syria as a case study.

Our guests for the hour are two of the independent journalists who have invited the scorn of the Empire as well as from advocates for social and environmental justice. Their names are Cory Morningstar and Vanessa Beeley.

Over the course of the program, they discuss the crimes of the White Helmets, the Greta Thunberg phenomenon, the suspicious death of White Helmets founder James Lemesurier, the behaviour of the media, and much more.

 Vanessa Beeley is an award-winning independent investigative journalist and photographer who has worked extensively in the Middle East – on the ground in Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Palestine, while also covering the conflict in Yemen since 2015.  Vanessa contributes regularly to Mint Press News, Russia Today, UK Column, The Last American Vagabond, Sputnik radio, 21st Century Wire, Global Research and many other independent media outlets.

Cory Morningstar is an independent investigative journalist, writer and environmental activist, focusing on global ecological collapse and political analysis of the non-profit industrial complex. She resides in Canada. Her recent writings can be found on Wrong Kind of GreenThe Art of Annihilation, and Counterpunch.

(Global Research News Hour episode 280)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (alternativecurrentradio.com)

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 3pm.

Los Angeles, California based Thepowerofvoices.com airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time.

Notes:

  1. Edward Bernays (1928) Propaganda, pg 9-10
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on White Helmets, James Lemesurier, and the Humanitarian Regime Change Network
Indian Prime Minister Modi has a huge crisis on his hands entirely of his own making after some of the ethno-religiously diverse Northeastern States of the so-called ‘Seven Sisters’ are erupting in rage after the passage of the ‘Citizenship (Amendment) Bill’ that many fear will result in “replacement migration” against the indigenous population there, which risks triggering a chain reaction of violence in the sharply divided ‘Indian Balkans’ that might even spread to neighboring Bangladesh in the worst-case scenario.

The “Seven Sisters” Crisis

India’s Northeastern States of the so-called “Seven Sisters” have historically been unstable ever since independence owing to the often-overlooked fact that their incorporation into the country was historically unprecedented and represented nothing more than the continued legacy of British rule in the subcontinent, but this ethno-religiously diverse and sharply divided region that can rightly be described as the “Indian Balkans” is at risk of collapsing into a chain reaction of violence after the central government passed the “Citizenship (Amendment) Bill” (CAB). This contentious piece of legislation grants citizenship to non-Muslims from neighboring countries who migrated (oftentimes illegally) to India over the decades under the pretext of escaping persecution and also enables the fast-tracking of citizenship to those that plan to make this move in the future for the same supposed reason.

“Weapons Of Mass Migration”

Beyond the fact that this piece of religiously influenced legislation goes against the secular principles of the Indian Constitution but was pushed through anyhow because of the ruling BJP’s Hindutva-driven quest to transform their country into a “Hindu Rashtra“, the other reason why it’s so controversial is because it could demographically re-engineer the “Indian Balkans” through the state-supported policy of what Ivy League scholar Kelly M. Greenhill would recognize as “Weapons of Mass Migration“. More specifically, the “Seven Sisters” — and especially regional leader Assam which comprises the lion’s share of the “Indian Balkans'” population as well as tiny Tripura — already fear that their indigenous cultures will be replaced by the one from neighboring Bangladesh after the large-scale (and allegedly illegal) migration of Muslim Bengalis since the early 1970s. The locals are therefore mostly in favor of the central government’s “National Register of Citizens” (NRC) initiative to identify and deport what has been determined to be nearly 2 million people.

The Roots Of Assamese Rage

It doesn’t matter to the native Assamese and others that there’s the credible chance that the government will abuse the NRC to ethnically cleanse an “unwanted” demographic from that region and other parts of the country at large, to say nothing of the troubling means through which they’ll be deported by first being interned in what some have described as “concentration camps“, since they — whether legitimately or not — fear that their local identity is being destroyed by migrants. That’s why it was so surprising to many of them that the central government then turned around and facilitated the influx of potentially countless illegal immigrants under the pretext of protecting them from religious persecution, especially considering that it’s expected that the many people who would take advantage of this new law will probably be Bengalis, albeit non-Muslim ones (or potentially even Muslims masquerading as non-believers for “convenience’s sake”).

The reader should be made aware that the Assamese (which are being focused on in the context of this analysis by virtue of their overwhelming demographic influence in the region) have felt “under siege” for years after they saw the original borders of their post-independence (or rather, post-unification-with-India) state gradually shrink as a result of the central government’s domestic political-administrative reforms that led to the creation of new entities in the areas of Assam there were mostly populated by minority groups like the Nagas. It’s a very complex history to summarize, but everything can be simplified by explaining that this part of India had mostly always remained out of the control of those in the so-called “mainland” until the British occupation merged them together into a single political unit. The era of decolonization that swept the globe after World War II saw many of the non-Assamese people in the Northeast agitating (sometimes violently) for either recognition as a separate state within India so as not to be ruled by the Assamese or outright independence in a cycle of violence that continues to this day and still flares up from time to time.

The “Balkanization” Of The “Indian Balkans”

It’s beyond the scope of this analyses to describe each of the relevant movements in depth, but the main ones are the United Liberation From of Assam (ULFA), several Naga groups that are currently negotiating a secretive peace with the central government that non-Nagas in the surrounding areas fear will infringe on their political and cultural sub-state sovereignty, and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB) that’s pursuing dual separatism from both Assam and India as a whole. New Delhi recognizes the Assamese and Bodo groups as terrorists but both organizations predictably reject this label. In any case and regardless of however one feels about their causes, there’s no denying that they resonate with an influential segment of the population, and it’s the Assamese variant that’s coming back to the surface after CAB unilaterally changed the terms of the Assam Accord of 1985 previously agreed to in response to regional unrest over illegal immigration from Bangladesh and which originally decreed that only those who entered the state before 25 March, 1971 could receive citizenship.

To make a long story short, a critical mass of Assamese feel betrayed by the BJP, which explains why some of them lost control of themselves and started rioting by attacking the house of the Chief Minister and some of his ruling party allies and even burning railway stations, resulting in the central government having to cut off the internet and urgently dispatch several thousand troops from occupied Kashmir to the restive region. An indefinite curfew has also been imposed in several districts as well. The immediate security implications of this crisis are extremely worrisome for the central government since too heavy-handed of a response to the riots could provoke an even stronger backlash by radicalizing the comparatively “moderate” elements of the population, though sitting back and letting events naturally unfold could also lead to a resurgence in separatist sentiment. Assam is absolutely crucial to India’s grand strategy because it functions as the country’s overland gateway to ASEAN with which New Delhi has been trying to integrate more closely through its “Act East” policy.

Is Bangladesh About To Blow?

In pursuit of this, it recently compelled neighboring Bangladesh — which for all intents and purposes has been practically transformed into an Indian proxy state in recent years owing to the increasingly authoritarian ruling party’s submissiveness to New Delhi — to sign a secretive set of agreements in October that many in the country fear amounts to an unprecedented sellout of their sovereignty in order to facilitate their neighbor’s transshipment across their territory to the “Seven Sisters” and beyond (remembering that the latter are linked to “mainland” India by the 22-kilometer-wide Siliguri Corridor commonly referred to as the “Chicken’s Neck”). Bangladesh has been boiling for the past few years, and each perceived slap in the face of its people’s dignity by India is pushing that densely populated nation of approximately 160 million people closer to an anti-government uprising, which is another reason why the latest unrest in the Northeastern States is so serious of a regional security threat because Bangladeshis risk bearing the brunt of the Assamese’s increasingly violent nationalist outrage against New Delhi’s pro-migrant CAB.

Concluding Thoughts

The worst-case scenario that could transpire is if the violence continues to worsen to the point where Bengalis are attacked by Assamese mobs and the pro-Indian government in Bangladesh is forced by rising domestic anger to address the issue against the will of its foreign patron, which could catalyze a fast-moving series of developments that reverse New Delhi’s proxy control over Dhaka and potentially even result in an explosion of separatism all throughout the “Indian Balkans” by encouraging movements such as the Naga, Bodo, and other ones to take advantage of this “opportunity”. It can only be speculated at this point how far everything could go and whether violence might even spill over into neighboring Myanmar (which already holds the ignoble distinction of suffering the world’s longest civil war), but what’s clear at this point is that the “Indian Balkans” are definitely burning, and Modi has nobody to blame but himself after pushing through such a provocative piece of legislation that many had already predicted would result in such an outbreak of regional unrest.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Prime Minister Modi Triggers Political Instability in India’s Northeastern States

Nunca vi o Mundo tão fragmentado!

December 14th, 2019 by Andre Vltchek

É impressionante a facilidade com que o império ocidental está a conseguir destruir os países “rebeldes” que estão no seu caminho, sem que haja resistência.

Trabalho em todos os cantos do planeta, onde os “conflitos” kafkianos forem desencadeados por Washington, Londres ou Paris.

O que vejo e descrevo, não são apenas aqueles horrores que estão a acontecer à minha volta; horrores que estão a arruinar vidas humanas, a destruir aldeias, cidades e países inteiros. O que tento perceber é que, nas telas da televisão e nas páginas dos jornais e da Internet, os crimes monstruosos contra a Humanidade são descritos até certo ponto, mas as informações são distorcidas e manipuladas de tal forma que os leitores e os espectadores de todas as partes do mundo, acabam por não saber quase nada sobre o seu próprio sofrimento e/ou o sofrimento dos outros.

Por exemplo, em 2015 e em 2019, tentei reunir-me e argumentar com os manifestantes de Hong Kong. Foi uma experiência verdadeiramente reveladora! Eles não sabiam nada, absolutamente nada sobre os crimes que o Ocidente cometeu em lugares como o Afeganistão, Síria ou Líbia. Quando tentei explicar-lhes quantas democracias latino-americanas Washington tinha derrubado, pensaram que eu era um lunático. Como é que o Ocidente, bom, terno e “democrático”, tinha matado milhões de pessoas e mergulhado continentes inteiros em sangue? Não foi o que nos ensinaram nas universidades. Não foi o que a BBC, a CNN ou mesmo o que o China Morning Post disseram e escreveram.

Olhem, estou a falar a sério. Mostrei-lhes fotografias do Afeganistão e da Síria; fotos armazenadas no meu telefone. Eles deviam ter compreender que  era algo genuíno, em primeira mão. Ainda assim, eles observavam, mas os seus cérebros não eram capazes de processar o que lhes estava a ser mostrado. Imagens e palavras; essas pessoas estavam condicionadas a não compreender certos tipos de informações.

Mas isto não está a acontecer só em Hong Kong, uma antiga colónia britânica.

Talvez considerem difícil de acreditar, mas mesmo num país comunista como o Vietname; um país orgulhoso, um país que sofreu enormemente com o colonialismo francês e o imperialismo louco e brutal dos EUA, as pessoas com quem me relacionei (e morei em Hanói durante 2 anos) não sabiam quase nada sobre os crimes horríveis cometidos pelos EUA e pelos seus aliados durante a chamada “Guerra Secreta” contra os pobres e indefesos habitantes do país vizinho, o Laos; crimes que incluíam o bombardeio de camponeses e búfalos de água, dia e noite, por bombardeiros estratégicos B-52. E no Laos, onde fiz uma reportagem sobre os trabalhos de desminagem, as pessoas não sabiam nada sobre as mesmas monstruosidades que o Ocidente tinham cometido no Camboja; onde tinham assassinado centenas de milhares de pessoas através de atentados à bomba e desalojado milhões de camponeses das suas casas, provocando a fome e abrindo as portas para o domínio do Khmer Vermelho.

Quando falo dessa falta de conhecimento chocante no Vietname, sobre a região e sobre o que esse povo foi forçado a suportar, não falo apenas de vendedores ou de fabricantes de vestuário. Aplica-se a intelectuais, artistas, professores vietnamitas. É uma amnésia total e surgiu com a chamada ‘abertura’ para o mundo, o que significa com o consumo da comunicação mediática ocidental e, mais tarde, com a infiltração das redes sociais.

Pelo menos, o Vietname partilha fronteiras com o Laos e o Camboja, além de uma história turbulenta.

Mas imaginem dois grandes países só com fronteiras marítimas, como as Filipinas e a Indonésia. Alguns moradores de Manila que conheci, pensavam que a Indonésia se situava na Europa.

Agora, adivinhem, quantos indonésios têm conhecimento dos massacres que os Estados Unidos efectuaram nas Filipinas há um século, ou como as pessoas nas Filipinas foram doutrinadas pela propaganda ocidental sobre todo o Sudeste Asiático? Ou quantos filipinos têm conhecimento do golpe militar de 1965, desencadeado pelos EUA, que depôs o Presidente Sukarno, matando entre 2 a 3 milhões de intelectuais, professores, comunistas e sindicalistas na “vizinha” Indonésia?

Consultem as secções estrangeiras dos jornais indonésios ou filipinos e o que verão? As mesmas notícias da Reuters, AP, AFP. De facto, também verão os mesmos relatórios nas agências de notícias do Quénia, da Índia, do Uganda, do Bangladesh, dos Emirados Árabes Unidos, do Brasil, da Guatemala e a lista continua. Este esquema foi planeado para produzir um único resultado: a fragmentação completa!

***

A fragmentação do mundo é incrível e está a aumentar com o passar do tempo. Aqueles que esperavam que a Internet melhorasse a situação, pensaram erradamente.

Com a falta de conhecimento, a solidariedade também desapareceu.

Neste momento, em todo o mundo, decorrem tumultos e revoluções. Estou a noticiar as mais significativas; no Médio Oriente, na América Latina e em Hong Kong.

Deixem-me ser franco: não há absolutamente nenhuma percepção no Líbano sobre o que está a acontecer em Hong Kong, ou na Bolívia, no Chile ou na Colômbia.

A propaganda ocidental joga tudo no mesmo saco.

Em Hong Kong, os manifestantes doutrinados pelo Ocidente são apresentados como “manifestantes pró-democracia”. Eles matam, queimam, espancam pessoas, mas ainda são os favoritos do Ocidente. Porque estão a antagonizar a República Popular da China, considerada agora, o maior inimigo de Washington. E porque esses manifestantes foram criados e apoiados pelo Ocidente.

Na Bolívia, o Presidente anti-imperialista foi derrubado por um golpe orquestrado por Washington, mas a maioria da população indígena, que exige o seu regresso, é citada como um bando de arruaceiros.

No Líbano, assim como no Iraque, os amotinados são tratados gentilmente pela Europa e pelos Estados Unidos, principalmente porque o Ocidente espera que o Hezbollah pró-iraniano e outros grupos e partidos xiitas, possam vir a ser enfraquecidos pelos protestos.

A revolução, visivelmente anti-capitalista e anti-neoliberal no Chile, bem como os protestos legítimos na Colômbia, são relatados como uma espécie de combinação de explosão de queixas genuínas e hooliganismo e saques. Mike Pompeo alertou, recentemente, que os Estados Unidos apoiarão os governos de direita da América do Sul, na tentativa de manter a ordem.

Todas essas reportagens são um absurdo. De facto, têm um único objectivo: confundir os espectadores e os leitores. A fim de assegurar que eles não saibam nada ou que percebam muito pouco. E que, no final do dia, aterrem nos sofás com suspiros profundos, exclamando: “Oh, o mundo está um caos!”

***

Também conduz à tremenda fragmentação dos países em cada continente e em todo o hemisfério sul do globo.

Os países asiáticos conhecem muito pouco uns dos outros. O mesmo acontece com a África e com o Médio Oriente. Na América Latina, são a Rússia, a China e o Irão que estão, literalmente, a salvar a vida da Venezuela. Os outros países latino-americanos, com a excepção brilhante de Cuba, não fazem nada para ajudar. Todas as revoluções latino-americanas estão fragmentadas. Todos os golpes produzidos pelos EUA, basicamente, não têm oposição.

A mesma situação está a acontecer em todo o Médio Oriente e na Ásia. Não há brigadas internacionalistas que defendam os países destruídos pelo Ocidente. O grande predador vem e ataca a sua presa. É uma visão horrível, como um país morre perante o mundo, em terrível agonia. Ninguém interfere. As pessoas apenas vêem.

Um após o outro, os países estão a render-se.

Não é assim que, no século XXI, os Estados devem comportar-se. Esta é a lei da atracção da selva. Quando eu morava em África, fazia documentários no Quénia, no Ruanda e no Congo, conduzindo através do deserto; era assim que os animais se comportavam, não as pessoas. Os grandes felinos a encontrar a sua vítima. Uma zebra ou uma gazela. E a caça começava: uma ocorrência terrível. Depois, a morte lenta – comendo a vítima viva.

Muito semelhante à designada Doutrina Monroe.

O Império tem de matar. Periodicamente. Com regularidade previsível.

E ninguém faz nada. O mundo está a assistir. Fingindo que nada de extraordinário está a acontecer.

Perguntem a si mesmos: A revolução legítima pode ser bem sucedida em tais condições? Qualquer governo socialista eleito democraticamente poderá sobreviver? Ou tudo que é decente, esperançoso e optimista acaba sempre vítima de um império degenerado, brutal e vulgar?

Se for esse caso, qual é o sentido de seguir regras? Obviamente, as regras estão podres. Existem só para manter o ‘status quo’. Protegem os colonizadores e castigam as vítimas das rebeliões.

Mas não é este assunto que eu queria discutir aqui, hoje.

O que quero dizer é que as vítimas estão divididas. Sabem muito pouco umas das outras. As lutas pela verdadeira liberdade estão fragmentadas. Aqueles que lutam e sangram, mas que mesmo assim lutam, muitas vezes são hostilizados pelos seus companheiros que são mártires menos ousados.

Eu nunca vi o mundo tão dividido. Afinal, o Império está a vencer?

Sim e não.

A Russia, a China, o Irão, a Venezuela – já acordaram. Ergueram-se. Estão a adquirir conhecimento sobre os outros, uns com os outros.

Sem solidariedade, não pode haver vitória.

Sem conhecimento, não pode haver solidariedade.

Nitidamente, a coragem intelectual vem agora da Ásia, do “Oriente”. Para mudar o mundo, a comunicação mediática de destaque ocidental precisa de ser marginalizada, confrontada. Todos os conceitos ocidentais, incluindo a “democracia”, a “paz” e os “direitos humanos” devem ser questionados e redefinidos.

E naturalmente, o conhecimento.

Precisamos de um mundo novo, não de um mundo melhorado.

O mundo não precisa de Londres, Nova York e Paris para ensiná-lo sobre si mesmo.

A fragmentação tem de terminar. As nações precisam de aprender, directamente, umas sobre as outras. Se o fizerem, dentro em breve, as verdadeiras revoluções serão bem sucedidas,  enquanto os tumultos e as falsas revoluções coloridas, como as de Hong Kong, da Bolívia e de todo o Médio Oriente, serão confrontadas regionalmente e impedidas de arruinar milhões de vidas humanas.

Andre Vltchek

 

Artigo original em inglês : I Never Saw a World So Fragmented!New Eastern Outlook, o 10 de Dezembro de 2019.

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

Email: [email protected]

Webpage: NO WAR NO NATO

 

Andre Vltchek, filósofo, romancista, cineasta e jornalista investigador, é o criador de ‘O Mundo de Vltchek em Palavras e Imagens’. Escreveu vários livros, incluindo a ‘China e a Civilização Ecológica’. Escreve, especialmente, para a revista online “New Eastern Outlook.”

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Nunca vi o Mundo tão fragmentado!

O Juiz que criticou o “culto da Bomba”

December 14th, 2019 by John LaForge

Numa dada circunstância, o Juiz do Distrito Federal, Miles Lord, que faleceu em 10 de Dezembro de 2016, aos 97 anos de idade, poderia ter-me aplicado uma sentença de dez anos. Longe disso, o famoso Juiz sem rodeios, que era conhecido por proteger as pessoas comuns de crimes associativos e de desacatos, usou o caso anti-nuclear que um grupo nosso apresentou perante ele, para proferir uma condenação notavelmente irónica sobre armas nucleares e sobre a corrupção que as protege.

Em 10 de Agosto de 1984, Barb Katt e eu, provocámos um estrago de mais de 36.000 dólares nos computadores de controlo de lançamento que estavam a ser construídos para os submarinos Trident, pela Sperry Univac (agora Unysis) em Eagan, Minnesota. Foi a nona de uma série de 100 acções denominadas Plowshares, que planeamos durante dois anos.

Depois de entrar na fábrica Sperry, vestidos como executivos, usamos martelos domésticos para espatifar dois dos computadores de orientação de mísseis da empresa que estavam em construção.

Nós “especificámos” os destroços, derramando sangue sobre eles porque, como disse a filósofa Simone Weil, “as armas nucleares matam sem serem usadas, forçando as pessoas a passar fome”.

Não fugimos, mas ficámos à espera das autoridades, explicando aos trabalhadores que estavam na sala, que desactivámos parte das máquinas de guerra nuclear de ‘first strike’, do governo.

Um trabalhador disse mais tarde, como testemunha: “Ouvi a palavra ‘Trident’, mas não sei o que ela significa”.

Um recorte da notícia do Star Tribune, de 1984, sobre LaForge e Kate, dos arquivos do autor.

Fomos acusados da prática do crime de “vandalismo” e fomos condenados por um júri, após um julgamento de três dias. Enfrentando uma pena máxima de 10 anos de prisão, mediante a sentença de 8 de Novembro, Barb e eu pedimos ao Juiz Miles Lord que denunciasse com ousadia os preparativos de guerra nuclear dos EUA, que eram então de conhecimento comum. O Juiz Miles Lord fez exactamente isso.

Miles Lord YouTube
O Juiz Miles Lord era um protector dos fracos e dos oprimidos. (Youtube)

Com o governo federal actualmente, a levar a cabo um programa de modernização de armas nucleares de um trilião de dólares, semelhante ao que Ronald Reagan estava a supervisionar, em 1984, a crítica impressionante do Juiz Miles Lord ao militarismo empresarial criminoso é tão oportuna como sempre. Estas são as observações de sentença dada pelo Juiz, conforme relatado na transcrição oficial:

“A alegação destes jovens é que eles cometeram os actos aqui expostos como um apelo desesperado ao povo americano e ao Governo, para interromper a loucura militar que eles acreditam sinceramente, que irá destruir todos nós, amigos e inimigos.

 “Eles argumentaram, de modo plausível, que o Direito Internacional proíbe o que nosso país está a fazer através do fabrico de armas de destruição em massa.

 “Ao reflectir sobre o castigo a ser dado a estas duas pessoas que tentavam eliminar armas de destruição em massa, devemos interrogar-nos:

Será que os que fabricam armas para matar estão empenhados num empreendimento mais santificado do que aqueles que, pelos seus actos, tentariam aconselhar a moderação e a mediação, como método alternativo para resolver as disputas internacionais?

Por que estamos tão fascinados por um poder tão grande que não podemos compreender a sua magnitude?

O que há de tão sagrado numa bomba, ou de tão romântico num míssil?

Por que razão condenamos e enforcamos assassinos individuais, enquanto exaltamos as virtudes dos criadores da guerra?

Qual é o fascínio fatal que nos atrai para o pensamento da destruição em massa dos nossos irmãos de outro país?

Por que motivo podemos considerar o pensamento de que todas as pessoas de um lado de uma linha imaginária devem morrer – e se formos tão ímpios e cínicos ao ponto de aceitar esse pensamento – por que motivo é que não ponderamos o facto de que, ao executar esse decreto, também morreremos?

Quem arquitecta estas linhas e quem é que assim decretou?

Quantas pessoas nesta democracia reflectiram seriamente sobre a futilidade de cometer um suicídio nacional para punir os nossos adversários?

Temos tão pouca fé no nosso sistema de livre iniciativa, no nosso capitalismo e nos conceitos fundamentais que são ensinados nas nossas constituições e nas nossas diversas Bíblias, que, para nos protegermos da propagação de ideologias estrangeiras, devemos estar preparados para morrer pelas nossas próprias mãos?

Tal pensamento indica muita falta de fé na nossa democracia, no nosso corpo político, no nosso povo e nas nossas instituições.

“Há indivíduos, em altos cargos, que acreditam que o Armageddon voltará em breve e que, dentro em pouco, Cristo voltará à Terra e levar-nos-á todos de volta com Ele para o céu. Parece que muito do nosso esforço nacional está a ser dedicado a facilitar o processo. Pode até ser uma espécie de celebração. Quando as bombas explodirem, Cristo não terá que vir à Terra. Todos nós, crentes e não crentes, encontrá-Lo-emos a meio do caminho.

 (“Acredito que os pobres são abençoados e que temos o dever de ajudá-los”, disse o Juiz Miles Lord num pequeno vídeo de 2017 sobre ele, mostrado acima.)

 “A anomalia desta situação é que sou chamado aqui para punir dois indivíduos acusados de terem causado danos a bens de uma empresa no valor de 36.000 dólares. É a mesma empresa que, há apenas alguns meses atrás, foi acusada de desviar indevidamente do Governo dos EUA, a soma de 3.6 milhões de dólares.

“Os funcionários desta empresa conseguiram aumentar os lucros empresariais, manipulando os livros de maneira errada e criminosa. Como estes indivíduos eram todos funcionários de uma empresa, parece que não ocorreu a ninguém no Departamento da Procuradoria Geral dos Estados Unidos que as acções desses indivíduos constituíssem uma conspiração criminosa pela qual deveriam ser punidos. O governo exigiu, somente, que a Sperry pagasse apenas 10% do valor pelo qual a empresa tinha sido ilegalmente enriquecida.

“Será que esses empresários que estavam a trabalhar para construir armas de destruição em massa, receberam tratamento especial devido à natureza de seu trabalho?

“Também sou convocado para determinar a quantidade de restituição a ser exigida a estes dois indivíduos que causaram danos aos bens da Sperry. As informações financeiras obtidas pelo Departamento Jurídico indicaram que nenhum dos réus deve dinheiro a ninguém. Embora a Snra. Katt não possua bens pessoais avultados, o Snr. LaForge é comparativamente mais bem dotado. É dono de um Volkswagen de 1968, de uma guitarra, de um saco de dormir e de 200 dólares em dinheiro.

“A pressão inexorável gerada por aqueles que se dedicam a ganhar a vida e lucrar com a construção de equipamentos militares, e as somas ilícitas(‘luvas’) que acontecem nos corredores do Congresso, a fim de obter mais contratos desse tipo para cada estado, consumir-se-ão no máximo, num holocausto atómico. Estes mesmos factores exercem uma forte pressão sobre um Juiz Federal na minha posição, para concordar com a teoria de que há algo sagrado numa bomba e que, aqueles que levantam as vozes ou as mãos contra ela, devem ser derrubados como inimigos do povo, apesar de que, nos seus corações, sintam e saibam que são amigos do povo.

“Uma conduta deste tipo não pode ser tolerada sob o disfarce de liberdade de expressão. Nem deve ser totalmente condenada como subversiva, traidora ou traiçoeira, catalogada na categoria de espionagem ou noutras coisas impróprias. Neste caso, eu tiraria o aguilhão da bomba, tentaria de alguma maneira, forçar o governo a remover a auréola com a qual parece dotar qualquer dispositivo que possa matar e colocar nela uma mortalha, a mortalha da morte, da destruição, da mutilação, da doença e da debilitação.

 “Se houver uma reacção adversa a esta sentença, aguardarei ansiosamente os protestos daqueles que se queixam das minhas tentativas de corrigir o desequilíbrio que agora existe num sistema que opera de maneira a fornecer um tipo de justiça para os ricos, e um tipo de justiça menor para os pobres, um padrão para os poderosos e outro para os mansos, e um sistema que considera que a sua humanidade e objectividade é louvada e glorificada pela loucura militar e pelo adoração da Bomba.

 “Um Juiz que preside a este julgamento, como eu,  não é convocado para fazer aquilo que é politicamente correcto ou popular, mas é instado a exercer um julgamento calmo e deliberado da maneira mais adequada para realizar, acomodar e reivindicar os direitos das pessoas que actuam através do seu governo, e os direitos das pessoas que são objecto de tais acções. O que seria mais popular fazer, neste momento específico, seria condenar [Katt e LaForge] a um período de 10 anos de prisão, e alguns juízes podem estar dispostos a fazê-lo.

 [Então, as sentenças foram impostas: seis meses de prisão, suspensa, com seis meses de liberdade vigiada.]

“Também estou ciente do poder do argumento, que diria que esta sentença encorajaria outras pessoas a fazerem o mesmo. Se outros fizerem o mesmo, devem ser questionados nesse momento. Também estou impressionado com o argumento de que esta mesma sentença pode, de alguma forma, constituir uma sentença absurda, que [Katt e LaForge] não foram punidos adequadamente porque alguns outros podem não ser dissuadidos de fazer [o que eles fizeram]. Realmente interrogo-me sobre a constitucionalidade de condenar uma pessoa por um crime que pode ser cometido por outra pessoa, noutro momento e noutro local.

“Também é difícil para mim comparar a sentença que aqui vos dou – por destruir bens no valor de 36.000 dólares, porque vocês foram processados – com a situação daqueles que roubaram 3,6 milhões de dólares e não foram processados, nem destituídos, nem punidos de alguma maneira. A minha consciência está limpa. Declaro encerrada a presente sessão.” 

John LaForge

 

Artigo original em inglês : The judge who assailed “worship of the Bomb”, Beyond Nuclear International, 1 de Dezembro de 2019.

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos
Email: [email protected]
Webpage: NO WAR NO NATO

 

John LaForge, publica e difunde a PeaceVoice, é co-Director do Nukewatch, um grupo de justiça ambiental e de paz em Wisconsin, e é co-Editor com Arianne Peterson, de Nuclear Heartland, Revised: A Guide to the 450 Land-Based Missiles of the United States./ Nuclear Heartland, Revisado: Um Guia para os 450 Mísseis Baseados no Solo dos Estados Unidos.

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on O Juiz que criticou o “culto da Bomba”

Latin America has long been regarded as the exclusive stomping ground of US economic interests, US military, and US intelligence services for much of the 19th and 20th centuries, to the point that the US public has grown to view meddling in its neighbors’ domestic politics as some sort of birthright which is still faintly rooted in the 19th century “white man’s burden” racialist policies. That the majority of Democratic Party presidential candidates supports the military coup in Bolivia, the escalating repressions in Chile, and the plundering of Brazil by the Bolsonaro regime is actually unremarkable in that regard. Such policies have long been the norm.

However, if one were to take a quick survey of recent developments in the “information battlefield” in the United States, one would be struck by the rapid elevation of Latin America to a place where direct US military action is needed. It is not just Trump who, in the aftermath of an apparently cartel-related murder of an American Mormon family in Mexico, “offered” Mexico the “help” of the US military in fighting the cartels. The latest boy-wonder of the US Establishment, “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg likewise allowed that he is “open” to the idea of sending US troops to Mexico. Neither of these statements was seen as in any way controversial by the mainstream media—even though the US public is broadly anti-war and skeptical of additional international entanglements, the Washington Establishment views the sovereignty of other countries as nothing more than legal fiction.

These politicians’ statements do not stand in isolation. Hollywood has long been “joined at the hip” with the US national security establishment and can always be relied upon to propagate the latest set of Washington talking points. While Russian villains remain the staple of US movies and video games, Latin America is gradually reclaiming its role as a battlefield and source of threats to the United States – a status it had lost after 9/11. There are now at least two currently running US TV series which specifically focus on direct US interventions in Latin America.

America’s favorite CIA analyst Jack Ryan (who, it should be noted, became President on the pages of Tom Clancy’s novels after the rest of the US government was conveniently eliminated by a Boeing 747 flown into the Capitol  by a suicide pilot) is now bravely thwarting Russian plots in Venezuela. Going considerably further, Last Ship’s current season actually posits the emergence of Gran Colombia, a veritable Latin American empire which launches a Pearl Harbor-style surprise air raid which destroys the just-rebuilt US Navy with the assistance of a cyber-strike. In retaliation, the United States employs the full range of its conventional capabilities, starting with CIA covert operatives working with some modern equivalent of the Nicaraguan Contras whose connections to the drug cartels are not even concealed, and ending with US Marines landing on the shores of Latin American countries in order to “liberate” them from their own governments.

There are other indications that the US establishment is bracing for a major deterioration of the political situation “south of the border”, up to and including a major refugee crisis comparable to that which Europe has experienced. While Donald Trump has been roundly condemned for his immigration policies, particularly the deportations of Latin American refugees, the construction of a major barrier on the US-Mexico border, and the efforts to transform Mexico into a holding tank for refugees seeking admission into the United States, no senior Democratic Party politician or candidate has promised to reverse these policies.

The rekindling of interest in Latin America is a logical consequences of the drift toward a global multi-polar system. It means, first, a retrenchment in the Middle East due to the demonstrated power of Russia and China which has proved sufficient to thwart not only covert US plots but also overt uses of economic and military capabilities. This power transition has meant that even long-standing US allies such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia are adopting a multi-vector foreign policy no longer wholly centered on their relationship with the United States. It certainly does not help that the United States has proved of limited utility in resolving the many international conflicts and rivalries in that region, not only the obvious Iran-Saudi Arabia one, but also the lower-intensity Saudi Arabia—Turkey one. Since Russia is literally the only international power capable of credibly negotiating with each of these three regional rivals, its reputation as an honest broker backed up by non-trivial “hard power” has elevated its standing in the region to the detriment of the United States.

The second implication is an even closer binding of Latin American countries to the United States, with the remarkably compliant Organization of American States (OAS) which has never seen a military coup it did not like, serving as the overt instrument of control. Conversely, regional organizations which have proven resistant to US control such as the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of our America-Trade between Peoples (ALBA-TCP) and  the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), both of which actually condemned the coup in Bolivia in strong terms, will find themselves the target of US pressure. Post-coup Bolivia’s announced departure from both of these organizations is unlikely to be an aberration, particularly since it follows on the heels of Lenin Moreno’s Ecuador’s departure from ALBA in 2018. The remaining ALBA states include Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela (in addition to several small island states), all of which are continuing targets of US regime change policies.

UNASUR also appears headed for extinction. As many as six countries, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and Peru, suspended their membership in 2018. Chile moreover launched PROSUR, an organization explicitly intended to target Venezuela, with the initial states invited to join the new organization being  Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Guyana and Suriname, none of which can be described as pursuing policies contrary to US wishes.

The Trump Administration’s regional trade war that resulted in the launch of USMCA – a new trade pact by the US, Mexico and Canada intended to replace the North America Free Trade Association (NAFTA) is indicative of the future course of US policy. It’s doubtful that many in the region failed to note the new trade pact’s abbreviation is exactly the same as that of the US Marine Corps which has a long and dark history of invasions and occupations of Latin American states. Consistent with the plot of “Last Ship”, the US, Mexico and Canada will find themselves once again the final arbiter of trade arrangements in Latin America in the #MAGA era, an era that will not end with Trump.

Economic developments in countries that have suffered right-wing regime shifts in the last few years show the direction in which Latin America will evolve. In Brazil, Boeing was allowed to acquire the commercial aircraft division of EMBRAER which hitherto was able to compete, as an independent actor, against both Boeing and Airbus even in their own home markets. The move strengthens Boeing by making it more competitive against Airbus in certain niches that it lacked, and strips Brazil of a major industrial asset. Bolsonaro also aims to privatize another of Brazil’s economic “crown jewels”, the Petrobras energy firm which is all but guaranteed to fall into the hands of Washington-favored energy companies.  US interest in the lithium reserves in Bolivia and neighboring countries has also been well documented. Preventing Morales’ Bolivia from entering into a development deal with China was one of the main motives behind the coup. Like Bolsonaro’s Brazil, Moreno’s Ecuador is pursuing plans to allow oil drilling in the Amazon region.

The famed Argentinian revolutionary Che Guevara suffered a heroic death in Bolivia, attempting to mobilize an indigenous rebellion against the post-conquistador elite. The inevitable backlash to the ever more evident US efforts to ruthlessly exploit Latin America in order to compensate for the loss of influence and business elsewhere in the world means that the United States will find itself with several insurgencies and refugee crises not halfway around the world but in its own geopolitical backyard. Their intensity will eclipse the Cold War-era struggles.  Should the United States insist on pursuing its current course, it risks losing power and influence in Latin America in the same way  it did in the Middle East.

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Latin America, Geopolitical Battlefield. U.S. Threatens Military Intervention

According to China’s official People’s Daily broadsheet, Beijing and Washington “agreed on the text of a phase one economic and trade agreement based on the principle of equality and mutual respect,” adding:

“The text includes nine chapters: the preface, intellectual property rights, technology transfer, food and agricultural products, financial services, exchange rate and transparency, trade expansion, bilateral assessment and dispute settlement, and the final terms, according to a statement issued by the Chinese side Friday night.”

“Both sides have reached consensus that the US side will fulfill its commitments to phase out its additional tariffs on Chinese products, so as to achieve a switch from hiking to cutting additional tariffs.”

The above remarks omit details of what was agreed on, likely to remain unpublished in full.

According to China’s Vice Commerce Minister/deputy trade representative Wang Shouwen, Beijing will increase imports of US agricultural products — no specific amount agreed on, Wang adding:

The US pledged to eliminate duties on Chinese imports “phase by phase, (its) tariffs undergo(ing) a change from going up to going down.”

Beijing’s Vice Minister of Finance Liao Min said eliminating US tariffs on Chinese products is the “core concern” of its government.

A statement by Trump regime trade representative Robert Lighthizer said the following:

The US and China “agree(d) on a phase one trade deal that requires structural reforms and other changes to China’s economic and trade regime in the areas of intellectual property, technology transfer, agriculture, financial services, and currency and foreign exchange,” adding:

China “commit(s) (to) make substantial additional purchases of US goods and services in the coming years” — no amounts in dollars or quantity mentioned.

US 25% tariffs on around $250 billion worth of Chinese imports remain unchanged, 15% US duties on another $120 billion worth of Chinese goods cut to 7.5%.

New 15% US tariffs on another $156 billion worth of Chinese imports scheduled for December 15 are suspended. Trump tweeted:

“We will begin negotiations on the phase two deal immediately, rather than waiting until after the 2020 election.”

Barron’s claimed unexplained phase one “details weren’t as important as what the agreement stopped from happening.”

Perhaps it’s so for the short-term, the devil in them and what follows in further talks key to the US and Chinese economies and how markets will react in the weeks and months ahead.

Wall Street Journal editors said Friday’s announced phase one one deal “isn’t VE Day, but it’s still welcome economic news,” calling it “modest,” adding:

What’s agreed on in principle are “merely promises,” fulfillment another matter entirely, notably by the US side, viewing China as a threat to its hegemonic aims.

Beijing’s Vice Minister of Commerce Wei Jianguo struck a positive note, saying:

“The trade war has taught the US a lesson. They finally realize that engaging in a prolonged trade war will bring no good, and that ending it as soon as possible is their best option.”

Beijing-based Chinese Academy of Social Sciences analyst Gao Lingyun warned that what’s agreed on in principle hangs in limbo. Major bilateral differences on trade and other issues remain unresolved.

According Chinese government advisor Shi Yinhong said momentum in talks “for the time being” doesn’t dispel longterm confrontation.

“It just pushes the difficulties into the future. And the future could be very quick to materialize because Trump is a very volatile person.”

China knows the US side can change things any time for any reason because of uneasy bilateral relations.

A phase one signing date hasn’t been announced, nor where it will  take place and who’ll represent both countries.

Chinese purchases of US products are likely to depend on internal needs, its contractural import arrangements with other countries, whether the Trump regime fulfills its obligations, and its other policies toward Beijing.

Clearly, bilateral relations are greatly strained, trade one of many areas of disagreement, including Sino/Russian unity, the US considers a strategic threat.

It represent a vital counterforce against US rage for unchallenged global dominance by whatever it takes to achieve its objectives.

It’s why unthinkable nuclear war is ominously possible, Sino/US trade relations a minor issue by comparison.

*

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 China-US “Phase One” Trade Deal: The Devil in the Unannounced Details and Implementation
  • Tags: ,

Why is the US talking “democracy, human rights and justice” with an opposition who lost recent elections, abuses human rights and works daily to undermine and evade justice?

Time was precious at the 35th ASEAN Summit. Leaders from across Southeast Asia converged on Bangkok, Thailand to discuss economics, diplomacy, defence and a whole host of other issues.

With so much to discuss and do, it was particularly surprising to see the US spend much of its time coercing local leaders to take up its flagship regional crisis centred on stirring up trouble in the South China Sea as well as meet with and promote unpopular opposition parties.

One meeting in particularly, headed by US Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs (EAP) David Stilwell, was held with members of Thailand’s opposition party, Future Forward.

The EAP in a social media post would claim:

Assistant Secretary Stilwell appreciated the opportunity to meet with Members of Parliament in [Thailand] to learn more about their efforts to promote democracy, justice, and human rights.

No mention was made of who these Members of Parliament (MPs) were, what party they came from or anything at all about why they were chosen for the meeting from among Thailand’s 500 MPs.

First, Does the US Even Stand for “Democracy, Justice and Human Rights?”  

At face value the US would appear to be upholding noble values; democracy, justice and human rights. That is until even the most rudimentary observation skills are employed in considering Washington’s own contempt and abuse of all three of these principles not only domestically, but worldwide.

The US regularly interferes in the democratic processes of nations around the globe, with entire organisations like the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its many subsidiaries dedicated solely to the purpose of manipulating the internal political affairs of targeted nations, including elections.

The notion of the US standing for or upholding “justice” is also dubious at best, with the US the world leader in both its incarceration rate and the total number of people imprisoned in jails. The US, guilty of serial wars of aggression and all abuses generally related to war, has escaped justice both from within its own justice system and from the so-called “international community.”

Of course, both the US’ industrialised prison system and its global wars of aggression bury any notion at all that the US stands for human rights, rather than merely hides behind them.

With even average people around the globe aware of these facts and the hypocrisy the US would bring to any meeting discussing “democracy, justice and human rights,” why would any member of Thailand’s parliament meet in good faith with the US regarding these matters? What business of Washington’s in the first place is “democracy, justice and human rights” in Thailand?

Why did Future Forward eagerly attend this meeting?

US and Future Forward: Birds of a Feather 

Future Forward, like the US, merely hides behind principles like democracy, justice and human rights.

The party is also the eager recipient of US backing in order to do so. Several of the party’s founding members belong to US NED-funded fronts including Prachatai whose director is literally an NED fellow.

When members of the party are summoned by Thai police for their various criminal activities, US embassy staff often accompany them.

In the 2019 general election, the party came in distant third, with it and its political allies losing the popular vote to the military-aligned Palang Pracharath Party. Despite having no mandate, it continues seeking the rewriting of Thailand’s constitution and justifies its disruptive activities under the pretext of representing the Thai people despite being rejected by them at the polls.

More recent by-elections have suggest the party is even more unpopular now than when it lost the general elections earlier in the year.

The party is led by nepotist billionaire Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, who before entering politics, busted unions at his family’s Thai Summit autoparts factory. The abuses involved even attracted the attention of international rights watchdogs, including Industri-ALL Global Union who reported in 2007 that:

Thai Summit Eastern Seaboard Auto Parts Company, owned and controlled by Thai Summit Group has drawn fire from the International Metalworkers’ Federation, IMF affiliates, and the National Human Rights Commission in Thailand for committing trade union and human rights violations at their Rayong auto parts plant.

Thanathorn and his Future Forward Party are currently partners with Pheu Thai Party (PTP), another opposition party, run by another corrupt billionaire and also fugitive, Thaksin Shinawatra. PTP would even nominate Thanathorn as their candidate for prime minister following the 2019 general elections.

Thaksin himself has the worst human rights record in Thai history. His 2003 “war on drugs” alone left over 2,500 innocent people dead in just 90 days. The following year, his instigation of tensions in the nation’s troubled deep south led to protests in which over 80 would die in a single day.

His violent targeting of critics and opponents while in power and since being ousted has left over 100 dead and has even resulted in terrorism, armed violence and city-wide arson. Justice has been slow, owed at least in part to opposition parties like Future Forward failing to call for accountability and even at times defending rights abusers either by omitting their crimes, or spinning them.

Not only does Future Forward omit mentioning any of this as it cites “democracy, justice and human rights” in its own daily condemnation of the current Thai government, its US backers do likewise.

Thus, it makes perfect sense to see two abusive circles of power who share a mutual strategy of hiding behind otherwise genuine principles and rights while trampling them in actuality, meeting on the sidelines of the 35th ASEAN Summit.
But to what end?

Rolling Back Thai-Chinese Relations 

The current Thai government has spent years cementing Thai-Chinese relations. This includes replacing Thailand’s aging inventory of US military hardware with modern Chinese alternatives. Among recent acquisitions are Chinese main battle tanks, armoured personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles as well as naval vessels including the Kingdom’s first modern submarine.

Thailand and China are jointly developing a growing number of weapon systems including mobile rocket launcher platforms.

Thailand is also working with China on its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Key BRI components running through Thailand involve high-speed rail connecting together a China-Laos-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore network. Highways and bridges to improve connectivity between Thailand and its neighbours including Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos also contribute to the BRI’s overarching goal of stitching together the region through transportation infrastructure and the trade it facilitates.

It should come as no surprise then that an opposition party supported by the US has come out against much of these developments.

Thanathorn himself openly and directly opposed Thai-Chinese high-speed rail lines (already under construction) and proposed Thailand work with the West to build lines using still-nonexistent “hyperloop” technology.
Bloomberg in an article titled, “Thailand needs hyperloop, not China-built high-speed rail: Thanathorn,” would report:

A tycoon turned politician who opposes Thailand’s military government has criticised its US$5.6 billion high-speed rail project with China because hyperloop technology offers a more modern alternative. 

An option such as Richard Branson’s Virgin Hyperloop One — which is working on building networks of pods traveling at airplane-like speeds — is better for Thailand as it would help the nation to be a technological leader, according to Future Forward Party head Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.

Thanathorn has also come out heavily against Thailand’s defence budget in an oblique attempt to stem growing Thai-Chinese military relations.

Far from merely buying tanks, ships and submarines, Thailand’s recent purchases and collaborations with China involve growing levels of cooperation to train Thai personnel on the use and maintainence of its expanding inventory of Chinese hardware both on a tactical level and through joint exercises, on a strategic level.

Thailand’s defence spending will only increasingly shift from buying US weapon systems to those bought from or developed with nearby China. While Future Forward’s motives in undercutting Thailand’s national defence would seem unclear, Washington’s motives to do so in order to slow down or reverse growing Thai-Chinese military relations is obvious.

With Washington supporting Future Forward, manifesting itself in this most recent meeting, Future Forward’s otherwise inexplicable campaign to undermine Thailand’s development comes into clearer focus.

It should be noted that David Stilwel, before taking up his current position and according to his official US State Department biography, served as the Director of the China Strategic Focus Group.

In one document regarding the Group’s activities under a section titled, “Alliances,” it claims:

Alliances. This homeland area, coupled with our treaty alliances with Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Philippines, and Thailand are the cornerstone of U.S. engagement in the region. We will modernize and strengthen these alliances by enhancing our ability to train and operate together, jointly developing high-tech capabilities, expanding information sharing, and exploring new areas of cooperation.

These “alliances,” many of which including with Thailand are in irreversible decline, are aimed at what the US claims is its responsibility to ensure China’s military and economic rise is “peaceful.”

Thus, Stilwel meeting eager collaborators in undermining Thai-Chinese relations fits in perfectly with much of what he has spent his career doing; preserving US primacy over Asia and attempting to shape China’s neighbours into a united front to contain and control its rise regionally and globally.
Again, nothing could be less “democratic” or less conducive to notions of self-determination for Thailand, China or Asia as a whole regarding US influence, interference and intents.

The real danger lies not in Washington’s isolated support for an increasingly unpopular political party in Thailand, but in the synergies the US is attempting to create among multiple campaigns of subversion it is sponsoring across the region; in Hong Kong and neighbouring Cambodia for example, all of it ultimately aimed at shifting the dynamics of China’s rise.

While the US State Department intended to boost the credibility of Future Forward by organising a special meeting with them at the 35th ASEAN Summit, it should instead serve as an ominous warning that among America’s few remaining exports, meddling and chaos are still on the offering.

*

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.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

NAFTA 2.0: Revising the 1994 Agreement

December 14th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

According to the Wall Street Journal, it’s a “template for deals to come,” adding:

“The new US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (has) implications for agreements beyond North America, including new bilateral deals being contemplated for China, Japan, the European Union, and the UK.”

On Thursday, Mexico’s Senate approved the deal after top North American officials agreed on its terms, ratification by the US and Canada expected in early 2020 — Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, and Mexican President Obrador to sign it into law.

Commenting on the deal, Global Trade Watch director Lori Wallach explained the following:

The deal is better than the 2018 US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a jobs-destroying neoliberal ripoff, a corporate coup d’etat, empowering corporate predators at the expense of ecosanity, worker pay, benefits and other rights.

Trade deals, including NAFTA 2.0, are all about maximizing corporate profits, offshoring US jobs to low-wage countries to continue, worker rights steadily eroding.

Still, NAFTA 2.0 “remove(d) Big Pharma giveaways and improve(d) labor and environmental terms” over USMCA’s 2018 provisions, said Wallach, adding:

Despite much in the agreement that’s unacceptable, it’s “better than the original NAFTA.”

Trump’s approval of anti-worker, anti-ecosanity provisions in last year’s USMCA betrayed ordinary Americans he pledged to serve — how he’s governed across the board throughout his time in office, serving corporate and high-net households interests at the expense of the public welfare.

After pledging to seek lower drug prices last year, last year he agreed on “new Big Pharma giveaways that lock in high drug prices and labor and environmental terms that were too weak to stop NAFTA’s original sin of job outsourcing,” said Wallach.

NAFTA 2.0 changes improved some, not all, pro-business, anti-consumer, anti-worker provisions of the 1994 agreement.

“(M)any NAFTA flaws were not fixed,” Wallach stressed. “The best (NAFTA 2.0) feature…is the gutting of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).”

It grants corporate predators the right to sue governments for virtually unlimited compensation before a rigged panel of three corporate lawyers – their ruling final, not subject to appeal.

Favorable rulings can be gotten by claiming laws protecting public health or ecosanity violate corporate trade agreement rights.

If a nation refuses to pay, its assets can be seized for compensation. ISDS incentivizes offshoring of jobs by providing special privileges and rights for firms relocating operations abroad – facilitating a global race to the bottom.

Most 1994 NAFTA provisions have nothing to do with trade – everything to do with maximizing corporate profits, compromising ecosanity, worker rights, as well as human health and welfare.

Last year’s signed but not ratified USMCA empowers corporate predators to continue offshoring jobs.

It lets them ignore ecosanity, worker rights, and human health and welfare. ISDS let corporate predators ripoff around $400 million from North American taxpayers.

Wallach: “That a US (NAFTA 2.0) pact largely eliminates extreme ISDS protections for foreign investors and anti-democratic tribunals sends a signal worldwide about the illegitimacy of the ISDS regime.”

Trump’s claim about the deal bringing back hundreds of thousands of new manufacturing jobs is pure rubbish.

At the same time, “labor and environmental standards and enhanced enforcement terms may help raise wages in Mexico, and this may also reduce US corporations’ incentives to outsource US jobs to Mexico to pay workers less,” said Wallach, adding:

NAFTA 2.0 “shows that to be politically viable, trade pacts can no longer include extreme corporate rights like ISDS or new monopoly protections for Big Pharma that have been featured in past US trade deals and that they must have enforceable labor and environmental standards.”

“This is a significant shift after decades of US trade pacts, expanding corporate rights and Big Pharma monopoly protections.”

Wallach may be overly optimistic. Since the neoliberal 90s, worker rights steadily eroded — along with fundamental freedoms and a nation safe and fit to live in.

Policies now pursued by congressional Dems aim to improve their November 2020 electoral prospects.

The Clinton co-presidency was responsible for the original NAFTA. Will Dems today govern differently if control the reigns of government? It’s highly unlikely.

Their pro-endless wars, pro-business, anti-worker, anti-consumer, anti-rule of law record since the 1990s speaks for itself.

Fixing NAFTA falls way short of “negotiating a truly progressive trade agreement from scratch, which would additionally require climate provisions, truly enforceable currency disciplines, and the elimination of limits on consumer protections for food, product safety, the service sector and online platforms,” Wallach stressed.

Unlike the Wall Street Journal’s rosy scenario, “(t)he new NAFTA is not the template for future agreements, but establishes the floor from which we will continue to advocate for a new model of trade and globalization that puts people and the planet first,” she added.

*

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 NAFTA 2.0: Revising the 1994 Agreement
  • Tags:

Al-Qaeda in Syria has two noteworthy apologists. One is the jihadist propagandist Bilal Abdul Kareem, a former correspondent for CNN, often seen in videos sporting a long beard and reporting from the ground in the al-Nusra Front strongholds in northwestern Syria, and the other is Syria analyst and the fellow of the Middle East Institute Charles Lister.

Recently, Lister has written a research paper for the Hudson Institute, titled “The Syria Effect: Al-Qaeda Fractures,” [1] in which he has tried to prove that militants of al-Qaeda in Syria are not “bad guys” per se, rather they are “good terrorists” whose ambitions are restricted to fighting the Syrian government, and they don’t intend to mount terror attacks in the Western countries.

In conclusion of the lengthy screed, he has craftily proposed “Gaza-fication” of Syria’s northwestern Idlib, where like the Hamas in Gaza, the so-called “Salvation Government” of the al-Nusra Front, the Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda, can be recognized as a legitimate government administering the northwestern enclave under the tutelage of Ankara.

Unwittingly, however, Charles Lister has spilled the beans in the article about a July 30 American airstrike in rural Aleppo that killed several high-profile jihadist dissidents, who had challenged the unity of the Washington-backed insurgency against the Syrian government offensive in northern Hamah and Idlib in late April.

Before getting into details, it’s worth noting that Hurras al-Din is a small radical outfit in Syria’s northwestern Idlib that split in 2018 from al-Qaeda in Syria, which was formerly known as al-Nusra Front until 2016, and now as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

An excerpt from Charles Lister’s research paper reads:

“When the Syrian regime and Russia launched their all-out military offensive on northwestern Syria in late-April 2019, a debate ensued within Hurras al-Din – a breakaway faction of Tahrir al-Sham, formerly known as al-Nusra Front – should they assist Tahrir al-Sham and other opposition groups by reinforcing their frontlines in northern Hama?

“Given al-Qaeda Central chief Ayman al-Zawahiri’s public directives indicating the importance of Islamist unity and sustaining the armed struggle against the regime, the leader of Hurras al-Din Abu Hammam al-Suri and his deputy Sami al-Oraydi emerged as tacitly supportive of helping other jihadist groups, including Tahrir al-Sham, wherever necessary.

“The debate over Hurras al-Din’s role on Tahrir al-Sham’s opposition frontlines spilled out into the open in late June of 2019, when Hurras al-Din leader Abu Hammam al-Suri expelled two prominent Hurras al-Din clerics, Abu Dhar al-Masri and Abu Yahya al-Jazairi, for having issued non-sanctioned rulings forbidding fighting in northern Hama. Some alleged Abu Yahya had gone as far as pronouncing takfir on Tahrir al-Sham, thereby excommunicating them from Islam and labeling them apostates and legitimate targets for attack.

“Abu Hammam’s dismissal of Abu Dhar and Abu Yahya sparked an uproar within Hurras al-Din. The group’s internal judicial court, led by Abu Amr al-Tunisi, issued a petition signed by more than 300 members on June 23 demanding an arbitration involving Abu Hammam and his deputy, Sami al-Oraydi.

“However, neither Abu Hammam nor Oraydi turned up at the planned arbitration on June 25, leading the court’s chief, Abu Amr, to issue a furious five-minute audio statement accusing HaD’s leaders of nepotism. Abu Amr was swiftly expelled from Hurras al-Din, and this led another senior leader, Abu Yaman al-Wazzani, to declare in exasperation ‘the jihadist project over.’ Later that day, a statement confirmed that Wazzani and another fellow critic, Abu Musab al-Libi, had also been expelled from Hurras al-Din.

“Tensions persisted through the summer of 2019, albeit less intensely. But in a mysterious twist on June 30, 2019—just days after the above-mentioned crisis—Abu Amr al-Tunisi, Abu Yahya al-Jazairi and Abu Dhar al-Masri were all killed, along with three other allied hardliners (Abu al-Fid’a al-Tunisi, Abu Dujana al-Tunisi and Abu Ibrahim al-Shami) in an American airstrike that targeted a meeting of Hurras al-Din detractors in rural Aleppo.

“That was the first American strike in northwestern Syria in more than two years and it was followed up two months later by another on August 31, 2019, targeting Hurras al-Din ally Ansar al-Tawhid. Al-Qaeda veteran Abu Khallad al-Mohandis was also killed in an improvised explosive device attack that targeted his personal vehicle in Idlib city on August 22, 2019.”

It becomes abundantly clear after reading the excerpts from Charles Lister’s article that not only has Washington provided weapons and training to militant factions battling Damascus but it has also conducted airstrikes eliminating jihadist dissidents who dared to threaten the unity of large militant outfits in northwestern Idlib, such as Tahrir al-Sham, formerly known as al-Nusra Front.

During the eight-year proxy war in Syria, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, the leader of al-Nusra Front, has emerged as the second most influential militant leader after the Islamic State’s slain chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In fact, since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in August 2011 to April 2013, the Islamic State and al-Nusra Front were a single organization that chose the banner of Jabhat al-Nusra.

Although the current al-Nusra Front has been led by Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, he was appointed[2] as the emir of al-Nusra Front by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the late leader of Islamic State, in January 2012. Thus, al-Jolani’s Nusra Front is only a splinter group of the Islamic State, which split from its parent organization in April 2013 over a leadership dispute between the two organizations.

In August 2011, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was based in Iraq, began sending Syrian and Iraqi jihadists experienced in guerrilla warfare across the border into Syria to establish an organization inside the country. Led by a Syrian known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, the group began to recruit fighters and establish cells throughout the country. On 23 January 2012, the group announced its formation as Jabhat al-Nusra.

In April 2013, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi released an audio statement in which he announced that al-Nusra Front had been established, financed and supported by the Islamic State of Iraq. Al-Baghdadi declared that the two groups were merging under the name “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.” The leader of al-Nusra Front, Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, issued a statement denying the merger and complaining that neither he nor anyone else in al-Nusra’s leadership had been consulted about it.

Al-Qaeda Central’s leader, Ayman al Zawahiri, tried to mediate the dispute between al-Baghdadi and al-Jolani but eventually, in October 2013, he endorsed al-Nusra Front as the official franchise of al-Qaeda Central in Syria. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, however, defied the nominal authority of al-Qaeda Central and declared himself the caliph of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Keeping this background in mind, it becomes abundantly clear that a single militant organization operated in Syria and Iraq under the leadership of al-Baghdadi until April 2013, which chose the banner of al-Nusra Front, and that the current emir of the subsequent breakaway faction of al-Nusra Front, al-Jolani, was actually al-Baghdadi’s deputy in Syria.

Thus, the Islamic State operated in Syria since August 2011 under the designation of al-Nusra Front and it subsequently changed its name to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in April 2013, after which it overran Raqqa and parts of Deir al-Zor in the summer of 2013. And in January 2014, it overran Fallujah and parts of Ramadi in Iraq and reached the zenith of its power when it captured Mosul in June 2014.

Excluding al-Baghdadi and a handful of his hardline Islamist aides, the rest of Islamic State’s top leadership is comprised of Saddam-era military and intelligence officials. According to a Washington Post report [3], hundreds of ex-Baathists constitute the top- and mid-tier command structure of the Islamic State who plan all the operations and direct its military strategy.

It is an indisputable fact that morale and ideology play an important role in battlefield, and well-informed readers must also be aware that the Takfiri brand of most jihadists these days has directly been inspired by the puritanical Wahhabi-Salafi ideology of Saudi Arabia, but ideology alone is not sufficient to succeed in battle.

Looking at the Islamic State’s astounding gains in Syria and Iraq in 2013-14, a question naturally arises that where did its recruits get all the training and state-of-the-art weapons that were imperative not only for hit-and-run guerrilla warfare but also for capturing and holding large swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq.

According to a revelatory December 2013 news report [4] from a newspaper affiliated with the UAE government which supports the Syrian opposition, it is clearly mentioned that along with AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades and other military gear, the Saudi regime also provided machine gun-mounted Toyota pick-up trucks to every batch of five jihadists who had completed their training in the training camps located in Jordan’s border regions along southern Syria.

Once those militants crossed over to Daraa and Quneitra in southern Syria from the Jordan-Syria border, then those Toyota pickup trucks could easily have traveled all the way to Raqqa and Deir al-Zor in eastern Syria, and thence to Mosul and Anbar in Iraq – the former strongholds of the Islamic State.

It is clearly spelled out in the report that Syrian militants got arms and training through a secret command center known as the Military Operations Center (MOC) based in the intelligence headquarters’ building in Amman, Jordan, that was staffed by high-ranking military officials from 14 countries, including the US, European nations, Israel and the Gulf states to wage a covert war against the Syrian government.

*

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.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] The Syria Effect: Al-Qaeda Fractures

[2] Al-Jolani was appointed as the emir of al-Nusra Front by al-Baghdadi

[3] Islamic State’s top command dominated by ex-officers in Saddam’s army

[4] Syrian rebels get arms and advice through secret command center in Amman

Someone Interfered in the UK Election, and It Wasn’t Russia

December 14th, 2019 by Caitlin Johnstone

Ladies and gentlemen I have here at my fingertips indisputable proof that egregious election meddling took place in the United Kingdom on Thursday.

Before you get all excited, no, it wasn’t the Russians. It wasn’t the Chinese, the Iranians, Cobra Command or the Legion of Doom. I’m not going to get any Rachel Maddow-sized paychecks for revealing this evidence to you, nor am I going to draw in millions of credulous viewers waiting with bated breath for a bombshell revelation of an international conspiracy that will invalidate the results of the election.

In fact, hardly anyone will even care.

Hardly anyone will care because this election interference has been happening right out in the open, and was perfectly legal. And nobody will suffer any consequences for it.

Nobody will suffer any consequences for interfering in the UK election because the ones doing the interfering were extremely powerful, and that’s who the system is built to serve.

As of this writing British exit polls are indicating a landslide victory for the Tories. Numerous other factors went into this result, including most notably a Labour Party ambivalently straddling an irreconcilable divide on the issue of Brexit, but it is also undeniable that the election was affected by a political smear campaign that was entirely unprecedented in scale and vitriol in the history of western democracy. This smear campaign was driven by billionaire-controlled media outlets, along with intelligence and military agencies, as well as state media like the BBC.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been described as the most smeared politician in history, and this is a fair description. Journalist Matt Kennard recently compiled documentation of dozens of incidentsin which former and current spooks and military officials collaborated with plutocratic media institutions to portray Corbyn as a threat to national security. Journalistic accountability advocates like Media Lens and Jonathan Cook have been working for years to compile evidence of the mass media’s attempts to paint Corbyn as everything from a terrorist sympathizer to a Communist to a Russian asset to an IRA supporter to a closet antisemite. Just the other day The Grayzone documented how establishment narrative manager Ben Nimmo was enlisted to unilaterally target Corbyn with a fact-free Russiagate-style conspiracy theory in the lead-up to the election, a psyop that was uncritically circulated by both right-wing outlets like The Telegraph as well as ostensibly “left”-wing outlets like The Guardian.

Just as Corbyn’s advocacy for the many over the plutocratic few saw him targeted by billionaire media outlets, his view of Palestinians as human beings saw him targeted by the imperialist Israel lobby as exposed in the Al Jazeera documentary The Lobby. For a mountain of links refuting the bogus antisemitism smear directed at Corbyn, a lifelong opponent of antisemitism, check out the deluge of responses to this query I made on Twitter the other day.

This interference continued right up into the day before the election, with the BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg flagrantly violating election rules by reporting that early postal votes had been illegally tallied and results were “looking very grim for Labour”.

The historically unprecedented smear campaign that was directed at Corbyn from the right, the far-right, and from within his own party had an effect. Of course it did. If you say this today on social media you’ll get a ton of comments telling you you’re wrong, telling you every vote against Labour was exclusively due to the British people not wanting to live in a Marxist dystopia, telling you it was exclusively because of Brexit, totally denying any possibility that the years of deceitful mass media narrative management that British consciousness was pummelled with day in and day out prior to the election had any impact whatsoever upon its results.

Right. Sure guys. Persistent campaigns to deliberately manipulate people’s minds using mass media have no effect on their decisions at all. I guess that’s why that whole “advertising” fad never made any money.

I am not claiming here that the billions of dollars worth of free mass media reporting that was devoted to smearing Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party had a greater effect on the election results than Brexit and other strategic stumbles in the party. I’m just saying that it definitely had a much greater effect than the few thousand dollars Russian nationals spent on social media memes in the US, which the American political/media class has been relentlessly shrieking about for three years. To deny that a media smear campaign the size and scope of that directed at Corbyn had an effect is the same as denying that advertising, a trillion-dollar industry, has an effect.

Which means that plutocrats and government agencies indisputably interfered in the British election, to an exponentially greater extent than anything the Russians are even alleged to have done. Yet according to British law it was perfectly legal, and according to British society it was perfectly acceptable. It’s perfectly legal and acceptable for powerful individuals to have a vastly greater influence on a purportedly democratic election than any of the ordinary individuals voting in it.

A free and healthy society would not work this way. A free and healthy society would view all forms of manipulation as taboo and unacceptable. A free and healthy society would not allow the will of members of one small elite class to carry more weight than the will of anyone else. A free and healthy society would give everyone an equal voice at the table, and look after everyone’s concerns. It certainly wouldn’t tolerate a few individuals who already have far too much abusing their power and wealth to obtain even more.

*

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 United Nations General Assembly voted in favour of five draft resolutions addressing arms control, disarmament and international security earlier submitted by Russia at the UN’s First Committee, Eurasia Diary reports citing Sputnik.

Three of the documents adopted late Thursday tackle the issue of avoiding a conflict in the space are dubbed “Transparency and Confidence-building Measures in Outer Space Activities”, “Further Practical Measures for the Prevention of an Arms race in Outer Space” and “No First Placement of Weapons in Outer Space. The other two drafts address preserving existing armed control treaties and strengthening information security.

The first resolution encourages countries “to continue to review and implement to the greatest extent practicable, the proposed transparency and confidence-building measures contained in the report, through the relevant national mechanisms, on a voluntary basis and in a manner consistent with the national interests”.

The text of the second resolution urges the international community to continue undertaking efforts to maintain peace and improve security in the world and avoid conflict in space.

The third document asks all states, “especially spacefaring nations, to consider the possibility of upholding, as appropriate, a political commitment not to be the first to place weapons in outer space”.

The resolution dubbed “Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security” expresses concern that some countries develop information and communications technologies (ICT) for military purposes and the probability of using ICT in future conflicts is growing.

It also welcomes the launch of the UN open-ended working group on developments in the ICT field in the context of international security negotiations, as well as the group of governmental experts on developments in the ICT field in the context of global security.

The document titled “Strengthening and Developing the System of Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-proliferation Treaties and Agreements” calls on all states parties to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation treaties to implement such agreements in their entirety and continue efforts to strengthen the system of arms control to preserve global stability, peace and security.

*

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 Eurasia Diary

Overnight the electoral map of the UK has changed significantly. Scotland is once again bathed in a sea of yellow, as England has been shrouded in blue. With the Scottish National Party obtaining 45% of the vote north of the border, and the Conservatives only 25% it is clear not only is there no mandate for Brexit in Scotland, but as leader Nicola Sturgeon has said, there is now very much a mandate for holding a second referendum on Scottish Independence.

England, on the other hand has put its support resoundingly behind Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his mantra of ‘Get Brexit Done’. With a remarkable 364 seats, as opposed to Labour’s 203 – its worst performance since 1935 – he proclaimed that a ‘political earthquake’ had occurred and that he would end all the squabbling of the last few years he would take the country out of the EU ‘no ifs and no buts’. This was a message that appealed to the majority, clearly sickened by the deadlock of Brexit. Despite the radical spending programme proposed by the Labour party, this election ended up being, as it was promoted, all about Brexit.

And this takes us to the broader context of what is in fact happening in the UK. Indeed, it’s important to see this election in the wider European political landscape. This was not just a Conservative party win, but a victory for nationalism. Not just Scottish Nationalism, but English Nationalism under the banner of Brexit, and Welsh and Irish Nationalism. For the first time ever, Northern Ireland elected more Nationalist MPs than Unionist, in what was also, like Scotland, an anti-Brexit vote, which will spur on more talk of Irish reunification. Welsh Nationalist party Plaid Cymru also held on to its four seats in Wales.

So while it may be portrayed as a landslide victory for the Conservatives, this election more than ever has shown up the cracks forming in the Union. Scottish Nationalism appears to be on an irreversible path to independence, with the question now being not if there will be a referendum on independence, but when. The strong Remain vote up north has only boosted the case for leaving the UK, as Scotland places more importance on being part of Europe, than being part of Britain. England, for its part, has clearly put more emphasis on being out of Europe, than it has on retaining the Union.

Indeed, looking at the western world in general, the popularity of nationalist and right-wing parties is undisputedly on the rise. The AfD in Germany, the National Front in France or Vox in Spain – these parties are all gaining popularity, just as Trump has in the US. And together with Johnson’s Conservatism, they all have something in common, that ‘populist’ appeal that really gets its message across. For regardless of their party leaders’ sins (Boris Johnson has been repeatedly been lambasted as a liar, racist, and misogynist), they have not been enough to deter voters, for whom clearly the nation state is what matters most.

There’s no doubt that Brexit has been a shock for the EU. Arguably Britain had always been a hesitant member, refusing to join the Euro, or join the Schengen zone (which allows borderless travel between states); it never quite developed that European mindset. But the Brexit vote took EU politicians by surprise, sending shockwaves across a Union already under pressure from Eurosceptic parties. They will no doubt breathe a sigh of relief in Brussels that the Brexit stalemate will now be broken with Boris Johnson’s parliamentary majority – finally a deal can be passed – but the reality that one of their major players finally leaving must be making them nervous.

Boris Johnson put faith in the people, and the gamble paid off. But whether he appreciates the real seismic consequences of this ‘political earthquake’ is another question. For cracks are not only emerging between Britain and Europe, but across the United Kingdom itself. It’s the price to be paid for Brexit.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Featured image is from TruePublica

Members of al-Qaeda-linked Hayat Tahrir al-Sham repelled a Syrian Army attack on the area of al-Katibat al-Mahjura in southern Idlib on December 12. A day earlier militants captured this area and repelled a first Syrian Army attempt to regain it. Pro-militant sources claim that at least 25 soldiers were killed in the clashes.

It’s interesting to note that radicals are using areas close to Turkish observation posts to shell government-controlled villages and towns.

On December 11, another video showing Hayat Tahrir al-Sham militants shelling Msheirfeh from the Turkish post at Suramn appeared online. Furthermore, militants used the Turkish-supplied HY-12 mortar.

The Afrin Liberation Forces, a group affiliated with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, announced that they had killed at least eleven Turkish-backed militants in attacks in northern Aleppo during the past few days.

The Turkish military is expanding its presence in the captured part of northeastern Syria. On December 12, the Turkish Defense Ministry announced that its forces had established 41 checkpoints between the border towns of Ras al-Ayn and Tell Abyad.

The defense ministry said that commandos are deployed at the checkpoints, registering vehicles’ chassis numbers, engine numbers and the personal IDs of the owners.

“Road checks are being carried out 24-7 in order to prevent incursions by PKK/YPG and ISIS terrorists, mainly their car-bomb attacks. Additionally, our commandos are also preventing smuggling thanks to the in-depth search and sweep operations being conducted,” the statement said.

8,272 vehicles have been checked and tagged on Turkish checkpoints, so far. More checkpoints are to be established soon.

Earlier, it was revealed that the Turkish Army set up fortified positions south of Tell Dhi’ab and southwest of Tell Barqah. Turkish troops there were reinforced by several Leopard 2A4 battle tanks and ACV-15 armored personnel carriers.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey Boosts Military Presence in Northeast Syria. Al Qaeda Fighters “Protected” by Turkish Forces?

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan called Paul Volcker “the most effective chairman in the history of the Federal Reserve.” But while Volcker, who passed away Dec. 8 at age 92, probably did have the greatest historical impact of any Fed chairman, his legacy is, at best, controversial.

“He restored credibility to the Federal Reserve at a time it had been greatly diminished,” wrote his biographer, William Silber. Volcker’s policies led to what was called “the New Keynesian revolution,” putting the Fed in charge of controlling the amount of money available to consumers and businesses by manipulating the federal funds rate (the interest rate at which banks borrow from each other). All this was because Volcker’s “shock therapy” of the early 1980s – raising the federal funds rate to an unheard of 20% – was credited with reversing the stagflation of the 1970s. But did it? Or was something else going on?

Less discussed was Volcker’s role at the behest of President Richard Nixon in taking the dollar off the gold standard, which he called “the single most important event of his career.” He evidently intended for another form of stable exchange system to replace the Bretton Woods system it destroyed, but that did not happen. Instead, freeing the dollar from gold unleashed an unaccountable central banking system that went wild printing money for the benefit of private Wall Street and London financial interests.

The power to create money can be a good and necessary tool in the hands of benevolent leaders working on behalf of the people and the economy. But like with the Sorcerer’s Apprentice in Disney’s “Fantasia,” if it falls in the wrong hands, it can wreak havoc on the world. Unfortunately for Volcker’s legacy and the well-being of the rest of us, his signature policies led to the devastation of the American working class in the 1980s and ultimately set the stage for the 2008 global financial crisis.

The Official Story and Where It Breaks Down

According to a Dec. 9 obituary in The Washington Post:

Mr. Volcker’s greatest historical mark was in eight years as Fed chairman. When he took the reins of the central bank, the nation was mired in a decade-long period of rapidly rising prices and weak economic growth. Mr. Volcker, overcoming the objections of many of his colleagues, raised interest rates to an unprecedented 20%, drastically reducing the supply of money and credit.

The Post acknowledges that the effect on the economy was devastating, triggering what was then the deepest economic downturn since the Depression of the 1930s, driving thousands of businesses and farms to bankruptcy and propelling the unemployment rate past 10%:

Mr. Volcker was pilloried by industry, labor unions and lawmakers of all ideological stripes. He took the abuse, convinced that this shock therapy would finally break Americans’ expectations that prices would forever rise rapidly and that the result would be a stronger economy over the longer run.

On this he was right, contends the author:

Soon after Mr. Volcker took his foot off the brake of the U.S. economy in 1981, and the Fed began lowering interest rates, the nation began a quarter century of low inflation, steady growth, and rare and mild recessions. Economists attribute that period, one of the sunniest in economic history, at least in part to the newfound credibility as an inflation-fighter that Mr. Volcker earned for the Fed.

That is the conventional version, but the stagflation of the 1970s and its sharp reversal in the early 1980s appears more likely to have been due to a correspondingly sharp rise and fall in the price of oil. There is evidence this oil shortage was intentionally engineered for the purpose of restoring the global dominance of the U.S. dollar, which had dropped precipitously in international markets after it was taken off the gold standard in 1971.

The Other Side of the Story

How the inflation rate directly followed the price of oil was tracked by Benjamin Studebaker in a 2012 article titled “Stagflation: What Really Happened in the 70’s”:

We see that the problem begins in 1973 with the ’73-’75 recession – that’s when growth first dives. In October of 1973, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries declared an oil embargo upon the supporters of Israel – western nations. The ’73-’75 recession begins in November of 1973, immediately after. During normal recessions, inflation does not rise – it shrinks, as people spend less and prices fall. So why does inflation rise from ’73-’75? Because this recession is not a normal recession – it is sparked by an oil shortage. The price of oil more than doubles in the space of a mere few months from ’73-’74. Oil is involved in the manufacturing of plastics, in gasoline, in sneakers, it’s everywhere. When the price of oil goes up, the price of most things go up. The spike in the oil price is so large that it drives up the costs of consumer goods throughout the rest of the economy so fast that wages fail to keep up with it. As a result, you get both inflation and a recession at once.

… Terrified by the double-digit inflation rate in 1974, the Federal Reserve switches gears and jacks the interest rate up to near 14%. … The economy slips back into the throws of the recession for another year or so, and the unemployment rate takes off, rising to around 9% by 1975. …

Then, in 1979, the economy gets another oil price shock (this time caused by the Revolution in Iran in January of that year) in which the price of oil again more than doubles. The result is a fall in growth and inflation knocked all the way up into the teens. The Federal Reserve tries to fight the oil-driven inflation by raising interest rates high into the teens, peaking out at 20% in 1980.

… [B]y 1983, the unemployment rate has peaked at nearly 11%. To fight this, the Federal Reserve knocks the interest rate back below 10%, and meanwhile, alongside all of this, Ronald Reagan spends lots of money and expands the state in ’82/83. … Why does inflation not respond by returning? Because oil prices are falling throughout this period, and by 1985 have collapsed utterly.

The federal funds rate was just below 10% in 1975 at the height of the early stagflation crisis. How could the same rate that was responsible for inflation in the 1970s drop the consumer price index to acceptable levels after 1983? And if the federal funds rate has that much effect on inflation, why is the extremely low 1.55% rate today not causing hyperinflation? What Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is now fighting instead is deflation, a lack of consumer demand causing stagnant growth in the real, producing economy.

Thus it looks as if oil, not the federal funds rate, was the critical factor in the rise and fall of consumer prices in the 1970s and 1980s. “Stagflation” was just a predictable result of the shortage of this essential commodity at a time when the country was not energy-independent. The following chart from Business Insider Australia shows the historical correlations:

historical price of oil, httpswww.businessinsider.com.auchart-of-the-day-oil-since-1861-2011-6

The Plot Thickens

But there’s more. The subplot is detailed by William Engdahl in “The Gods of Money”(2009). To counter the falling dollar after it was taken off the gold standard, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and President Nixon held a clandestine meeting in 1972 with the Shah of Iran. Then, in 1973, a group of powerful financiers and politicians met secretly in Sweden to discuss how the dollar might effectively be “backed” by oil. An arrangement was finalized in which the oil-producing countries of OPEC would sell their oil only in U.S. dollars, and the dollars would wind up in Wall Street and London banks, where they would fund the burgeoning U.S. debt.

For the OPEC countries, the quid pro quo was military protection, along with windfall profits from a dramatic boost in oil prices. In 1974, according to plan, an oil embargo caused the price of oil to quadruple, forcing countries without sufficient dollar reserves to borrow from Wall Street and London banks to buy the oil they needed. Increased costs then drove up prices worldwide.

The story is continued by Matthieu Auzanneau in “Oil, Power, and War: A Dark History:

The panic caused by the Iranian Revolution raised a new tsunami of inflation that was violently unleashed on the world economy, whose consequences were even greater than what took place in 1973. Once again, the sharp, unexpected increase in the price of crude oil instantly affected transportation, construction, and agriculture – confirming oil’s ubiquity. … The time of draconian monetarist policies advocated by economist Milton Friedman, David Rockefeller’s protégé, had arrived. The Bank of England’s interest rate was around 16% in 1980. The impact on the economy was brutal. …

Appointed by President Carter in August 1979, Paul Volcker, the new chief of the Federal Reserve, administered the same shock treatment [drastically raising interest rates] to the American economy. Carter had initially offered the position to David Rockefeller; Chase Manhattan’s president politely declined the offer and “strongly” recommended that Carter appeal to Volcker (who had been a Chase vice president in the 1960s). To stop the spiral of inflation that endangered the profitability and stability of all banks, the Federal Reserve increased its benchmark rate to 20% in 1980 and 1981. The following year, 1982, the American economy experienced a 2% recession, much more severe than the recession of 1974.

In an article in American Opinion in 19179, Gary Allen, author of “None Dare Call It Conspiracy: The Rockefeller Files” (1971), observed that both Volcker and Henry Kissinger were David Rockefeller protégés. Volcker had worked for Rockefeller at Chase Manhattan Bank and was a member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. In 1971, when he was Treasury undersecretary for monetary affairs, Volcker played an instrumental role in the top-secret Camp David meeting at which the president approved taking the dollar off the gold standard. Allen wrote that it was Volcker who “led the effort to demonetize gold in favor of bookkeeping entries as part of another international banking grab. His appointment now threatens an economic bust.”

Volcker’s Real Legacy

Allen went on:

How important is the post to which Paul Volcker has been appointed? The New York Times tells us: “As the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve System, which by law is independent of the Administration and Congress, has exclusive authority to control the amount of money available to consumers and businesses.” … This means that the Federal Reserve Board has life-and-death power over the economy.

And that is Paul Volcker’s true legacy. At a time when the Fed’s credibility was “greatly diminished,” he restored to it the life-and-death power over the economy that it continues to exercise today. His “shock therapy” of the early 1980s broke the backs of labor and the unions, bankrupted the savings and loans, and laid the groundwork for the “liberalization” of the banking laws that allowed securitization, derivatives, and the repo market to take center stage. As noted by Jeff Spross in The Week, Volcker’s chosen strategy essentially loaded all the pain onto the working class, an approach to monetary policy that has shaped Fed policy ever since.

In 2008-09, the Fed was an opaque accessory to the bank heist in which massive fraud was covered up and the banks were made whole despite their criminality. Taking the dollar off the gold standard allowed the Fed to engage in the “quantitative easing” that underwrote this heist. Bolstered by OPEC oil backing, uncoupling the dollar from gold also allowed it to maintain and expand its status as global reserve currency.

What was Volcker’s role in all this? He is described by those who knew him as a personable man who lived modestly and didn’t capitalize on his powerful position to accumulate personal wealth. He held a lifelong skepticism of financial elites and financial “innovation.” He proposed a key restriction on speculative activity by banks that would become known as the “Volcker Rule.” In the late 1960s, he opposed allowing global exchange rates to float freely, which he said would allow speculators to “pounce on a depreciating currency, pushing it even lower.” And he evidently regretted the calamity caused by his 1980s shock treatment, saying if he could do it over again, he would do it differently.

It could be said that Volcker was a good man, who spent his life trying to rectify that defining moment when he helped free the dollar from gold. Ultimately, eliminating the gold standard was a necessary step in allowing the money supply to expand to meet the needs of trade. The power to create money can be a useful tool in the right hands. It just needs to be recaptured and wielded in the public interest, following the lead of the American colonial governments that first demonstrated its very productive potential.

Ellen Brown chairs the Public Banking Institute and has written thirteen books, including her latest, Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com. she is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

This article was first posted on Truthdig.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Paul Volcker’s Long Shadow. History of the Federal Reserve. Eliminating the Gold Standard

The United Nations General Assembly voted in favour of five draft resolutions addressing arms control, disarmament and international security earlier submitted by Russia at the UN’s First Committee, Eurasia Diary reports citing Sputnik.

Three of the documents adopted late Thursday tackle the issue of avoiding a conflict in the space are dubbed “Transparency and Confidence-building Measures in Outer Space Activities”, “Further Practical Measures for the Prevention of an Arms race in Outer Space” and “No First Placement of Weapons in Outer Space. The other two drafts address preserving existing armed control treaties and strengthening information security.

The first resolution encourages countries “to continue to review and implement to the greatest extent practicable, the proposed transparency and confidence-building measures contained in the report, through the relevant national mechanisms, on a voluntary basis and in a manner consistent with the national interests”.

The text of the second resolution urges the international community to continue undertaking efforts to maintain peace and improve security in the world and avoid conflict in space.

The third document asks all states, “especially spacefaring nations, to consider the possibility of upholding, as appropriate, a political commitment not to be the first to place weapons in outer space”.

The resolution dubbed “Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security” expresses concern that some countries develop information and communications technologies (ICT) for military purposes and the probability of using ICT in future conflicts is growing.

It also welcomes the launch of the UN open-ended working group on developments in the ICT field in the context of international security negotiations, as well as the group of governmental experts on developments in the ICT field in the context of global security.

The document titled “Strengthening and Developing the System of Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-proliferation Treaties and Agreements” calls on all states parties to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation treaties to implement such agreements in their entirety and continue efforts to strengthen the system of arms control to preserve global stability, peace and security.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Arms Race in Outer Space, Preserving Arms Control Treaties: UN General Assembly Adopts Five Resolutions Sponsored by Russia

With the world fixated on Turkish actions against Syria, Greece and Libya at the moment, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Senate of the United States Congress approved a bill, “Promoting American  National Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act,” spearheaded and thoroughly promoted by staunch anti-Syria/Venezuela/Iran/Russia Democratic Senator Robert Menendez who celebrated the bills passing on his Twitter. The Republican-led Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 18-4 to send the bill for a vote in the full Senate.

The approval of the bill was widely reported in the mainstream media as an “anti-Turkey bill.” Senator Jim Risch, the panel’s Republican chairman, a fellow endorser of the bill with Menendez, said that the approval of this bill is because of the “drift by this country, Turkey, to go in an entirely different direction than what they have in the past. They’ve thumbed their nose at us, and they’ve thumbed their nose at their other NATO allies.”

According to the draft bill, the Turkish acquisition of the powerful S-400 missile defense system gives grounds to impose sanctions against this country, under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). In particular, the document restricts the sale of U.S. weapons to Turkey and imposes sanctions on Turkish officials responsible for supplying weapons towards their illegal military operation in Syria.

Turkey signed in December 2017 the first contract with Russia for the purchase of the S-400 for a value of $2.5 billion, which caused tension in relations between Ankara and Washington. The U.S. demanded that Ankara renounce that transaction and buy U.S. Patriot systems, and threatened to delay or cancel the sale of the F-35 fighters to Turkey. Ankara refused to make concessions and assured that its purpose of acquiring Russian systems remains firm.

What was missed, perhaps intentionally by the majority of the mainstream media is that this bill has a heavy anti-Russian/Syrian component to it. Although not as detailed and expansive as the Turkish section of the bill, it claims that “the Russian Federation and Iran continue to exploit a security vacuum in Syria and continue to pose a threat to vital United States national security interests,” without explaining what these security interests are, exactly as we have become accustomed to.

According to the bill, there will be a

“list of each Russian person that, on or after such date of enactment, knowingly exports, transfers, or otherwise provides to Syria significant financial, material, or technological support that contributes materially to the ability of the Government of Syria to acquire defense articles, defense services, and related information.”

Although the bill has not said which specific Russians, the nature of the bill means that there will be inevitable sanctions against Russia as it is a top weapon exporter to Syria, which will unlikely change despite of the new sanctions. Those in the eventual sanction list will face an American blacklist, which means a ban on entry, freezing of assets in the United States, a ban on doing business with this person for American citizens or companies. At the same time, the bill allows that the US President can consider each case separately and refuse to impose sanctions.

These proposed new sanctions that will have to pass the House of Representatives, which passed its own anti-Turkish sanctions bill by an overwhelming 403-16 vote in October, is part of a wider effort for the U.S. to keep pressurizing Russia’s economy. On December 9, the committees of both chambers of the U.S. Congress previously agreed on the military budget for 2020, which includes restrictions against the Nord Stream 2 and Turk Stream pipelines to bring Russian energy to Europe, infrastructures designed to raise Europe’s energy security. The U.S. bill that provides sanctions against companies participating in the laying of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline aims to obtain unilateral advantages in the gas area to the detriment of the interests of the countries of Europe. This prompted the chairman of the Board of Directors of the Russian-German Foreign Chamber of Commerce, Matthias Schepp, to explain that the new measures against Nord Stream 2 affect not only Russia, but, above all, European companies and Germany’s energy interests.

Washington is frustrated that European energy policy is decided in Europe, not in the U.S., which calls into question the cooperation between the U.S. and Europe. It is a very risky measure and Europe would need to have a blunt attitude of rejection of these measures imposed by the U.S., because its own economy is at risk.

Effectively, the “Promoting American National Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act,” which strangely targets Russia who had a greater role than the U.S. in defeating ISIS terrorists, is just another way for Washington to warn other countries not to buy the S-400 or Russian military equipment or engage in energy diplomacy with Moscow. It is unlikely that this will deter states from conducting arms and energy deals with Russia as Moscow has been pioneering anti-sanction measures to protect financial transactions without punishment, and rather it demonstrates a Washington that is becoming increasingly desperate in the Era of Multipolarity.

Paul Antonopoulos, Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington’s Proposed New Sanctions Against Turkey also Aimed Against Russia

D.C. Judge to Hear Legal Challenge to Trump’s Border-wall Emergency

December 13th, 2019 by Center For Biological Diversity

The Center for Biological Diversity will defend its lawsuit Monday challenging President Donald Trump’s emergency declaration to pay for his border wall. The Trump administration is asking a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit, filed in February with Defenders of Wildlife and Animal Legal Defense Fund.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden is presiding over the case, which argues that Trump violated the U.S. Constitution and overstepped his executive authority by doing an end run around Congress to appropriate more than $6 billion to build walls along the southern border.

Trump also illegally invoked the National Emergencies Act and abused the authority given to him by Congress by reallocating money in a non-emergency situation to fund a policy goal.

McFadden will hear arguments from both sides during the proceeding and could issue his ruling at any time.

“To stop Trump from making a mockery of the Constitution and destroying the borderlands, this case has to proceed,” said Brian Segee, an attorney at the Center. “Trump’s running roughshod over Congress and stealing money from the military to create an environmental and humanitarian disaster. His manufactured emergency is causing a very real crisis for the border’s protected wildlands, sacred places and endangered animals.”

What: Federal court hearing challenging Trump administration motion to dismiss border-wall lawsuit

Where: U.S. District Courthouse, 333 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington D.C., 20001

When: Monday, Dec. 16, 10 a.m.

Media Availability: Attorneys will be available for interviews outside the courthouse after the hearing.

Background
Presidents have declared at least 58 states of emergency since Congress passed the National Emergencies Act in 1976, and dozens are still in effect. Nearly all of the declared emergencies relate to sanctions or export restrictions, and none of the laws that can be used to trigger use of the Act involve immigration or border-wall construction. Also, none of those laws allow reallocation of previously appropriated funds to border-wall construction.

So far the Trump administration is using military funds authorized by the emergency declaration to build 18- to 30-foot-tall walls across 136 miles of borderlands in Arizona, California and New Mexico. Since January 2017 Congress has authorized an additional $3.1 billion to build 128 miles of border barriers.

Beyond jeopardizing wildlife, endangered species and public lands, the U.S.-Mexico border wall is part of a larger strategy of ongoing border militarization that damages human rights, civil liberties, native lands, local businesses and international relations. The border wall impedes the natural migrations of people and wildlife that are essential to healthy diversity.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 1.6 million members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on D.C. Judge to Hear Legal Challenge to Trump’s Border-wall Emergency

The Politics of Impeachment

December 13th, 2019 by Donald Monaco

The decision by Democrats sitting on the House Judiciary Committee to approve Articles of Impeachment that will be affirmed in a full vote of the House of Representatives just handed Donald Trump a probable victory in the 2020 election barring a sudden economic downturn, the eruption of an unlikely war, or yet another revolt by a discontented electorate.  The Democrats know that conviction in the Republican controlled Senate is impossible.  Why pursue a dead end agenda? 

From all appearances, the strategy seems to involve an attempt to discredit Trump and increase the chances of defeating the orange tinted billionaire in next year’s November election.  If that’s the calculation, the Democrats are grossly misguided as Trump is America’s second Teflon President, the invariably cheerful Ronald Reagan being the first.  Nothing sticks.  Reagan beat Iran Contra-gate. Trump beat Russia-gate and will most certainly emerge unscathed from the Ukraine-gate impeachment proceedings in the eyes of his supporters thus lending credence to the fiction that he is fighting the swamp.

As for the popularity of Reagan and Trump, both opportunistic politicians had a simple persistently optimistic ‘Make America Great Again’ feel good message that played well amongst the disenchanted masses.  Reagan won office amidst the economic stagflation and malaise of the Carter years. Trump won the White House after the prolonged recession of the Bush and Obama eras. The extended economic slump that propelled Trump to victory occurred as a direct result of the financialization of America and the subprime meltdown.  It should be well understood that Wall Street’s speculative frenzy was financed by the deindustrialization of the United States, a global flight of capital that cast millions of American workers on the scrap heap of various rustbelt cities.

Both Reagan and Trump used rightwing populist rhetoric to win their respective elections only to serve the interests of the corporate plutocracy as exemplified by the enormous tax cuts both gave to the upper class and the corporations they own.

So why don’t the Democrats fight Trump politically and contest his far right policies of upward wealth transfer; deregulation and privatization of the economy; slashing of food stamp benefits; environmental destruction; unending war; unqualified support for apartheid Israel, the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptian dictatorship; and the imposition of deadly economic sanctions on Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela?

Because they agree with the substance of these policy orientations that’s why. The Democrats pose no serious alternative to the Republicans on matters of economic and geopolitical significance, the anti-corporatist noises being made by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren notwithstanding.  Stripped of all pretenses, both parties advance an imperialist agenda that protects the process of global capital accumulation in America’s corporate neo-liberal empire.  Not a dime’s worth of difference on that score between the two rival gangs that former independent Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura once insightfully referred to as Democrips and Rebloodlicans.

The difference between the two parties in foreign policy is fundamentally tactical and stylistic, not strategic or substantive.  In the realm of international relations both parties genuflect before the alter of international law and national sovereignty in word while violating their essence in deed by supporting the peculiar notion of ‘American exceptionalism’.

Diplomatically, both political regimes employ a negotiating strategy that conceals the clenched fist of mafia-like demands within a velvet glove of duplicitous dialogue.  They make offers that cannot be refused.   The price of refusal is regime change.  For example, sequential coup  d’etats were engineered by the CIA in Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Indonesia 1965, Chile 1973, Haiti 1991, Honduras 2009 and Bolivia 2019.

Militarily, the Republicans favor unilateralism, the Democrats prefer multilateralism; the Republicans utilize pre-emptive invasions, the Democrats employ humanitarian and responsibility to protect (R2P) interventionist rationalizations.  Both parties backed the overarching strategic paradigms for global hegemony after World War II, namely the ‘War on Communism’ and the more resent ‘War on Terrorism’.  Serial U.S. military interventions occurred in Korea 1950, Vietnam 1965, Dominican Republic 1965, Lebanon 1982, Panama 1983, Iraq 1991, Somalia 1993, Yugoslavia 1994, Afghanistan 2001 and Iraq 2003.  These interventions were led by Democratic and Republican presidents alike.

The foregoing lists documenting covert and overt interventions are partial, the criminal pattern is evident.

Domestically, the Republicans pose as the party of individualism and self-reliance. They serve the American plutocracy by hiding behind the pretense of support for personal freedom and individual rights against a corrupt government and media.  The Republicans appeal to religious fundamentalists who oppose abortion, separation of church and state, and LGBT rights; second amendment literalists who oppose gun-regulation; free market fundamentalists who hate taxation of the rich, corporate regulation, trade unions, immigration; big government (meaning welfare for the poor); and unrestrained militarists.  They are openly the party of wealth, war and bigotry.

To court favor with their domestic voting base, Democrats have adopted the veil of identity politics to disguise their support for the American plutocracy.  They support greater social rights for women, the LGBT community, immigrants, racial minorities and some modicum of a diminished welfare state for the poor.  But the Democrats are caught in a web of contradictions because of their support for the plutocratic minority and its predacious wars.

They claim to support American workers but signed the NAFTA trade deal that destroyed millions of jobs in the heartland.  They pretend to support main street but deregulated the financial industry by removing Glass Steagall and continuing the Bush bailout of Wall street.  They opposed Trump’s ban on Muslim immigrants but supported the invasion and bombing of the very countries that Muslim’s fled.  They support refugee status for Central American immigrants but engineered a coup d’etat of the Honduran socialist President Zelaya in 2009 causing a flood of migrants from a newly installed neo-liberal regime that deeply impoverished country.  They support LGBT rights but are closely allied to Saudi Arabia, a country that executes its gay subjects giving a new and hideous meaning to the heterosexual dictatorship once so aptly described by Christopher Isherwood.

No small wonder the majority of Americans view Washington as a fetid swamp inhabited by creatures that need to be flushed down the drain of history.  Electoral politics will never accomplish this ameliorative task because of the deep divisions that animate a political terrain in freedom’s land that has been systematically fractured over the past several decades by both political parties on behalf of the wealthy few at the expense of an increasingly despairing many.  A revolutionary politics is needed to initiate the monumental project of progressive social transformation.  But that brand of radical political ideology is sadly missing amongst the ranks of Trump lovers and Trump haters in the age of personality politics.

In the end, it may be useful to recall that ‘America has only one political party, the party of private property consisting of two right wings’, as the iconoclastic writer Gore Vidal never tired of asserting.  Only when the property party and its benefactors are directly confronted can genuine social change occur.

Donald Monaco is a political analyst who lives in Brooklyn, New York.  He received his Master’s Degree in Education from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1979 and was radicalized by the Vietnam War.  He writes from an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist perspective.  His recent book is titled, The Politics ofTerrorism, and is available at amazon.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Politics of Impeachment

Beginning next year, a neurotoxic pesticide that at low doses can trigger brain and behavioral damage in children will be banned from use by agricultural operations in New York State.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has directed the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation to take immediate steps to phase out all aerial applications of chlorpyrifos for all uses, except spraying apple tree trunks, by December 2020. All uses of the pesticide will be banned by 2021.

The state legislature passed a bill banning the crop chemical earlier this year, but Cuomo vetoed the measure. He argued that he did not agree with taking such action “by legislative decree,” preferring instead to rely on the judgment of “chemists, health experts, and other subject matter experts in this field.”

New York is now the third state to take such action. California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a complete ban on chlorpyrifos in October, and in 2018 Hawaii was the first state to act, banning all uses of the pesticide.

2015 analysis of federal data by EWG found chlorpyrifos was most heavily used in Columbia, Ulster and Orange counties in upstate New York.

The European Union announced a phaseout of chlorpyrifos on Dec. 6.

The Environmental Protection Agency was poised to implement a nationwide ban on chlorpyrifos early in 2017. But after the 2016 election, Dow launched an aggressive campaign to block that decision.

Dow, the pesticide’s main manufacturer, donated $1 million to President Trump’s inauguration festivities, and its CEO met privately with then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Ignoring his agency’s own scientists, Pruitt aborted the scheduled ban soon after.

Pruitt resigned in disgrace in July 2018 after a scandal-ridden 18-month tenure, but Andrew Wheeler, who took over as agency administrator, fought in federal court to keep chlorpyrifos legal.

EWG President Ken Cook said Cuomo’s move demonstrates the kind of leadership needed from elected officials to put the health and safety of children ahead of the narrow interests of the pesticide industry.

“The children of New York will be safer as a result of the decision to ban this pesticide that can cause irreversible neurological damage,” Cook said. “Chemical agribusiness may hold sway within the Trump EPA over pesticide policy, but not in those states where protecting the health of children and farmworkers is a top priority.”

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New York Becomes Third State To Ban Brain-Damaging Pesticide

“Progressive leftists” in the U.S., also known as liberals who claim to oppose U.S. Empire but tolerate all of its crimes, cannot be described as anything less than nauseating. Anything short of outright U.S. military invasion or bombing of a country is not worthy of their public condemnation, much less their activism.

As explained  by the Black Alliance for Peace, “The silence, lack of visible opposition, and outright support for the coup [in Bolivia] from across the Western world is yet another example of the cross-class white supremacist commitment to the imperialist project.”

There are many examples of this but the most recent is the U.S. backed coup in Bolivia. The contradictions in liberal justifications for not vehemently opposing what is nothing short of a US backed coup against a popular government can be examined with Bolivia as a case study.

The primary obligation of anti-imperialists who are not Bolivian and reside in the belly of the beast should be to expose and oppose US imperialism in Bolivia, and it’s pervasive and extra-impactful U.S. covert and overt foreign policies. This must include the role of corporate news media that works as the fourth branch of the US government.

All of which is interestingly and conspicuously missing from liberal discourse about Bolivia and from the analysis of Pablo Solón , a Bolivian who served in the Evo Morales government until parting of ways in 2011 and whose analysis is used by non-Bolivian progressives to validate their abstinence from an unequivocal stand against the coup.

One would think as a progressive Bolivian Solón should be very concerned about US led regime change in Bolivia, no matter what he thinks of Evo Morales or that administration. One Truthout article  by Marjorie Cohn details several critical issues ignored by Pablo Solón. Since those who have taken over the government represent the racist, ultra-right, Solón’s positions ring as even more bizarre.

He in fact legitimizes baseless accusations about the election process and the results, which have been clearly refuted in a revealing report by The Center for Economic and Policy Research: “What Happened in Bolivia’s 2019 Vote ,Count? The Role of the OAS Electoral Observation Mission .”

Solón ignores the corrupt role of the OAS (OEA) in publishing false propaganda  against not just Bolivia but against all of Latin American and the Caribbean.

Haiti is a prime  example, although not the only one where the OAS has proven itself as an institution for rubber stamping imperialist interests. Regarding Bolivia, Solón actually legitimizes the role of the OAS, repeating its claims that “The rapid count [in the October election] was stopped inexplicably the day of the election.” While no explanation was given for why it was stopped, the fact that the election’s rapid count was not the official counting process [and regardless was eventually completed and released], it is reasonable to have stopped it because the privately-operated count was being used to falsely imply voting fraud in the middle of the process.

In the end the results of both the unofficial quick count and the official count proved to bear no significant difference. It apparently does not matter to liberals that the forced takeover in Bolivia is unconstitutional and US support for it is a flagrant violation of international law.

US liberals also typically like to buttress arguments that reduce political dynamics to an individual, in this case Evo Morales. This not only over simplifies situations but conveniently sets up principled anti-imperialist to be mischaracterized as romanticizing and hero worshiping a leader.

It also avoids having to more accurately assess various internal and external factors and elements in the struggle for power.

An example is Solón saying the “reactionary right have celebrated the protests” even though this reactionary right have always been far more involved in illegally deposing Morales than such a spectator role suggests.

His passing reference to the ultra-rightist, Eurocentric multimillionaire Luis Fernando Camacho was only to mention his affiliation in order to demonstrate the diversity in the opposition to Morales. Yet Camacho’s leading role  in the coup is even recognized by Western media and the media watchdog FAIR has demonstrated how such media has sanitized the image  of Camacho and the other major coup players.

The US liberal left and Pablo Solón align with imperialist propaganda that basically blames Evo Morales for the right wing coup against himself. Sometimes they cast doubt on whether the forced resignation of Morales by the military was even a coup at all.

The principled obligation of explaining the machinations of imperialism in Bolivia are dismissed as conspiracy theories when the real conspiracy theory is the one that fraud somehow changed election results in favor of Morales.

No one has explained how hundreds of tally sheets could have been uploaded to the electoral authority, using hundreds of cell phones, from all over the country, in the presence of electoral observers (including from opposition parties). And apparently they would have needed to do this twice: once during the quick count, and once during the official count, since both counts were so similar.

Anti-imperialists’ prioritize concerns about the pervasive machinations of US imperialism in Bolivia and the world that seem to go unchallenged by too many US liberals who consider themselves against US Empire.

When there is any internal discrepancy within a leftist government fighting neocolonialism — and there are always discrepancies since nothing is perfect — liberals always use those as an excuse for a bizarre blame-the-victim position. And the victim is not just Evo Morales but all Black and Brown working class people who right now are on the receiving end in the global battle against intersecting white supremacy, capitalism, and patriarchy.

If the people in a country don’t have all their internal items in order, they can expect no support against imperialism from US liberals. Only a spotlight of criticism on the country’s internal contradictions that cannot exist in a vacuum.

It is of no importance that “[d]uring Morales ’s nearly 14 years in office, his Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) party reduced poverty by 42 percent and extreme poverty by 60 percent. It cut unemployment by 50 percent and nearly tripled the per-capita G.D.P. “It’s indisputable that Bolivians are healthier, wealthier, better educated, living longer and more equal than at any time in this South American nation’s history,” Anthony Faiola wrote in The Washington Post.”

One has to wonder about the naivete of the US liberal left. Do they really think after centuries of US and Western European domination that the global ruling elite would leave things over to the “agency” of the people? As if they would just stop their own agenda of covert sabotage operations. And what sort of inferiority and superiority complexes are entailed in suggesting that once left in power formerly colonized just do themselves in?

Evidence of US complicity in the coup in Bolivia has been laid out for liberals but classic cognitive dissonance, as explained by Frantz Fanon, creates a blindspot.

The right wing governments in Latin America are maneuvering to consolidate a united front against the leftist governments and leftist aspirations inside the rightist countries. The US government has promised assistance  to Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, and Ecuador to keep down the mass protests in those countries. And these same countries, along with Brazil, have also conspired in travel bans with extradition agreements  within their borders against Venezuelan officials that include President Nicholas Maduro.

This combination of travel ban with extradition agreements recalls the 2013 force down  of Bolivian President Evo Morales’s plane due to denial of airspace by France, Spain and Portugal, then followed by Morales’ 14-hour confinement while in Austria with authorities there demanding to “inspect” his aircraft for the “fugitive” Edward Snowden.

Another incident of gangsterism that was met with silence by liberals.

In the Black Alliance for Peace we are clear that “political subversion, killer sanctions, drone death from the skies, mass incarceration, genocide, slavery, white supremacist ideology, ecocide, social degradation, and dehumanization characterize the policies and character of the hegemonic Pan-European colonial/capitalist white supremacist patriarchy and the reasons why for the sake of our collective humanity it must be defeated.”

Netfa Freeman is a member of the Coordinating Committee of the Black Alliance for Peace , is an organizer in the International Committee for Peace Justice & Dignity . Original source: Black Alliance for Peace. 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Abstract Leftism Leaves Bolivia and Global South in Crosshairs of Imperialism

According to the Wall Street Journal, China and the US agreed on “roll(ing) back existing tariffs on Chinese goods and cancel(led) new (15%) levies” on another $156 billion worth of its imports scheduled to be imposed on December 15.

The deal involves large-scale Chinese purchases of US agricultural products and “other concessions, according to people familiar with the matter,” the Journal adding:

“(T)he deal calls for China to buy $50 billion worth of agricultural goods in 2020, along with energy and other goods. In exchange the US would reduce the tariff rate on many Chinese imports, which now ranges from 15% to 25%.”

A snapback provision calls for reimposing tariffs if Chinese purchases aren’t fulfilled as agreed on.

According to Bloomberg News, US duties on Chinese imports will be reduced “by as much as half,” ones scheduled for December 15 “delay(ed),” adding:

“(T)here is nothing in this tentative deal that wouldn’t have existed in the absence of the past two years of wrangling.”

China’s phase one “commitments on farm purchases…won’t even be in writing.” The Trump regime accomplished little in trade talks with China over the past two years.

Temporary ceasefire leaves major issues unresolved. China wanted tariffs relief to boost its weakening economy. Trump hopes the phase one deal will help his reelection prospects.

China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying stopped short of agreeing with reports that a phase one trade deal with the US was agreed on by both sides, saying:

“As soon as reports suggesting the phase one deal was reached emerged, the major stock markets in the US and Europe jumped,” adding:

“This illustrates that a deal through negotiation is beneficial to both nations and their peoples, and it is what the international community wants.”

“The agreement has to be mutually beneficial to each other.” On Friday, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said updated information on trade talks would be released shortly.

China’s Global Times editor Hu Xijin tweeted: “Chinese authorities and official media so far haven’t given any information on China and the US are close to a deal.”

“As the US side released optimistic information through various channels, the Chinese side has basically kept silent. This is a delicate situation.”

On Friday, China’s Global Times reported that a phase one deal was agreed on, citing “multiple US media” reports, adding:

“Neither the White House nor the Office of the United States Trade Representative responded to requests for comment on the status of the agreement.”

“China has yet to confirm whether it will push ahead with postponing its own tariffs of between 5 and 10 per cent on US goods, also set to go into effect on Sunday.”

Currently, US tariffs up to 25% exist on about $375 billion worth of Chinese imports, Beijing duties on around $110 billion worth of US products.

According to State Department consultant John Sitilides, a phase one deal “does not halt or even suspend the US-China trade dispute, which is strategic in nature and will continue in ongoing phases for years if not decades so long as Beijing flouts the free, open and rules-based global trading system (sic) that has propelled it to the top ranks of the world economy.”

What Pompeo earlier called “the China challenge” is all about its high-level economic growth and technological advances for decades — compared to US stagnation and decline.

It’s largely a service economy, its manufacturing base hollowed out, millions of its high-pay and other jobs offshored to China and other low-wage countries.

Beijing’s system threatens the US-led Western neoliberal model. Its growth heads the country toward becoming the world’s largest economy in the years ahead, an intolerable notion in Washington.

This threat cuts to the heart of the Trump regime trade war. The US  wants China and other countries it doesn’t control transformed into client states.

Beijing won’t let itself be trapped the way other nations subordinated their sovereign rights to US interests.

China’s successful economic model fueled its growth — free from US control, not victimized by its exploitive practices, clearly what it’s not about to sacrifice in dealings with the US now and ahead.

A phase one trade deal belies major irreconcilable differences on major issues.

They’re all about the US side wanting China contained, weakened and isolated politically, economically, financially, technologically and militarily.

China is rising, the US declining because of its arrogance, rage for dominance over other nations at their expense, endless wars on invented enemies, and unwillingness to change.

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Temporary Ceasefire? China and US Agree on Phase One Trade Deal?

The Tory War on Truth – and How to Fight Back

December 13th, 2019 by Adam Ramsay

“There’s all these facts flying around on social media – you don’t know what to believe”.

Wes lost his job as a builder in the crash and these days works as a receptionist at a major employer in Crewe. He reads about the election every day. But he probably won’t vote. “Policies? Democracy? Sod the lot of them – I don’t believe any of it”.

Coming out of her shift, Jade says something similar. “Am I receiving accurate information? All these policies are flying around Facebook.” She, too, is sceptical about voting.

I could cite Kay, Ian and Stephen in Hartlepool; stallholders in Montrose, reports from canvassers in Margate, Broxtowe, Cardiff and London. All of them – and many more besides – said roughly the same thing.

And what they said should terrify us. Because it points to a story about voter suppression, manufactured cynicism, and a Tory war on truth in the age of surveillance capitalism.

I’ve spoken to strangers about politics on streets across the UK pretty frequently since 2003. I’m used to distrust, cynicism and anger. I’m used to “They’re all the same”. But I’ve never come across so many people saying “They’re all liars,” so much angry, active abstention. It feels like something new.

In a pub in Montrose on Saturday, a man in his twenties who works in an oil industry warehouse drew the connections between the Prince Andrew scandal and Boris Johnson’s nonsense. His conclusion? If “they” all lie, why should he trust Labour to deliver its policies? He’s not going to vote.

Everywhere I’ve been in this election, people have cited Johnson’s lies. But rather than being enraged into sacking him, they disengage.

Labour’s pledges are often listed alongside the lies of the other parties, as though promising to nationalise OpenReach is in the same category as inventing a statistic. On the whole, the policies are popular. There’s rarely a suggestion that they would be impossible. But there isn’t sufficient trust in politics for people to believe Jeremy Corbyn will actually do any of it. “They’ll say anything to get elected”.

When I push, many produce left-wing ideas. “The rich will still get richer, the middle class like us will get poorer,” said a woman who planned not to vote in Midlothian, a Labour/Tory/SNP three-way marginal. This feeling crosses the Brexit divide – there are those who denounce the failure to leave, and those who rage about referendum lies.

Get past the fury, and people who feel like this are usually fascinating. Too often, journalists take quick vox pops, hear tabloid headlines repeated back at them and record them, assuming that this is the best expression of people’s deep feelings. Too frequently, active abstainers are treated as an afterthought.

Worst of all, these people are often described as “apathetic” – as though they don’t care about their future or their children or their community. As if they aren’t fussed about their health or wealth. This ludicrous idea that abstentionism implies apathy is perhaps the most pernicious lie of the neoliberal era.

How we live together

Over hundreds of conversations with those who “aren’t interested” in politics over two decades, it’s become clear that millions are enormously frustrated by a political system in which a spayed state is unable to deliver changes in their lives.

As a Hartlepool barman said, “They haven’t done anything for us.”

Over the past forty years, council housing was privatised, rent controls abolished, regulations slashed and public enterprises sold off. Decisions once made by those we elected were delegated to the market.

With this shift to neoliberalism, politics changed from a negotiation about how we live together to a crap reality TV contest, a minority interest. “I’m not a fan,” says Stephen, who I met at a Hartlepool bus stop. “I’m a fan of video games.”

We were changed from citizens into consumers. Capitalist realism bullied us into accepting that there is no alternative. So it’s no surprise that we lost interest in democracy.

This election, though, it feels like something new has happened. The combination of a prime minister who is incontinent with untruths; the Lib Dems’ litany of lies; the failure to deliver Brexit; Trump; and online lying and media manipulation has produced a deep cynicism about our political system.

This isn’t just happening. It’s being done. It’s being done because the Tories are terrified of mass political participation.

Losing the keys to Downing Street

The modern Labour Party is built on a theory of power. When Corbyn became leader, his aim was to win not through obsequiousness, but through organising. Not through triangulation, but mobilisation.

Rather than genuflecting to big finance and the oligarch-owned press, the plan was to build a movement mighty enough to turn over the tables in the temple.

For pollsters, this strategy poses problems. Normally, in the run up to an election, things don’t change much. The balance of power in the country is what it is. Institutions rise and fall over decades, but rarely in the month before a vote.

To predict tonight, we are better off asking this: have the institutions of the British establishment degenerated since June 2017? Is the ruling class more divided than it was under Theresa May? Have the intertwining movements pushing for a Labour-led government grown?

With the collapse of the traditional press, the 2008 crash and the erosion of Anglo-British identity, it’s clear that our establishment is struggling. As Aeron Davis argues, it has lost hegemonic coherence. It could plausibly lose the keys to Downing Street.

Over the course of 2014-2015 the British establishment lost control of Scotland and of Labour – one of their two biggest countries, and one of their two biggest parties. Over the course of this election, the Tories have lost Rory Stewart – the public’s joint-preferred candidate for prime minister in their recent leadership election – David Lidington – their last de-facto deputy prime minister – and their most respected living former prime minister, John Major. And some pretty influential conservative voices in the media too.

On the other hand, Momentum is better organised than ever, a million Remainers have marched, and Corbynism has grown up.

Old battles, new strategies

In response, the Conservatives and their proxies have adopted a new strategy.

As I reported last week, they have imported smear machines from the US. Going undercover at right wing events, I’ve met political operatives bringing the most sophisticated US dark arts to Europe. A plethora of para-political organisations have sprung up, primarily attacking Corbyn, including the Facebook pages pouring bile into the timelines of many of the people I’ve interviewed.

As Cambridge Analytica showed, disinformation and attack ads aren’t expected to convince people to vote for your candidate. The aim is to turn your opponents’ potential fans into cynics. The point is to bung up Labour’s most ferocious weapon: enthusiasm.

In this, the smearers are aided by many sneerers in the press, too.

From dressing up their Twitter account up as FactCheckUK to their endless Himalayan lies, the idea that ‘you can’t trust any of them’ is the key meme of the Conservative campaign. And much of the media has been more than happy to give this message a megaphone, with false equivalence and bullshit balance.

Independent fact checkers have found that 88% of Tory Facebook adverts contain lies, while 0% of Labour’s do. But the BBC led their story on this report with the headline: “General election 2019: Ads are ‘indecent, dishonest and untruthful”.

Screenshot 2019-12-12 at 06.48.34.png

The BBC political editor

When I’ve asked people up and down the country how they feel about the election, fury with the media is perhaps the most common answer. And they’re right to rage: from The Sun spreading neo-Nazi ‘research’ to the BBC parroting propaganda, never before have so many journalists so publicly soiled themselves. And never before have so many people told me they’re disgusted.

This distrust of democracy is a victory for the right because Conservatives make no promise about the ability of politics to transform lives. They believe in leaving it to the market.

In this context, Tories thrive because they don’t promise nice things. They win because they drive down turnout among those who would benefit most from progressive policies. And because they are the default, ruling-class party. And because people have spent their lives being told that the posh ought to be in charge.

Scotland’s Yes movement thrived by tapping into righteous anger at the system. Dominic Cummings won the Brexit vote by turning it into a rage against how we’re governed: “Take back control.” Labour could have won this election by calling his bluff. By campaigning to give power to the people, they could have made this a referendum on the political system as a whole.

If Labour doesn’t win it will be because they have failed to capitalise on this rage, and they haven’t offered a road away from alienation.

What most people want

In 2017, Labour surged by shocking the media with a manifesto which took the extraordinary step of proposing the sorts of policies most voters want. Corbyn and John McDonnell baited commentators into attacking them on their strongest turf: social democracy. This quarrel drew attention, shaped the election and swung voters.

In 2019, they’ve tried to repeat this trick, running a cinematic sequel: a couple of flashy new ideas beside many of the same old lines. This time, though, the billionaire press has learnt from its mistakes. Rather than denounce rent controls, taxes for the rich and rail nationalisation, they’ve given ideas zero oxygen. Instead, they’ve highlighted Labour’s biggest failure: anti-Semitism.

In February, a poll showed that just 9% of people in Great Britain think that their political system isn’t broken. If Labour had shocked the establishment by proposing to rip up its rule-book, it could have baited them into another fight that would have put most people on Corbyn’s side. Miserably, even Nigel Farage has done a better job of this. When asked during the ‘Question Time’ debate what he stands for apart from Brexit, he proposed replacing the UK’s broken political system.

The British state is a world centre for money and reputation laundering, cripplingly centralised, an outpost of a fading imperial ruling class. It’s a barely democratic weavel-ridden mess used largely to protect wealth for oligarchs. People are right to hate it.

For those of us who have been making this case for years now, it’s been desperately depressing to watch as Labour has failed to tap into this energy.

Labour’s manifesto includes a brief section on the political system, including a commitment to House of Lords reform and a constitutional convention – which could mean anything from tidying up some mess to deep systemic change. This is all to the good, but hardly their Peterloo.

With Johnson’s constitutional vandalism and the deep sense of alienation, why not demand that the rules of our democracy be written by the people, for the people, giving power to the people? Why not announce that the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands and Gibraltar must charge British taxes or declare independence and renounce the protection of the Royal Navy? Why not spar with the media barons? Even Ed Miliband did that. Why not promise to end the constitutional protection of the City of London? Why not shout about participatory budgeting, local control and a fair voting system? Why hasn’t Corbyn denounced elite rule at every opportunity? People hate it.

In modern politics, victory is for those who offer change commensurate with the scale of the crisis people feel. Labour has looked the climate emergency in the eye, and addressed the economic disaster. The party promised a string of strong, appealing policies. It has even come to a conclusion on Brexit.

But unless you convince people that democracy is capable of delivering, all of this crumbles to dust. And voters are right to sense this. If Labour fails to confront the British state, it won’t succeed in squeezing justice from it. Even the best dairy can’t milk a vulture.

It is still possible that Corbyn will become prime minister. On Facebook, my timeline is full of Labour activists in key marginals, enthusiastic about a day of door-knocking. More than 28,000 people have used Momentum’s app to target their election day campaigning.

Their victory will be because there’s nothing as extraordinary as a murmuration of activists flitting at full tilt. It will be because of tens of thousands of warm conversations on frosty doorsteps. It will be because millions are excited to vote for a manifesto which offers hope, and millions more are desperate to sack “Britain Trump”.

It will be because real grassroots can outgrow AstroTurf; because cynical attempts at voter suppression are nothing to the enthusiastic smile of a young activist in a woolly hat on a cold night.

It will be because of people power. And so making people-power permanent should have been Labour’s core message.

Postscript: what comes next

Screenshot 2019-12-12 at 06.46.12.png
Craig | Image: Adam Ramsay

Craig had worked as a fisherman since he was 13. He had to quit in 2016 because his boss got a boat that could go out to sea for a fortnight at a time, and he could no longer care for his sick mother.

When his mum died, he went to look after his dad for a bit. His landlord posted an “abandoned” notice on his house, and because he didn’t return for two weeks, kicked him out.

Universal credit wasn’t enough for a new home. Sleeping rough led to ulcers on his legs, which were amputated in May. He is regularly harassed and sometimes assaulted – “tortured” he says – by two teenage boys who tell me “we clean filth like that off the streets,” using derogatory terms for homeless, black and British Asian people. “It’s because of people like him that Hartlepool is a shit-hole,” they say.

This fascism is the next stage in the process of alienation. If they can’t do anything about the distant and powerful, too many will listen to those who blame the proximate, and powerless.

Last year, Craig tried to take his own life.

He doesn’t care about Brexit. He isn’t registered to vote. But he was desperate to see the back of Universal Credit. And desperate to see the end of the Tories. “It’s a mess. The country is in a mess”.

Labour is right to run against the institutions which cost Craig his home and his legs. They have the support of the street-sleepers I’ve met and the Gypsies and Travellers I’ve spoken to, of the young and the hopeful, the marginalised and the maligned. They’ll borrow votes from the anti-Brexiters and the anti-Borisers. And their activists will inspire many of the actively alienated in the final hours. Will that be enough?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Tory War on Truth – and How to Fight Back

Pentagon chiefs say US troops to stay in Syria for years

December 13th, 2019 by Bill Van Auken

Barely two months after US President Donald Trump’s demagogic announcement that he was pulling US troops out of northeastern Syria to fulfill his campaign promise to bring a halt to Washington’s “endless wars,” the senior civilian and uniformed Pentagon chiefs told a House panel Wednesday that there is no foreseeable end to the American presence there.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley maintained in their testimony to the House Armed Services Committee that the US military was staying in Syria to assure the “enduring defeat” of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and that the fulfillment of that goal is likely years away.

“My assessment at this point is that if we do not retain an intelligence capability that allows us to collect and see and then act with a strike capability on ISIS in Syria then the conditions for re-emergence of ISIS will happen,” Milley told the committee. “It will take some time, it will probably take maybe six to twelve months, but ISIS will reemerge if the US went to zero.”

Esper went even further, insisting that US military forces had to remain in Syria not so much to counter any existing military force, but rather an “ideology”.

“I think the defeat, if you will, will be hard because it’s an ideology,” Esper told the House panel after repeated questions regarding US strategy in Syria. “It’s hard to foresee anytime soon we would stamp it out,” he added.

Both Esper and Milley attempted to dodge questions about Trump’s green-lighting of a Turkish invasion of Syria in October. This Turkish incursion was aimed at driving the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia, which had served as the US military’s proxy ground force, away from the Turkish-Syrian border. Ankara views the YPG as a “terrorist” extension of Turkey’s own PKK Kurdish separatist movement, against which it has fought a bloody counterinsurgency campaign for decades.

They also deflected questions about Trump’s subsequent justification for a continued US presence in Syria on the grounds that they were being deployed to “take the oil”, which he said could be exploited by a US corporation like ExxonMobil. Both Esper and Milley claimed to have no knowledge of any plan to steal Syria’s oil, even though US troops, backed by Bradley armored fighting vehicles, have been deployed in the Deir Ezzor oil fields of northeastern Syria.

The US occupation of the oil fields serves to cut off the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from a vital resource for the reconstruction of a country that has been decimated by the eight-year-old war for regime change orchestrated by the CIA. It also represents a direct provocation to Russia, which has signed deals with Damascus to extract oil, as well as China, which previously had oil investments in Syria and is poised to play a leading role in the country’s reconstruction.

Significantly, Esper seemed to identify Washington’s ostensible NATO ally, Turkey, as the principal challenge to US operations in Syria, stating that Turkey’s incursion into the northeast of the country had “complicated the battle space.” He described the Turkish-backed Islamist militias deployed against the YPG as a “wild card” that could provoke a wider conflict in the region and said that Erdogan’s stated intention of settling more than a million Syrian refugees in the border areas threatened “turmoil”.

In his testimony, Esper repeated a refrain that he has sounded in recent days about Turkey “spinning out of NATO’s orbit.”

Washington and Ankara are increasingly at loggerheads, with the Turkish government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan demanding that NATO support its position that the US proxy in Syria, the YPG, is a “terrorist” organization.

In the wake of the NATO summit in London, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said that Ankara would veto the implementation of plans for an anti-Russian military buildup in the Baltics unless the US-led alliance agreed to support the campaign against the “terrorist” YPG. “It would be unfair if some countries supported the plan to defend the eastern flank and at the same time refused to agree on a similar plan for us,” he said.

Meanwhile, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee has approved legislation imposing sanctions on Turkey for contracting with Russia for the deployment of its S-400 missile defense system. Ankara has threatened to retaliate against any US sanctions with measures of its own, including the possible exclusion of US forces from Turkey’s strategic Incirlik airbase.

The US military is remaining in Syria’s northeast with what it claims is a force of 600 troops, along with a detachment of at least 200 more special forces troops near the southern border crossing of al-Tanf. With the inclusion of military contractors and troops rotated in an out on a temporary basis, the real deployment is probably at least twice these numbers. While American forces are currently occupying Syria’s oil fields, their mission is neither to “take the oil,” as Trump proudly proclaimed, nor to combat a shattered ISIS.

Rather, they are continuing the same strategic objectives that underlay the CIA-orchestrated war for regime change initiated under the Obama administration eight years ago. Washington still seeks the overthrow of the government of President Bashar al-Assad and its replacement with a more pliant puppet regime in Damascus. Moreover, it is determined to roll back the influence of the Assad government’s principal backers—Iran and Russia—not only in Syria, but throughout the oil-rich Middle East.

Esper gave a somewhat more candid explanation of the US deployments in the region when he told the House committee that, “The United States strategy in the Middle East seeks to ensure the region is not a safe haven for terrorists, is not dominated by any power hostile to the US, and contributes to a stable global energy market.”

He stressed that the determination of US troop levels in the region was bound up with Washington’s global strategy of preparing for confrontation with US imperialism’s “great power” rivals, in the first instance, Russia and China.

To the extent that Democrats on the House committee challenged Esper and Milley, it was from the standpoint of concerns over Trump’s twists and turns over US policy in Syria strengthening the influence of Russia in Syria and the broader Middle East.

Esper insisted that Washington was engaged in a “responsible” drawdown of forces from the region in order to “reallocate” them to the “great power conflicts.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pentagon chiefs say US troops to stay in Syria for years

With ballot counting nearly completed, Boris Johnson-led Tories appear to have won a near 80-seat House of Commons majority — 364 seats to Labor’s 203, Sottish National Party’s 48, Liberal Dems 11, DUP 8, Sinn Fein 7, other small parties 8, a Conservative landslide.

The results were far more decisive for Tories than expected, more than enough to “get Brexit done.”

Biggest losers were Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn and Liberal Dems’ Jo Swinson. She lost her seat and is stepping down as party leader over their dismal showing.

Despite reelected to his own constituency, Corbyn announced he “will not lead the party in any future general election campaign,” adding:

“I will discuss with our party to ensure there is a process now of reflection on this result and on the policies that the party will take going forward.”

“And I will lead the party during that period to ensure that discussion takes place and we move on into the future.”

“This is obviously a very disappointing night for the Labour Party, with the result that we’ve got” — its worst showing in decades at a time most Brits suffer from the scourge of neoliberal harshness, supported by most MPs.

One observer noted that Britain “ranks among the top most depressed (Western) countries” — a ruling class triumph over the rights and welfare of ordinary people, benefitting hugely at their expense.

Governance in the US, UK, and other Western societies prioritizes  war over peace, dominance over democracy, profits over populism, and private interests over public ones – a zero-sum game benefitting monied interests over all others, societies made unfit to live in.

The system empowers powerful interests to set self-serving policies at the expense of beneficial social change — social justice fast eroding under governance of, by and for the privileged few alone, ruling authorities and business partnering against the public welfare.

It begs the question. Why would majority Brits, largely ordinary people hugely burdened by what’s going on, vote for more of the same?

Johnson-led Tories benefitted hugely from UK establishment media criticism of Corbyn, including phony anti-Semitism charges — an Anglo-Zionist plot against him because of his anti-war, progressive agenda.

He called for reversing force-fed austerity, greater social justice, preserving and protecting the National Health Service, higher public sector pay, peace over endless wars, nuclear disarmament, ecosanity, and other policies benefitting all Brits equitably.

Phony anti-Semitism charges against him stem from justifiable criticism of Israeli apartheid abuses and support for long-suffering Palestinians.

At a 2018 Labor conference, Corbyn said the following to Britain’s Jewish community:

“This party, this movement, will always be implacable campaigners against anti-Semitism and racism in all its forms.”

Yet anti-Semitism propaganda charges against him persisted by major UK media (including the state controlled BBC), the Israeli lobby, and right wing/dirty business as usual politicians, hardline Labor MPs among them.

Pre-election, the so-called Jewish Labor Movement (JLM) falsely accused Corbyn and Labor of becoming a “refuse for anti-Semites, (sic)” the party “no longer a safe space for Jewish people or for those who stand up against anti-Semitism (sic).”

An anti-Labor/anti-Corbyn smear campaign centered around this phony issue, Brits manipulated to believe the deception.

What Johnson called a “very real (Corbyn anti-Semitism) threat” was a dominant media repeated Big Lie that worked by the power of repetition, truth and full disclosure getting short shrift.

Britain’s chief rabbit Ephraim Mirvis was enlisted against him, falsely saying he’s “unfit for high office,” his publicly expressed view a first in UK pre-election history.

The same goes for Archbishop of Canterbury/Church of England head Justin Welby, tweeting about a “deep sense of insecurity and fear felt by many British Jews” about Corbyn.

Mike Pompeo warned that the Trump regime wouldn’t tolerate a Corbyn-led Labor government, vowing to “push back” to prevent it.

Thursday’s UK election results reflect the triumph of mind manipulating propaganda over truth-telling — Brits getting the best “democracy” money can buy.

How else would governance of, by, and for the privileged few triumph over peace, equity and justice!

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

 

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Conservative Landslide: Boris Johnson’s Tories Triumph Over Progressive Change in UK Elections

Three Ring Circus

December 13th, 2019 by Philip A Farruggio

Remember when we all were kids and the circus came to town? Inside the ‘Big Tent’ or arena we would sit and view all the many goings on from the three rings in front of us. It was highly entertaining… especially for childish minds.

Folks, the circus has always been with us inside this Amerikan empire. The three rings, for many generations, have always been the same. The two rings placed side by side are the two parties , the Republicans and the Democrats, along with each of their mainstream media minions. The interesting one is the third ring, placed in back of these two. That is of course our Deep State, the one that controls and orchestrates how the other two rings will function and operate. Perhaps the only visibility of this third ring is the countless foundations and think tanks it created and uses to represent it. This Deep State is not to be confused with what the Trump conspiracy thumpers claim it is… because Trump and his cabal get their marching orders from it. No, the real Deep State, what Eisenhower aptly labeled as the Military Industrial Complex (of course he waited, cowardly, until his final year in office to name it) , controls both parties and of course the mainstream media ( and even some parts of the alternative media).

Think about this for a moment: On the key issues affecting the future of our nation, with some exceptions, the three rings of this circus see eye to eye. They both celebrate our excessive militarism and vote for every increase in military spending.

So much so that under the Bush/Cheney Cabal it reached 50% of our federal  taxes: yet under Obama in 2011 it actually trumped that figure (no pun intended).

These three rings support our 1000+ military bases overseas… now in over 100 different countries. They  gave a president the right to step above the constitutional guarantees we should uphold and cherish. The two political/media rings suck up to the bankers and Wall Street predators who are part of ring # 3. Imagine that Democrat Chuck Schumer, a senator who has been a key part of the Senate Banking Committee for decades, has done squat in regard to the usurious credit card interest rates. These are charges that millions of us who cannot pay our bills in full each month are hit with. With the prime rate at around 4.75, those sharks charge many of us rates of well over 20% (sometimes as high as 28%). As far as health coverage and insurance, we know the Republican ring wants to have the private insurers assume total control, even of Medicare.

Meanwhile the Democratic ring, puppets too to the Deep State, cannot even push for a Medicare for All without keeping those private insurance privateers in force; there is only one current presidential candidates running this year who wants the private insurers out: Bernie Sanders (Tulsi Gabbard is not totally clear on that position yet). Remember that Obama, as candidate in 2008, received over $21 million in donations from the Health Care industry… while McCain got  $ 7 million. Do you really think he was going to go all out for Medicare for All with no private insurers?

All three rings in this empire circus want to restart a Cold War with both the Russians and the Chinese… especially the Russians. As far as the Chinese, well, they are so ingrained within our economy , with both their millions of products sold here (see how many are NOT ‘made in China’ in Wal-Mart), and of course the trillions of dollars in bonds and stocks that they hold, along with the real estate they now invest in here… we have to tread cautiously. So, it has to be the Russians that the Deep State is targeting through their dummy straw man NATO.

Look at the Ukraine, who BOTH political parties have held up as a ‘ free nation being threatened by Russian aggression’. Not only did the Deep State, through Neo Cons like Victoria Nuland working for Hillary Clinton (with help from Neo Con VP Biden and the ever present Neo Con John Bolton) orchestrated what many consider a Coup a few years ago.  Just look at who is in power  now in that nation: The Svoboda Party, a ‘self proclaimed’ ultra nationalist party filled with Neo Nazis who still honor the German invasion of the Ukraine in WW2. These are the ‘ victims’ of Russian aggression. Of course, the real story behind all this is the US Deep State’s International Monetary Fund’s influence in the dismantling of the Ukraine’s economy. This has been done to suit the many international predatory corporate interests there. As was done throughout much of Europe ,and of course most of South and Central America, privatization of resources and government run non-profit services has always been their goal. Now, more and more, we see this same plan being carried out right here at home folks.

Since every circus needs an abundance of clowns, we have a slew of them in Amerika 2019. Tune in the boob tube’s mainstream news and news talk shows and view these journalist/clowns like Fox’s Hannity, CNN’s Cuomo and MSNBC’s Maddow. Then go to C-Span’s coverage of the Congress and get a whiff of those clowns, pretending to be Statesmen and Stateswomen! As the bumper sticker so beautifully stated : Elect a Clown…. Get A Circus!!

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Three Ring Circus

According to proposed Senate legislation, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism USA wants leading advocate of global peace and stability Russia labeled with this designation.

The measure also calls for Donbass freedom fighters in Donetsk and Lugansk, unwilling to accept fascist rule by Kiev, designated foreign terrorist organizations.

The legislation has nothing to do with preserving and protecting US national security, everything to do with its imperial interests, its endless wars, economic terrorism, and other hostile actions aimed at advancing hegemonic control over planet earth, its resources and populations.

The so-called SMART Act (S.1189) was introduced last April by hardline Senator Cory Gardner. Earlier he said:

“The State Department should consider adding (Russia) to its list of state sponsors of terrorism, alongside its close allies Iran and Syria.”

“The moral case for such a designation is sound (sic). Russia has invaded its neighbors Georgia and Ukraine (sic).”

“It supports…Bashar al-Assad and our enemies in Afghanistan, and it is engaged in active information warfare against Western democracies (sic), including meddling in the 2016 United States elections (sic).”

Hardline US Senators Mike Coffman, Robert Menendez, Marco Rubio and Ben Sasse also called for designating Russia a state sponsor of terrorism.

In August 2018, Gardner, Lindsey Graham, Menendez, Ben Cardin, John McCain (on his death bed), and Jeanne Shaheen introduced the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act of 2018.

It called for “increas(ing) economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on the Russian Federation in response to Russia’s continued interference in our elections (sic), malign influence in Syria (sic), aggression in Crimea (sic), and other activities.”

No action was taken on the measure. Nor did followup Defending American Security from (Nonexistent) Kremlin Aggression Act of 2019 advance so far.

On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the SMART Act. If passed by the full House and Senate and signed into law by Trump, it calls for the State Department to enforce the measure within 90 days.

Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan alone are falsely declared state sponsors of terrorism by the State Department — defining the designation as follows:

“Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act.”

“Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on US foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.”

“Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors.”

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee advanced SMART legislation a day after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Trump and Pompeo in Washington.

Asked about the timing of his visit during a joint press conference, Lavrov said

“regardless of the day you choose to visit Washington, it will surely coincide with either sanctions or impeachment or something else.”

Separately on Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a measure to sanction Turkey for buying Russian S-400 air defense missiles, calling its legitimate purchase unacceptable.

The so-called “Promoting American National Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act (sic) also imposes sanctions on Russia for helping Syria buy weapons for self-defense.

House members passed a similar bill earlier, the full Senate likely to follow suit.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee also approved four energy bills, including the “Energy Security Cooperation with Allied Partners in Europe Act of 2019.”

It opposes Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Europe, encourages NATO countries not to buy Russian gas, and calls increased US liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.

A provision initially included in the bill to sanction companies involved in constructing Russia’s Nord Stream 2 was removed as the action is part of the FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Approved by the House on Wednesday, Senate passage to follow this month, Trump certain to sign the measure into law.

Nord Stream 2 construction is nearly completed. The NDAA provision won’t stop it becoming operational early next year.

Congressional legislation is all about furthering exports of expensive US LNG at the expense of much cheaper/readily accessible Russian natural gas.

It’s also part of longstanding US war on Russia by other means, a failed strategy.

US sanctions war encouraged greater self-sufficiency. In 2018, Russia’s economy grew 2.3%, currently growing at a 1.7% pace, further growth expected in 2020.

Note: Last week, US Under Secretary of State David Hale said the State Department does not consider Russia a state sponsor of terrorism.

*

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.

Indigenous Bolivia Ready to Go to War Against Fascism

December 13th, 2019 by Andre Vltchek

Bolivia, December 2019, three weeks after the fascist coup. It is devilishly cold. My comrade’s car is carefully navigating through the deep mud tracks. Enormous snow-covered mountain peaks are clearly visible in the distance.

The Bolivian Altiplano; beloved, yet always somehow hostile, silent, impenetrable.

So many times, in the past I came close to death here. In Peru as well as in Bolivia. More often in Peru.

Now, what I do is totally mad. Being a supporter of President Evo Morales from the beginning until this very moment, I am not supposed to be here; in Bolivia, in the Altiplano. But I am, because these mud huts on the left and right, are so familiar and so dear to me.

My comrade is a Bolivian farmer, an indigenous man. His hands are red, rough. He usually does not talk much, but after the coup, he cannot stop speaking. This is his country; the country that he loves and which has been stolen from him, from his wife and from his children.

We can both get screwed here, but if we do, that’s life; we know the risk and we are happy to take it.

Carlos (not his real name), my driver and a friend, explained:

“I called them, the elders, and they said it is ok that you come. I sent them your essays. You know, people here now read, even in the deep villages. After 14 years of Evo’s government, the entire country is covered by the mobile phone network. They read your stuff translated into Spanish. They liked what they read. They agreed to give you a statement. But they said, ‘if he is not really a Russian-Chinese left-wing writer, but instead some Camacho crony, we will break his head with a stone.’”

Camacho; Luis Fernando Camacho, a member of the fascist, U.S.-backed Revolutionary Nationalist Movement, and the Chair of the Civic Committee of Santa Cruz since 2019. A major adversary of Evo Morales, a man who during the 2019 Bolivian general election, sided with the West, with the treasonous Bolivian military (trained in the United States), and demanded Evo’s resignation, on 5 November 2019.

I am fine with what they say. We are going.

We drive up, and then, at approximately 4,100 meters above sea level, we level up.

A new, wide road is being constructed. Of course, it is a project from the days of Evo’s presidency.

But it is not only the road building that can be detected all around us. There are water towers and water pumps and faucets in every village. Water is free, for all.  There are schools, medical centers as well as sport facilities, and carefully attended fields.

The drive is long, tough. But at one point, we see a few buses and cars parked on the top of a hill.

There is a small plateau, and a giant white speaker sitting in the middle of the field.

People in colorful outfits are scattered all around the site: men, women and children. A group of elders is seated in a closed circle. They are chanting, and their appeal is broadcasted through the speaker. They are addressing what is sacred to them: Mother Earth. They need strength in order to go on, to struggle, to defend themselves.

Deeply Rooted: Indigenous people in Altiplano gather to speak with Mother Earth (Photo: Andre Vltchek 2019©)

I am first ‘scanned’ by the people, and only then allowed to approach the elders. I explain who I am, and soon, the formalities are over.

“Please record but do not film our faces, for security,” I am told. “But later, you can film the gathering.”

Soon after, I sit down, and they begin to talk:

“The situation which we are living in these days in our country, in the communities up here, in the Andean communities is very difficult. In reality we feel frustrated, often abandoned because during the previous government led by President Evo Morales, we as farmers and indigenous people, felt very good. Even if, sometimes, we did not receive too much help, still, the government, the very President Evo Morales, is of our own blood, our own class. For that reason, we were supporting him. And we keep supporting him.”

“And this, what we have, now is a government – dictatorship. They say the contrary, but it is a fascist government. It is a government which is burning Wiphala, our symbol. It dishonors us. We feel humiliated, we feel discriminated against. For that reason, we realize that we cannot fail; we cannot stay here like this, we will continue fighting. There will be elections in our country, and we will continue supporting that one person who has elevated our name; the name of the native people, of workers, of working people, and of the poor.”

“First, we will go to the elections, if of course there are elections. We will go and support our people; our leaders. In case that they will produce electoral fraud, then yes, we will rise!”

I told them that I have known their country, and Altiplano, for more than 25 years. Everything has changed. The villages consisting of mud huts came to life. They woke up, began to bloom. Water for all began to run through the pipes provided by the government. Modern ambulances have been deployed, serving all corners of the nation. Health centers opened their doors to millions of students, and so did schools, and vocation centers. New roads have been built. The government encouraged ecological farming.

Indigenous elders gather to discuss the current state of affairs in their country (Photo: Andre Vltchek 2019©)

Bolivia, for decades and centuries living under monstrous apartheid has been exploited, humiliated and robbed of everything, but lately has begun rising to its feet.

I told them this. I told them how I used to come here, again and again, in the 1990’s, from Peru; a country devastated by the so-called “Dirty War” which I have described in my novel “Point of No Return”. Peru was terribly broken, but here, in Bolivia, people were half-alive. There was no hope, only silent, frightening misery.

Now Bolivia, once the poorest country in South America, has been way ahead of Peru, a state which has been relentlessly cannibalized by the neo-liberal economic model, while still racially and socially divided to the extreme.

Evo’s legacy: super modern mobile dental clinic providing health services to the people (Photo: Andre Vltchek 2019©)

I asked the elders, whether they agreed. They did.

“Certainly. Because with our own eyes we have seen enormous economic changes and we have witnessed how Bolivia rose and after those 14 years, got ahead of this entire Latin American region.” 

I filmed, photographed.

Before we left, an elderly woman approached the car, and screamed something in a local language.

Carlos translated:

“We will all fight those evil beings who declared themselves our rulers. If they don’t disappear, soon again we will close the roads between El Alto and La Paz, and they will have to eat their own excrement. Our people will never again be defeated. Say this wherever you go!” 

I said that I will.

*

In 1971, the great Uruguayan writer, journalist and poet, Eduardo Galeano, published his book Open Veins of Latin America, which soon became the most important tome for the Latin American left-wing thinkers and revolutionaries.

Real transparency: Bolivia’s president publishes his government’s financial account on billboards (Photo: Andre Vltchek 2019©)

Inside the book, which was regularly banned all over the continent, Galeano had written about those 500 years of monstrous plunder, deceit and cruelty, committed by the Europeans and the North Americans against the people of South and Central America. Some of the most terrible crimes were committed on the territory which is now Bolivia, particularly in the silver mines of the city of Potosi, which helped to make Europe rich, but whose tens of thousands of people died, while forced to live and work as slaves.

Not long before he passed away, I worked with Eduardo Galeano in his café, in the old city of Montevideo.

It was during the heady days of the “Pink Revolutions” wave. We were celebrating our victories, sharing hope for the future.

But at one point, Eduardo paused, and said, simply:

“You know, all of our comrades who are holding power now have to be very careful. They have to understand that the poor people who voted them in, or who supported them when they were taking power, have only one thing left in their life, and that is hope. You take away their hope, and they are left with nothing. Robbing them of hope is like killing them. That is why, whenever I encounter our left-wing leaders, and I do it very often, I always tell them: ‘Comrades, careful, Do not play with hope! Never promise to people what you cannot deliver. Always keep your word.”

Juan Evo Morales Ayma, the first Bolivian indigenous president, understood Galeano and his work perfectly well. He and his Movement for Socialism (MAS), never betrayed the trust of the poor people. That is why he was never forgiven by the West, and by many individuals coming from the treasonous Bolivian elites and the military.

*

After my meeting with the indigenous leaders, I asked Carlos to drive us around Altiplano, without any particular plan. I wanted to talk to people; to the poorest of the poor of Bolivia.

Farming family in Altiplano continue struggling amid harsh conditions (Photo: Andre Vltchek 2019©)

At one point, we arrived at a tiny hamlet. A dog with a broken leg welcomed us with loud but innocuous barking. There were two sheep near the entrance to the house. An elderly farmer, his blind wife and a daughter were working in the field.

They were not afraid to speak, even to be recorded and photographed, as long as I promised not to reveal their names.

The farmer had half of his teeth missing, and he was leaning to one side, but his thoughts and words were clear:

“Thanks to Evo for everything. There is his work, and it speaks for itself; that road, infrastructure. Even this little house that we have is because of him.” 

“Here we don’t want that so-called President Añez. She wants to mislead us, she lies to us. We are with MAS; all of us up here are strongly supporting MAS. We are supporting our brother Evo. We have always been suffering here, but Evo came with excellent projects… but now all progress will stop.”

The daughter is perhaps 14 years old. She is a product of Evo’s government. Neatly dressed, with nice glasses, she speaks fluently. Her words are well formulated:

“Those coup leaders have no pity on us. They have been shooting at us, beating us, gassing us. They have been violating our women. Lately, our mothers, our fathers suffered tremendously in La Paz. People were injured, people died, and the military and the coup leaders have no mercy. We don’t want to be slaves, like before. After the coup, the new government said terrible things about our president; things that we don’t like at all. We don’t want to be slaves, nor to be dammed by that new lady-president and by her people. She is a racist. The truth is that she is too racist. They call us ‘Indios’, and say things about us that make us furious. They are discriminating against us in all possible ways.”

“But you don’t lose hope?” I asked.

“I don’t,” she smiled. “I am with MAS. And MAS is going to be victorious. We will defeat those who are behind the coup.”

We left, heading towards the main road.

“One more stop,” I asked Carlos.

We drove, randomly, towards a partially damaged dwelling.

“What happened here?” I asked.

The family members spoke over each other:

“In November, Camacho sent here several buses full of his supporters, from Potosi. They arrived, and began beating us up, insulting us, killing our animals and destroying our houses. They forced us to our knees, tying our hands behind our backs. They called us the most insulting names. They humiliated us. They said that it is over, that now we will know again where we belong.”

I asked Carlos whether he had heard these stories before. He replied, without thinking:

“Of course. You can ask anyone up here, and they will confirm what you just heard.”

Before descending to La Paz, in El Alto, I asked Carlos to stop at several places, where in November, dozens of people died, blocking the capital as the protest against the coup, and against forcing Evo Morales into exile.

The bullet holes that damaged the walls were still visible, and they were clearly marked. There were flowers there, where people had fallen. Soon, hopefully very soon, there will be monuments.

The graffiti all over El Alto, spoke clearly and loudly:

“Añez, we will fish you off – you coup-maker!”, “Añez – dictator!” and “Añez – killer!”.

*

Just half a year ago, I witnessed great fiestas in El Alto. I filmed colorful processions, people dancing, fireworks. I admired the new public spaces, super-modern cable cars, public swimming pools as well as the playgrounds constructed for children.

Now, the city felt like a cemetery. It was eerie, silent, gloomy.

The enormous Mount Illimani, the symbol of this ancient land, was covered by snow. It was beautiful now, but it is always stunning, in good times as well as during the disasters. La Paz, sitting in a tremendous crater, was clearly visible from above.

“The Yankees coming,” said Carlos. “You know, Añez has restored full diplomatic ties with Washington. And their spies and agents are flooding the embassy; all in civilian clothes, of course…”

“With their backs covered by the treasonous Bolivian military,” I uttered, sarcastically.

Carlos was quiet for some time. Then he decided to speak:

“When I was young, I was in the military myself. In Cochabamba, you know, during the water crises, and popular rebellion aimed at making water free. I never told you. Those were tough times. People stood up, and some died. Our unit consisted of mainly indigenous soldiers. The officers were white; almost all were. At one point, we let them know that we would not fire at our brothers and sisters. They shat their pants: captains, colonels; you should have seen them: they were running around, in barracks and outside, with no marks of their ranks. You know, at one point, if they were to have forced us to slaughter our people, we would have refused, and slaughtered them, instead.”

“They were trained in the West?” I asked.

“Many, yes.”

“And now Carlos? What about now?”

He began whispering, although no one seemed to be around:

“I have two relatives in the army. I talked to one of them, a few days ago. It is the same as when I was serving in Cochabamba. The upper ranks are with the Yanquis, but the troops, most of them, are with MAS; they are with Evo. You see, if there is a mutiny, and there very well may be one, soon, then Añez, Camacho and their gringo friends will all soon be fucked!”

* 

I went to the luxury hotel Suites Camino Real in La Paz, for lunch. I had to see “them”, the other side. Those who import exquisite beef from Santa Cruz province, those who consume it here, those who are now celebrating.

Police are stationed everywhere, at the ready, but still very uneasy (Photo: Andre Vltchek 2019©)

And celebrating they were.

Several parties were taking place, simultaneously. People were jumping around, hugging each other, shouting like mad. All white, all “tall and beautiful”, all blonde, peroxide or real. Wine was flowing.

Most of the waiters were indigenous, dressed in Western clothes; hushed and uncertain.

I met a former top economist in Evo’s government, Ernesto Yañez, who at one point served as the vice-President of the Central Bank of Bolivia. It was safe to meet here. We found a quite corner where we could talk:

“I certainly call what happened here, a coup. There was no election fraud.”

“Without any doubt, Evo’s years in power were marked by great economic stability. Especially in the beginning, there were almost no economic problems. The poverty rate decreased from 55% to below 30%. Quality of life increased dramatically.”

“In relatively poor Bolivia, poverty rates are lower than in the richest country on the continent, Argentina, after the reign of the neo-liberal President Macri”, I could not help but mention.

“Yes, but after the coup, the economy here is collapsing,” Ernesto Yañez said.

Image on the right: Former economist in the Morales government, Ernesto Yañez (Photo: Andre Vltchek 2019©)

Half a year ago, I was here, and there were violent strikes by doctors all over Bolivia. Many of them were educated for free, by the state, but after that, they were demanding a neo-liberal medical system, in which doctors and nurses would gain unrealistically high salaries. Many Cuban doctors have been deployed by the government, all over the country, in order to improve medical care.

Ernesto Yañez further clarified:

“During Evo’s government, millions of people moved from lower to middle class. Most of them were young. Which means, before the coup, and after 14 years of MAS rule, many young middle-class people had no idea what it is to live in misery. They took all the achievements of Evo and MAS for granted. Then, when certain hardships arrived, including the slowing down of the economy after 2014, they saw them as the failures of Evo’s government.”

“You know, for instance the doctors that you mentioned; they thought that if they brought down MAS, all their requests would be immediately fulfilled by the right-wing government. It never happened. Now they have no idea what to do.”

“The same as in Santa Cruz,” I agreed with him. “Fuel and utility prices are going up. Now the right-wingers will realize what it is to have their dream come true – a neo-liberal regime. They are getting wiped-out; desperate.”

Ernesto Yañez concluded:

“You, know, Evo made many Bolivian businessmen rich, too. The country and its economy were very stable, for years. Before he came to power, the big players were North Americans, Europeans and Chileans. During his mandate, Bolivian companies were given priority. Bolivian elites were always racist, for them, Evo was ‘un Indio mas’ (just another Indian). But they hid their feelings well. It is because Evo did things well. He changed this country for the better, almost for everybody.”

“But now, things have gone from bad to worse. The new president comes with the bible and cross, burns Wiphala, and people die. Now the Indigenous people want Evo back.”

And not only indigenous people, although almost all indigenous people that I met this time in Bolivia, do.

*

I walked to Plaza Murillo in La Paz, where the Presidential Palace and the National Congress of Bolivia are located.

The police and military were everywhere. During Evo’s government, this was a quiet, open space, full of green trees, children and pigeons.

In front of the National Congress, several ladies dressed in beautiful indigenous clothes, were gathering, talking to each other. These were deputies from MAS.

I pulled out my cameras and approached them. Immediately, security dudes in plainclothes, began approaching me, but the two lady-deputies made protective gestures with their arms, smiled at me, and rebuffed the security officers: “Leave him alone, he is with us.”

I knew we had no time, and I asked only one thing: “Are we standing, comrades?”

They did not hesitate:

“We are standing. They will not defeat us. MAS is the legitimate government of Bolivia.” 

And so, this is what I am reporting from the Plurinational Republic of Bolivia:

The country is under attack from the United States and its allies. It has been injured by its treasonous cadres, both military and civilian. Blood has been spilled. The legitimate president and vice-president are in exile. According to Reuters, “Bolivian minister seeks Israel help in fighting alleged leftist ‘terrorism‘”. Meaning, the legitimate government.

But the country is standing. People are not on their knees. First there will be a vote, but if there are any tricks from Washington or from the Organization of American States (OAS), there will be a fight.

Evo Morales and MAS won the recent elections. There is absolutely no way that MAS will not win again. I spoke to people, and now, even more than before, they are closing ranks around the Movement towards Socialism which made Bolivia one of the greatest nations in the Western Hemisphere.

The indigenous people of Bolivia and the rest of South America are not beggars or slaves. Long before the arrival of those brutal religious fundamentalists and badly brought-up looters – the Spanish conquerors – they were the owners of this beautiful land. Their civilization was much greater than that of their tormentors.

Evo’s government did much more than just improving the social situation in his country. He began reversing 500 years of cruel injustice on this continent. He gave power to the powerless. He returned pride to the people who had been robbed of everything.

Washington shows clearly where it stands. Despite its hypocritical “political correctness”, it is on the side of racism, colonialism and fascist oppression. Instead of defending freedom, it oppresses freedom. Instead of promoting democracy (which is “rule of the people”), it is raping democracy: here in Bolivia, and elsewhere.

Until Bolivia is free again, the entire freedom-loving world should be waving the Wiphala.

The elders from the Altiplano sent a clear message to the world. Elections will take place, but if the people are robbed of their government, there will be an uprising and an epic battle.

Sadly, if there is a battle, some people will join the Earth. But also, the Earth will not stay idle – it will join her People.

Añez together with her colonialist symbols, is already being cursed by the majority of Bolivian people, and so are Camacho and several other traitors. But perhaps, technically, they are not “traitors”, after all. Their allegiances are to those nations which had attacked and have been looting this part of the world, for several long centuries.

After 500 years of being tormented and humiliated, the mother Earth, Pachamama, is embracing her children. Evo and MAS brought them together. This is a tremendous moment in history. People here realize it. European, racist elites realize it. Washington is well aware of it.

Right now, there is a moment of silence; a brief one.

If the fascist coup leaders do not back up, there will be huge thunder, and the people of Altiplano will rise, Wiphala in hand, supported by their ancient, sacred Earth.

*

 

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 21st Century Wire.

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 TwitterHis Patreon. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Trump Wants Criticism of Israel Equated with Anti-Semitism

December 13th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Trump wants anti-Semitism redefined. An executive order perhaps already signed is all about stifling legitimate criticism of Israel.

It’s about wanting the Jewish state absolved of occupation, colonialism, and apartheid crimes against humanity.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed self-determination as an essential principle of international law.

Colonial occupation is in clear violation. UN General Assembly Res. 151, the Declaration on Colonialism, condemns the practice “in all its forms and manifestations,” including illegal settlements.

According to the Apartheid Convention (1973), the practice is  state-sponsored “inhuman” racism “committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”

That’s what Israeli repression of the Palestinian people is all about — Gazans harmed most of all by suffocating siege, cross-border incursions, frequent terror-bombing incidents, and naked aggression at Israel’s discretion.

Ignored by the Jewish state, the US and other Western countries is that self-determination is a universal right, affirmed by the UN Charter and other international law.

The West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza are illegally occupied territories, Palestinians ruthlessly persecuted by Israel.

Land seizures and dispossessing Palestinians are flagrant international law violations. So are breaches of Security Council resolutions, Israel guilty time and again, accountability never forthcoming.

All of the above are relevant to Trump’s expected executive order. It’s notably all about wanting legitimate criticism of Israeli high crimes silenced, notably on college campuses by student activists for equity and justice — targeting them and others a flagrant First Amendment violation.

According to the Constitution Center, presidential executive orders (EOs) have “much of the same power as federal law.”

Congress can pass legislation to override an EO, a super-majority needed in case of a presidential veto.

The Congressional Research Service explained that there is no direct “definition of executive orders, presidential memoranda, and proclamations in the US Constitution. There is, likewise, no specific provision authorizing their issuance.”

Every US president since George Washington issued EOs. During WW II, Franklin Roosevelt authorized internment camps for Japanese Americans.

In 1861 during the Civl War, Lincoln suspended habeas rights by this way.

Two EOs were used for his Emancipation Proclamation that didn’t free a single slave at the time. He wanted them deported at war’s end to maintain America as a white supremacist society.

He was a war criminal. He suspended the Constitution and habeas rights, forcefully closed courts, arbitrarily ordered arrests, conscripted US citizens without congressional authorization, and closed newspapers opposing his policies.

Glorifying him as a great president ignores his dark side, the same true of all US warrior presidents and others beholden to privileged interests exclusively at the expense of the public welfare.

Executive branch and congressional support for Israel is overwhelmingly one-sided. Few in Washington dare criticize its actions, no matter how egregious. The same goes for establishment media.

According to AP News, citing three unnamed US officials, “Trump is set to sign an executive order Wednesday targeting anti-Semitism on college campuses,” adding:

“Officials say the order will broaden the federal government’s definition of anti-Semitism and instruct it to be used in enforcing laws against discrimination on college campuses.”

Henceforth, will advocacy for Palestinian rights and wanting Israel held accountable for denying them be criminalized — and not just on college campuses?

According to the NYT, Trump’s order “will effectively interpret Judaism as a race or nationality, not just a religion.”

It’ll permit withholding federal funds from colleges and universities that fail to crack down on criticism of Israel Trump’s EO calls anti-Semitic.

It aims to stifle BDS activism on college campuses, a vital global initiative to counter its persecution of the Palestinian people.

Separate and unequal is fundamental Israeli policy, Muslims especially demeaned.

The Trump regime’s definition of anti-Semitism matches the State Department’s, falsely calling it criticism “of the state of Israel.”

It considers the legitimate global BDS movement and other groups critical of Israel anti-Semitic.

Congressional Anti-Semitism Awareness legislation was introduced this year and earlier but not passed.

Anti-Zionism and anti-Israel are unrelated to hostility and bias toward Jews.

Israel is a nation-state, Judaism a religion. Some of Israel’s fiercest critics are Jews, clearly not self-hating ones.

Calling Jewish state critics anti-Semitic is a long-ago discredited canard.

The same goes for criticizing Zionism, tyranny by another name. The ideology is extremist, undemocratic, hateful, ruthless, racist, destructive, and hostile to peace, equity and justice.

It’s contemptuous of fundamental legal, moral and ethical principles, Jews unacceptably considered a chosen people superior to others.

Anglo-Zionism is a hugely destructive force threatening everyone everywhere. Israeli persecution of Palestinians is well documented — criticizing both a moral and ethical obligation.

US Campaign for Palestinian Rights executive director Yousef Munayyer slammed Trump’s EO, calling it part of a campaign “to silence Palestinian rights activism” by equating legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, adding:

“Israeli apartheid is a very hard product to sell in America, especially in progressive spaces, and realizing this, many Israeli apartheid apologists, Trump included, are looking to silence a debate they know they can’t win.”

Three years ago this month, in response to the proposed congressional Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016 legislation, the ACLU said the following:

“The bill poses a serious threat to the First Amendment free speech rights of those on campus who may hold certain political views,” adding:

“(T)he First Amendment prevents the federal government from using its great weight to impose severe penalties on a person simply for sharing a political viewpoint critical of Israel.”

On Tuesday, Jewish Voice for Peace said “Trump doesn’t care about Jewish safety. (His) Executive Order is about silencing criticism of Israel,” adding:

His EO “will usher in a climate of fear on college campuses, where university administrations will be incentivized to silence student activism, faculty research, and teaching about Palestine – while white supremacist organizing, which has been steadily increasing under Trump, will go unchecked.”

Unobstructed speech, press and academic rights are fundamental. Compromising them is the hallmark of totalitarian rule, the slippery slope where the US and other Western societies are heading — Trump’s new EO the latest example.

*

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.

Colombia and The Revolutionary Process

December 13th, 2019 by Nino Pagliccia

In order to have a revolutionary process, it is necessary to go through revolutionary stages. First, what’s needed is a raised consciousness that may trigger some outrage by a sector of society which may subsequently grow into sustained protests. The protests might gather a critical mass with the support of the general population and turn into general strikes. If the popular movement becomes large enough to impact the economy and the normal functioning of the government, and if the movement is able to seize critical institutions of the government and civil society under a strong and trusted political leadership, then we may have the foundations on which to build a Revolution.

Of course, this is a simplified scenario. The revolutionary process is much more complex and will depend on other factors such as the level of repression exercised by the government through its armed forces and police, or attempts at sincere diplomatic dialogue, the level of overt and/or covert interference by foreign powers, the likelihood of foreign military interventions, as well as the commitment to popular resistance including forceful or armed resistance.

One could pick almost any Latin American country through its history and recognise elements of revolutionary processes that succeeded or failed at any given time. But there is one country that currently stands out and is seldom reported about by the dominant media. That country is Colombia and its long standing struggle. As we observe a persistent popular challenge and confrontation with the rightwing government of Ivan Duque, we realize that there are times when the only word that makes sense in the geopolitical dictionary is “Revolution”, and we ask, is Colombia initiating a revolutionary process?

Colombia has experienced one of the longest armed resistances against a dominant government anywhere in the world, which has been led since the mid-1960s by two major organizations, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia—Ejército del Pueblo (FARC-EP – Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia—People’s Army) and the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Army – ELN). The conflict has been mostly waged in rural areas outside the Bogotá urban area. That stage of armed resistance has confronted a strong repression responsible for thousands of Colombians, mostly civilians, killed in the large majority by rightwing paramilitary and Colombian security forces.

 After a long peace process, in 2016-2017 the FARC-EP signed a peace accord with former Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos, disarmed itself and became the legal leftist political party Fuerza Alternativa Revolucionaria del Común (Common Alternative Revolutionary Force – FARC), preserving the acronym in Spanish as if to preserve the memory of its long struggle. However it decided not to participated in the elections of 2018 that were won by Ivan Duque of the Democratic Center party.

The peace accord signed by FARC-EP leader Rodrigo Londoño (nom de guerre, Timochenko) and Juan Manuel Santos is still in place, but the necessary trust to maintain it is wearing thin and it is becoming one of the major issues that is at the root of the current civil unrest taking place in Colombia. The political link between the ideologically far-right former president Alvaro Uribe, whose administration had engaged in massive military and paramilitary attacks on the rebel forces that also resulted in indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population, and current president Duque has not been conducive to building trust, especially when the implementation of large portions of the peace accord are not progressing fast enough if at all. Restitution of farm land lost due to forced displacements during the civil war, the program of crop substitution from illegal to commercial crops, the facilitated reincorporation of former combatants to civilian life, and, most importantly, the disbanding of government-condoned paramilitary groups are moving very slowly and this is attributed to a lack of resources and political will by the Duque administration.

The continued killing of former rebels and popular leaders has not helped the peace process. In fact, while Londoño remains in support of the process but also critical of it, a faction of the newly formed political party FARC headed by Iván Márquez and Jesús Santrich went into hiding and later declared that they would take up arms again against the state as a “new stage in the armed struggle.” It would be a great mistake on the part of the Colombian government to use this as a pretext to justify violent repression against the population that has occurred even after the signing of the peace accord and may ultimately be responsible for the armed reaction.

Parallel to this development and not in contradiction with it, Colombians are becoming more vocal and over time organisations and groups have swelled the mass movement that we have seen since November 21. In what is comparable to street protests in Chile, Brazil and Ecuador, for more than three weeks multiple thousands of people have taken to the streets in major cities, including Bogotá, to stage mass protests with no end in sight. The protests have grown to be “long overdue” general strikes organised by the Central Unitaria de Trabajadores de Colombia (Central Workers Union of Colombia – CUT) and the Comité Nacional del Paro (National Strike Committee)

Besides unions, the mass movement includes students, social organizations, indigenous and Afro-Colombian people, farmers, cultural and environmental groups, and the political party FARC. The general population supports the protests in rejection of the Duque government’s neoliberal policies that include raising the compulsory retirement age, increasing workers’ contributions to the pension system, reducing the state’s role in social security, and lowering the young people’s minimum wage, among other things.

While the dominant media reports at length about the “pro-democracy” color revolution in Hong Kong they ignore the civil unrest taking place in Colombia. What is happening in Colombia is relevant news because it is part of the Latin American vociferous demands for peace and for opposition to unpopular government policies similar to those in Chile, Brazil, Ecuador, and soon in Bolivia, following the military coup.

Colombia has a 50-year long history of armed revolutionary process that is unique in Latin America but also ignored or some would say covered up. At the same time Colombias military budget is the second highest in the region, surpassed only by Brazil. The country has the largest concentration of US military presence in South America with nine military bases, out of 76 in the whole of Latin America as well as numerous US-funded organizations. Colombia has the infamous role of being the willing watch tower of the US’ Latin American backyard”.

Colombia is attempting to develop a peace process to end the long armed stand-off with the state, however the state is not making the necessary institutional and political changes to make peace happen as agreed to and ratified. So the popular resistance aiming to achieve revolutionary conditions appears to continue now on two fronts, one that recently rejoined the armed struggle and the other that hopes to move through the electoral political process. If we define the revolutionary goal as the non-violent break from the hegemonic foreign imposed neoliberal structures, the two fronts have more in common than we believe. In fact, the broader movement seems to be growing quite widely and fast. This should be a warning call to the Duque administration that seems to be comfortably feeling at ease and conceited under the protection of domestic and foreign military.

Colombia may well be initiating a revolutionary process given its own objective conditions or persistently following its revolutionary path initiated more than half a century ago. The actors at play are all taking up their roles determined to carry them on to the end. We are reminded of Antonio Gramsci: “Revolutionaries see history as a creation of their own spirit, as being made up of a continuous series of forceful tugs at the other forces of society – both active and passive, and they prepare the maximum of favourable conditions for the definitive tug (revolution).”

*

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.

Nino Pagliccia is an activist and freelance writer based in Vancouver. He is a retired researcher from the University of British Columbia, Canada. He is a Venezuelan-Canadian who follows and writes about international relations with a focus on the Americas. He is the editor of the book “Cuba Solidarity in Canada – Five Decades of People-to-People Foreign Relations” (2014). He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

As Britons headed to the polls Thursday for the much-anticipated and highly consequential general election, U.K. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn sounded a note of optimism in response to early reports of big crowds and long lines at polling stations across the country.

“It’s happening. We can do this,” said Corbyn after the British newspaper Metroreported that early turnout resulted in the “longest queues ever” at several voting stations.

Aidan Conway, a resident of Balham, London, told Metro that he has “never seen a queue like this at my polling station.”

“Many of the voters out this morning have said the lines are ‘full of young people,'” Metro noted.

That could be good news for Labour. According to YouGov, more than 60 percent of voters between the ages of 18 and 29 voted for the Labour Party in the 2017 general election.

“More than 1.5 million people under the age of 34 registered to vote between Oct. 22 and Nov. 19, compared with 1.2 million in the same time frame in 2017,” the New York Times reported late last week.

Labour activists on Wednesday continued to promote their get-out-the-vote push online and in communities nationwide, telling voters there was still time to make a difference and urging them to head to the polls to “kick the Tories out of government”:

As Labour supporter and Guardian columnist Owen Jones wrote Wednesday, “Tories have discounted millennial rage against their policies and that mistake could cost them dear at the polls.”

They have endured a decade of assaults on their living standards and their beliefs. The Tory elite calculated that this onslaught would have no political consequences because young people would not vote in sufficient numbers for it to matter. This hubris finally collided with reality in 2017, but it was not enough.

And so this is the question that will soon be answered. Will enough young people march to polling stations, in the right places, to stop a hard-right Tory government committed to implementing hard Brexit by the end of next month? Will Boris Johnson’s entitlement meet its nemesis in the shape of a revolt of the young? There is very little time left. But if Britain’s nightmare finally ends, it will probably be the young who save us from it.

Corbyn has characterized the general election as a life or death moment for the National Health Service. Last month, the Labour leader unveiled over 450 pages of trade documents that he said show Johnson has put the NHS “on the table” in talks with the U.S. over a possible post-Brexit trade pact.

As voters headed to the polls Wednesday, Corbyn tweeted, “Boris Johnson will sell-off our NHS, and that’s the tea.”

“Today, vote to save our NHS,” Corbyn said. “Vote for a pay rise. Vote for free childcare. Vote for lower fares and bills. Vote for real change. Vote for Labour.”

Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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

Featured image is from Dave Ward/Twitter

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “It’s Happening,” Declares Jeremy Corbyn as Early UK Election Reports Suggest “Longest Queues Ever”
  • Tags:

Vanessa Beeley, the award-winning journalist who has gained notoriety for her on the ground reporting on the Syrian conflict has faced opposition in her efforts to speak to Canadian audiences at the invitation of local anti war activists.

According to Ken Stone of the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, a lead organizer of Beeley’s cross-Canada speaking tour, six venues have so far backed away from hosting the UK journalist’s talks. These include Palestine House in Mississauga, the Steelworkers Hall in Toronto, St. Paul’s University in Ottawa, the University of Montreal, the University of Winnipeg, and the Millenium Library, also in Winnipeg.

Stone explains that the withdrawal from agreements at each venue to host Beeley were preceded by the circulation of at least two hit pieces on the journalist upon her arrival in Canada – one by La Presse in Quebec and one by the Huffington Post. Stone explained that the decision to cancel in each case was precipitated by the circulation of these articles by unknown actors.

Says Stone,

“There wasn’t an organized effort, but there were people in individual cities where she was speaking who took it upon themselves to circulate these articles behind the scenes – shadowy figures who tried their very best to scare the managers of various venues into cancelling, and they did so six times.”

The proper name of the tour is ‘Canada’s Dirty War on Syria: The White Helmets and the Regime Change War billionaires.’ Ms. Beeley was intent on presenting her research into Canada’s role in undermining the government of President Bachar Al Assad. Beeley’s message directly contradicts mainstream reporting on the conflict, particularly her research into the White Helmets, which she and other independent journalists classify as a propaganda construct providing public relations cover for regime change efforts and continued economic sanctions that are decimating the country.

The justification for one venue after another cancelling is not clear, as none have officially provided any explanation. According to Stone, however, there were two venues on the tour that allowed the Beeley presentation to take place in spite of this unexpected opposition. One was the New Vision Church in Hamilton. The other was the Knox Metropolitan United Church in Regina. Both Ministers highlighted concerns from a complainant about ‘hate speech’ being directed toward the White Helmets, and the prospect of traumatizing vulnerable Syrian refugees.

Organizers explained to the Ministers that the talks were not about hate speech but rather about highlighting the findings of an independent journalist and war correspondent ‘whose research methods are very thorough’ about the true nature of the Syrian conflict and the role of the White Helmets.

According to an email, forwarded to this author, from the pastor at the Hamilton venue, there was concern expressed about Beeley engaging in ‘hate speech’ toward the White Helmets. According to the pastor at the Regina venue, the letter he received essentially echoed the common, mainstream media reinforced perception that the White Helmets are heroes, that Syrian civilians are fleeing a despotic Syrian regime, and that Beeley is spreading “lies for war criminal Bashar Assad.”

Stone added, “one of the people who spoke to both Ministers about the ‘traumatization’ turned out to be traced back to an address in the state of Washington USA. She was claiming that she was going to be traumatized by Vanessa speaking 4000 miles away!”

Full disclosure: this author was active in trying to secure a venue for Vanessa Beeley at the University of Winnipeg. The deplatforming in this case was a little more complicated. I had apparently used an improper process to secure the space on campus initially. However, when the event coordinator on campus got hold of me and explained the problems with the process, she directed me to find a venue elsewhere. When I asked about the prospects for booking the space by following the proper procedure, and paying the appropriate fees, I was told the event would likely not go ahead owing to problems the President’s Office had with the content.

In spite of multiple attempts to get more details over several days, the university has yet to provide an explanation of precisely what they found objectionable about the ‘content.’

A second venue, the Millennium Library in downtown Winnipeg was secured through friendly staff six days in advance of the event date. However, on Tuesday (Human Rights Day as it turns out) two days before the event was to take place, I received a call from a higher up – the Manager of Library Services. He had expressed regret but that after lengthy deliberations he had with other team members, he determined that the event would violate their guidelines and that he was exercising his right under the contractual agreement to cancel the booking.

No official explanation was offered beyond this although when pressed, this individual did indicate an ‘opinion’ on his part that after reviewing the speaker’s content, the content of the presentation could be construed as hate speech. Overtures to have this manager meet with myself and other organizers to assuage concerns about the event, were rejected. He said his decision was final. He did relent to sending a written explanation of his reasons for cancelling the booking:

“We considered our room usage Regulations and Conditions of use, event content, and community interests in this decision.”

Further correspondence was forwarded to me through a third party about the event planned for the University of Winnipeg from another member of the campus community. The concerns could be summarized as follows:

  • Ms. Beeley is promoting ‘harmful’ theories in defence of President Assad.
  • She is promoting ‘anti-semitic’ and harmful messaging against the White Helmets, ‘a group that provides vital humanitarian search and rescue operations in areas of Syria subject to intense bombing.’
  • the content could be ‘traumatizing’ to the Syrian refugee population at the university.

About a day later, a representative of the university’s student executive had private messaged the organizers through the Winnipeg facebook event page expressing concern about the event. This person echoed the points above. The individual’s facebook page, however, reveals a clear effort to deplatform Vanessa Beeley.

Excerpts (emphasis added)

PLEASE SHARE

“Vanessa Beeley has been called “The Syria conflict’s goddess of propaganda.”

As part of a Canadian speaking tour hosted by the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, Vanessa Beeley was supposed to speak at the University of Winnipeg tomorrow, December 12th. But, following pressure and advocacy from the community, the University of Winnipeg cancelled the event. The venue changed to the Millennium library and again after community pressure, they cancelled it. The Hamilton Coalition dropped the event and it looks like its been now picked up by Peace Alliance Winnipeg. All of this has happened within the last 3 days.

Among countless other things;

1) Beeley supports Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad, who is responsible for: the murder of more than 400,000 Syrians, over 5.7 million Syrians fleeing the country, and over 6.1 million internally displaced.

2) Beeley has said that the White Helmets, a humanitarian organization with thousands of volunteers who risk their lives rescuing victims of the conflict, are a terrorist organization. The White Helmets were nominated for the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize.

3) Beeley believes that the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack, which killed 12 and injured 11, was an event staged by the French government.

4) Beeley legitimized an airstrike on Douma, Syria that killed 70 Syrians, stating it was a “legitimate strike on #Douma terrorist nest”.

Beeley’s talk is scheduled for 7:00pm tomorrow at the Winnipeg Chilean Association, 892 Burrows Avenue. Emails have already been sent to the groups involved in organizing tomorrow’s lecture to urge them to cancel the lecture, but since there’s just 24 hours until the lecture, please share this post to make sure that Peace Alliance Winnipeg WILL NOT give Beeley the platform to share lies, conspiracy theories, hateful rhetorics and propaganda.

Vanessa Beeley is apparently by no means unique or distinct in experiencing this kind of character assassination. A September 2019 article for Mint Press News, authored by Alexander Rubinstein, detailed how three prominent journalists: Rania Khalek, Anya Parampil and Max Blumenthal, were seeing their work suppressed at the hands of so-called journalists with suspicious links to think tanks and media institutions. To quote the Mint Press article (emphasis added):

The tactics employed to silence these reporters have included death and rape threats, spurious lawsuits, threatening phone calls, pressure campaigns to have them fired, and persistent harassment against any institutions publishing their work or hosting their talks, books, or documentary tours.

This article, and Vanessa Beeley’s own reporting reveals that there is a sophisticated network of entities aligned with think tanks and media institutions who have been actively involved in this campaign to contain the Syria narrative. Individuals like Chris York of the Huffington Post UK, the link to whose article is being shared by Winnipeg based agitators, has been a leading critic of Beeley’s since January of 2017.

According to Beeley, York’s series of articles discrediting her work typically relied on familiar tropes about being ‘Russia-centric’ and ‘Assadist’. These were quickly followed by Olivia Solon’s hit piece for the Guardian, and articles in a similar vein by The UK’s Times newspaper, former Guardian correspondent, Brian Whitaker, Bellingcat, the BBC, journalist Nafeez Ahmed, academic Idrees Ahmad, and a 48-page report from the White Helmet PR agency, Syria Campaign.

While the campaign to discredit Beeley and others trying to expose the reality behind the Syrian conflict seems daunting, Ken Stone of the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War sees a silver lining behind the dark cloud of suppression of dissent. He believes that the forces of empire are effectively on the ropes.

“They are unable to manufacture consent for their foreign policy and their regime change wars and so the only resort they have left is to try and silence the opposition…Even the idea of local citizens in a community being able to rent a hall and bring in a speaker by invitation and open it to the public. What does that say about our Charter Rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly? Nonetheless, despite all that, we had, so far six successful meetings for Vanessa.”

Barring the prospect of a last minute deplatforming, Vanessa Beeley’s final presentation is scheduled to take place in Winnipeg, Manitoba at the Winnipeg Chilean Association at 892 Burrows Ave. Admission is free. More details at the event’s facebook page; https://www.facebook.com/events/510908552828529/

Political rottenness may be bottomless.  Consider the following description of a political aspirant for the White House, this person being from the Democratic Party.  His “liabilities as a political candidate are so glaringly obvious that it’s easy to dismiss his presidential bid as a vanity project.”  The author goes on to describe what can only be seen as a template of sorts.  “He is utterly devoid of charisma, has no real organic base in the Democratic Party, and is a viable candidate only because he’s filthy rich and is willing to inundate the race by opening up his nearly limitless money pit.” 

At a pinch, Jeet Heer, writing in The Nation, might have been describing Donald Trump in 2015. But this treatment is afforded to the cash-heavy Michael Bloomberg, accused of representing “another strand of authoritarian politics.” 

Heer has a point, but it is a prosaic one.  The nature of most political systems is that they produce a type of political candidate deemed acceptably pestilential.  The danger for US presidential politics was long in coming; that the Founding Fathers, in their vision of republicanism, would fail to prevent the next emperor from emerging.  Restraints, fetters and oversights have long been the stuff of this idea: you cage the emperor-to-be, render the figure accountable.  The modern presidency, with all the accoutrements of the entangling state, has achingly chafed against them.   

Abraham Lincoln can be seen to be a pioneer in this regard, and almost peerless in terms how he expanded the position of the executive power in the US.  As the civil war against the South bloodied and bled the state from April 1861, he came to be seen as authoritarian and loose with the Constitution.  He self-arrogated one prerogative after another, usurping Congressional powers in ordering the blockade of Southern ports, initially calling for 75,000 militia troops and a further 40,000 three-year volunteers.  Then came the suspension of habeas corpus.  As with previous figures accused of having Caesar’s pretensions, he was assassinated.    

The Trump presidency has certainly been a cause of alarm for those fearing the onset of a new tyranny.  The Donald has been casually venal in office, outsourced its functions for personal gain and treated his position as a theatrical extension of a social media presidency.  The distinction between political manipulation deemed acceptable by the Constitution’s framers, and abuse deemed unconstitutional, is currently being tested and is unlikely to make the distance.

As the impeachment drama unfolds in the House, the clutch of Democratic candidates has done nothing to suggest that this trend in American politics is shifting.  Messy, discordant and disparate, the field remains cluttered.  The departure of Kamala Harris, and the entry of former New York mayor Bloomberg, was a strong suggestion of things to come, a sort of social Darwinian culling in the offing.  Harris might have been an identitarian’s identity-kit politician, an antidote against white-male chauvinism, but her positions were unclear and elastic.  Her departure from the race, however, threw up an inescapable fact: to run for the White House entails having pockets so capacious as to be obscene.    

As Harris campaign manager Juan Rodriguez noted in a memo,

“To effectively compete with the top campaigns and make the necessary investments in the critical final 100 days to the [Iowa] caucus, we need to reduce expenditures elsewhere and realign resources.” 

This is the language of budgeting, corporate outlays, and management, a far cry from presidential majesty.

Bloomberg’s bid furnishes a similar claim. It is an announcement that the only way of removing a wealthy white male with authoritarian tendencies is to supplant him with another, even wealthier one.  His candidacy is already teasing out gushers and admirers.  Michael Starr Hopkins, a promiscuous strategist who worked with the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Delaney, insists that Bloomberg cannot be dismissed out of hand.

“In a normal election cycle, I would not give much attention to his candidacy, certainly not as a Democrat.  But as we all know, this is not a normal election cycle, and the fallout from the re-election of Donald Trump would only enforce his authoritarian tendencies.” 

Hopkins evaluates Bloomberg and finds an impressive figure able to defeat Trump.  “He is better than Trump in every way.  Successful businessman, check.  Dedicated philanthropist, check.  Effective politician, check.”

This flurry of enthusiasm for the improved Trump – the one who actually succeeds at the President’s pretensions – has not been in a minor key.  Thomas Friedman, holding forth from the New York Times, was “glad” Bloomberg had stuck his oar in. “Today ‘billionaire’ has become a dirty word and a disqualifying status for many in the left of the Democratic Party.  To me, that is as nonsensical as dismissing Elizabeth Warren as a ‘communist’ who wants only to confiscate your money.” 

The non sequitur remains Friedman’s glaring strong suit, but deployed in this way shows how far gone the state of US politics is.  He digs into the usual reserves of justification as to why a voter might go for the wealthy authoritarian with Caesar’s ambitions.  Bloomberg was “not just some wealthy dude who made his money betting on derivatives on Wall Street and now pops off about the need to cut taxes.”  He “risked everything”; he showed pluck in starting “a business that took on giant incumbents and outperformed them and boosted productivity.”     

Fellow New York Times stable mate Bret Stephens is of like mind, and method.  If you accepted the proposition that “trouncing Donald Trump is essential to the preservation of liberal democracy, then it won’t do to cross fingers and hope he stumbles.”  Bloomberg’s addition “would be a gift to Democrats, the country and the world.  Sneer at it at your peril.”  

Bloomberg is pushing his own credentials by boosting those of the incumbent. But he does so using the very same language that failed to convince voters against Trump’s merits: well cured experience and ample readiness for office. “I think Trump is getting stronger and I think he would just eat alive the candidates.”  His rivals, he continued to explain to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, lacked “practical” plans and “management experience and the President’s job is a management job.”  So the logic of the moneyed authoritarian, the executive bully in politics, comes full circle.  Trump’s legacy, on some level at least, is assured.   

*

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 Flickr

On December 11, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s Abu Bakr al-Siddiq Army and the special forces unit, known as the “Red Bands”, attacked and captured the area of al-Katibat al-Mahjura in southeastern Idlib. Units of the Syrian Army deployed there were caught off-guard and withdrew after a few hours of clashes.

Al-Katibat al-Mahjura [the abandoned base in Arabic] is a former base of the Syrian Air Defense Forces. It overlooks the village of Umm al-Tinah controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. When the army captured the base last week, pro-government sources speculated that it may use it to advance further into southern Idlib. However, another week of inactivity allowed militants to regroup and take this facility back.

It’s interesting to note that militants’ advance took place amid another round of the Astana format talks, which are designed to find a political solution of the conflict. Nonetheless, as long as al-Qaeda-style groups operate in Idlib, this will not be possible.

A unit of the Syrian Army in northwestern Hama shot down on December 11 an armed unmanned aerial vehicle launched from the militant-held area. The UAV was armed with several small-diameter munitions and appeared to be of the same type that had been repeatedly used to attack the Russian Hmeimim airbase on the Syrian coast. The renewed UAV attacks are another sign of the growing escalation in the region.

Meanwhile, the situation in northeastern Syria appears to be stabilizing. The Syrian Army and the Russian Military Police reopened the M4 highway in northeastern Syria after the withdrawal of Turkish-backed militants from the Shirlrak silos near Ayn Issa. According to state media, the army completed its deployment south of the highway, between the town of Tell Tamr in northern al-Hasakah and the town of al-Truaziyah in northern Raqqa.

*

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

Sudanese Transitional Government Faces Profound Challenges

December 12th, 2019 by Abayomi Azikiwe

Interim Prime Abdallah Hamdok of the Republic of Sudan visited the United States during early December seeking to have sanctions lifted against his newly-created administration.

In meetings with members of Congress and the National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, Hamdok requested the removal of Sudan from the list crafted by Washington of those states ostensibly involved in supporting “terrorism.”

These events come in the aftermath of a series of negotiations with internal opposition groups inside Sudan. Some of these grouping are armed and have been engaged in military operations against the former administration of the ousted President Omer Hassan al-Bashir.

Al-Bashir was overthrown in a military coup on April 11 amid ongoing mass demonstrations and rebellions which had spread throughout the oil-rich nation. The protests began during December 2018 over the rise in food prices and soon escalated into demands calling for the removal of the National Congress Party (NCP) government.

With the removal of al-Bashir, a new Transitional Military Council (TMC) was established in an effort to end the unrest. After the continuing post-coup demonstrations and a massacre of civilian protesters in June outside the defense ministry headquarters where a sit-in was being held, the TMC agreed to the creation of an interim coalition administration composed of the FFC and the military junta.

Sudan demonstrations during 2019

The new Prime Minister Hamdok is attempting to reconfigure the posture and image of the Sudanese government. He has opened up negotiations with the political parties and coalitions which created the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC) movement and the TMC as well as seeking to resolve the conflicts led by the several groups within the Sudanese Revolutionary Front (SRF) based in Darfur, North Kordofan, South Kordofan, Blue Nile and other regions.

New Prime Minister Makes Further Overtures to Washington

While in the U.S., Hamdok addressed the Atlantic Council in Washington requesting the removal of sanctions and the delisting of Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism. He emphasized that the presence of leading military figures in the transitional government should not deter the Trump administration from normalizing relations with Khartoum.

His addressed pointed out that the civilian and military forces are working together to create a new political dispensation. Nonetheless, the prime minister noted that doubts remain in the U.S. among leading officials that a genuine transition is still not assured.

In an article published by the Sudan Tribune on December 6, it says that:

“Hamdok disclosed that he has a negotiating team in Washington that is conducting talks with the American administration on the delisting process. The direct and frank style that Hamdok adopted during the event shows an increase of confidence on the SST’s (State Sponsored Terrorism) rescission as he used in the past to make law-profile statements. The lifting process requires a formal review for over six months.”

National Security Advisor O’Brien said in a public statement that the U.S. administration is willing to delist Sudan from the SST. There were however, outstanding issues related to removing Khartoum from the list as these were compensation to families of those killed in an attack on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the destruction of USS Cole off the coast of Yemen in 2000 and the commitment by the interim government to assist the U.S. in its war against terrorism.

The previous NCP administration of President al-Bashir had denied any culpability in the attacks on the USS Cole warship or the embassy bombings in East Africa which killed hundreds of people. In addition, the NCP government had categorically rejected any responsibility for funding or training those organizations such as al-Qaeda which have been the propaganda target of Washington in its so-called anti-terrorist campaigns internationally.

Hamdok went as far as to pledge support to the Trump administration in carrying out joint operations against alleged terrorist groups operating in the North and West Africa region in recent years. The prime minister reiterated this position in a quote published by the Wall Street Journal stressing:

“When it comes to combating terrorism, we would like to benefit from U.S. experience, not only of training but intelligence sharing, gathering, equipment, training.”

Revolutionary Transformation Stifled by the Neo-Colonial Status Quo

Such statements from Hamdok shed light on the political outlook of the interim government now operating in Khartoum. How does this foreign policy posture towards Washington differ fundamentally from what was being pursued under former President al-Bashir?

The NCP government had been cooperating with the U.S. in its war against Yemen since March 2015. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have engaged in massive bombing and ground operations in Yemen under the guise of preventing the Ansurallah (Houthis) Movement from taking control of the entire country, the most underdeveloped in the Middle East region.

U.S. warplanes guided by the Pentagon’s targeting and refueling technology have facilitated the war against Yemen which has killed thousands and displaced many more. The social impact of the war on Yemen has been designated as the worse humanitarian crisis in the world today.

Although Hamdok announced after returning to Khartoum from Washington that Sudan had reduced the number of troops serving in Yemen from 15,000 to 5,000, he restated a commitment to maintaining his government’s participation in the continuing war which is in line with U.S. foreign policy towards Iran. The Ansurallah is accused of receiving military and political support from Tehran, a claim the Iranian government has denied. (See this)

Since the military coup against al-Bashir, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have pledged $3 billion in assistance to Khartoum to prop up the interim administration. Just recently, the Sudan Tribune reported that the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) had conducted joint exercises with Qatar.

The Sudan Tribune article reports that:

“According to a statement by the Qatari Defense, the military exercise was attended by Major General Rashid bin Nasser, Head of Qatar’s Authority of Military Institutes and Colleges, and Major General Hafez al-Taj Makki the Red Sea Governor.

Al-Nasser praised the military training of the Qatari officers saying it would enable them to carry out their duties. However, he did not speak about the duration of the training of the exercises. The Sudanese army did not issue a statement about this exercise. On 29 November, the Eritrean government issued a statement accusing Qatar of continuing to provide military support to the opposition groups. Asmara did not accuse the Sudanese transitional government of taking part in this plot but stressed that Qatar uses Sudan as a springboard for its subversive activities.”

Of course states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar operate within the imperialist sphere of influence and not only in the Middle East. There are numerous interventions through their military operations by these Gulf monarchies in the internal affairs of African nations such as Djibouti and Eritrea.

The Sudanese Communist Party (SCP) has been highly critical of the role of Saudi Arabia and the UAE in recent developments involving the interim government under Prime Minister Hamdok. Their criticism was so severe that it prompted a response from the UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash.

In an article published by the Middle East Monitor, its reveals:

“Gargash explained that Al-Khatib’s comments: ‘are based on used and abused ideological concepts associated with his party.” He continued: ‘Our relationship with Khartoum is historic, and the Arab role in supporting Sudan in its current circumstances is necessary.’ It is noteworthy that Al-Khatib delivered a speech in the Omdurman region, last Friday, accusing the UAE and Saudi Arabia of ‘quick intervention during the first days of the uprising’ in Sudan against Al-Bashir regime.”

The SCP in October called for mass demonstrations demanding the dismantling of the former governing party the NCP. The Communists have rejected the political agreements between the opposition FFC and the TMC.

Consequently, the direction of the foreign policy of the interim government is clearly reflective of its class politics related to the domestic situation. The Sudanese people will not be fully liberated within the context of imperialist domination. A struggle for genuine revolutionary democracy and self-determination is the only solution to the current crisis of governance and economic instability.

*

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

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

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sudanese Transitional Government Faces Profound Challenges
  • Tags:

After the coup d’état, repression is advancing by leaps and bounds in Bolivia. The dictatorship persecutes the “narco-traffickers”, “vandals” and “terrorists”, that is to say: the social movements, former members of the government, peasants and indigenous people who demonstrate and are assassinated by the army (35 dead and more than 800 wounded). The de facto government criminalizes international human rights observation missions, the ombudsman’s office and even journalists, calling them “digital warriors” or “computer terrorists”. In so doing, it seeks to bury the truth under a mountain of false accusations.

Ultimatum to democracy, parade of neo-fascism

Since the October 20 elections, Bolivia has been going through a political crisis that is far from over. In the framework of an electoral process that received special attention from the international media, the vice-president of the Electoral Tribunal resigned for obscure reasons, casting a shadow of suspicion over Evo Morales’ victory by 47.08% of the votes cast. A difference of 10% (648,180 votes) over former right-wing president and candidate Carlos Mesa was enough to win the elections in the first round.

In fact, Mesa did not wait for the results to denounce what for him was an advertised fraud: he had been predicting it for months. Self-fulfilled prophecy or flight forward? Meanwhile, billionaire Fernando Camacho, whose name appears on the “Panamanian Papers” and who had lost a lucrative market share in his gas distribution contracts when Evo Morales arrived in government in 2006 and decided to nationalize the hydrocarbons to renegotiate the contracts, announced a 48-hour deadline for Evo to resign.

It was in that context when the violence of the opposition was unleashed with an unknown fury: the departmental electoral tribunals and headquarters of the MAS burned, their representatives such as the mayor of Vinto in Cochabamba Patricia Arce, the former vice minister of interculturalism Feliciano Vegamonte were lynched and assaulted….but also the directors of media such as Bolivia TV and CSUTCB Radio (Confederación Sindical de Trabajadores Campesinos), José Aramayo, the latter being tied to a tree, giving rise to a scene more typical of the medieval Inquisition.

The president of the chamber of deputies Víctor Borda resigned after denouncing the burning of his house and the kidnapping and aggression in his home of his brother, lawyer Marco Antonio Borda, by members of the “Civic Committee of Potosí”. Days later, his brother made public a video addressed to international organizations, while he was recovering in a hospital bed. In it, he denounced that “apparently there were orders to attempt against my life to ask for the resignation of my brother (…) If the President had not resigned, my life would have been in danger”. Mining Minister César Navarro also resigned after the fire at his home in Potosí and the attempt to hang his nephew. The same script is meticulously applied by criminals acting under the cover of so-called “civic committees”, financed by Fernando Camacho. Everything fits: Camacho himself unscrupulously threatened those who resisted the coup, saying that he had prepared a black list of “traitors” in a “Pablo Escobar style”.

Interlude masterfully played by the OAS, score written by Washington

With a view to the October 19 elections, Bolivia had implemented all the recommendations of the Organization of American States (OAS) regarding the improvement of the electoral process. Several meetings had taken place between the government of Evo Morales and Secretary Almagro. It was necessary to ensure the much-desired “transparency” and “credibility” in the face of the usual suspicions directed towards governments considered “populist”. The rapid-counting system called TREP was part of that reassuring mechanism… But that supposed life jacket turned out to be a spearhead. The gear of media manipulation was lubricated to perfection by attempting to erase the traditional recount in a country where the rural and indigenous vote has historically been favorable to MAS.

The former vice president of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) Antonio Costas, who resigned from his post, did not do so because he questioned the functioning of the TREP quick count, which he considered positive because it “generates a lot of trust and discourages fraud. However, he believed that “the process could be interrupted by a hacking” of a concurrent company of the audit. After verification by Costas and the TSE, the TREP data after the stop detected as a hack was the same. Because, when they gave the first report “the advance was very strong, with around 10%”. According to Costas, “the data was not modified”: “The OAS engineers were with the TSE all the time at the time of the TREP transmission, taking photographs of the advance very closely and the TSE had an advance until 22h of almost 94%, but we had suspended the information at 83%. It was the knowledge of the OAS that the development from 83 to 94 % in a reasonable period with 380 operators transmitting the information”. There was also no violence during election day: “more than 200 observers have certified the tranquility of the day”.

The president of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), María Eugenia Choque, clarified that the TREP “was suspended in order to avoid confusion with the result of the departmental computer system”. The official assured that they decided to suspend this system because the departmental courts started with the official computation and the TES could not “have two results working at the same time. According to Chancellor Diego Pary, “there was no interruption in the TREP,” but the official count replaced it. But “at the request of the observation missions, the TREP count was restarted 24 hours later. A new trend was unveiled, incorporating votes from more remote regions of the country.

The coup d’état in Bolivia has brought to light the double game of the OAS. It immediately announced, even before the final results were known, that the electoral process was not credible. The U.S. State Department was quick to assert that “the United States strongly supports the October 23 OAS observation report, which reveals a number of irregularities that need to be corrected. Thus it made clear to the “free world” what was the position of the world gendarme towards the Bolivian electoral process.

Evo Morales’ government then accepted his proposal to send an audit mission. But candidate Mesa rejected the OAS mission, fanning the flames. The coordinator of the OAS electoral audit even had to resign to give credibility to the report, as he was the author of a series of articles against the Morales government! Yet Evo accepted his replacement and pledged to make the result binding. Finally, the OAS audit’s preliminary communiqué on the electoral process arrived a week later, two days ahead of schedule. It was not surprising that it denounced irregularities. President Evo accepted new elections. But Mesa and Camacho rejected them. Despite President Evo’s announcement that he would respect the conclusions of the OAS report and allow new elections, the opposition followed its coup strategy. Its objective was precise: to force Evo out, to persecute masism and thus put an end to a collective historical subject.

Shortly before his resignation speech, Evo Morales acknowledged that the OAS had made “a political and not a technical report”. Having overcome another coup attempt shortly after becoming president in 2006, Evo’s government could have prepared for that eventuality. Wikileaks’ revelaton of confidential cables could have even helped anticipate the modus operandi. On August 21, 2009, Hillary Clinton asked her embassy in La Paz: how prepared is the opposition to use violence if necessary? Do you have any plans to counter security forces for defensive or offensive purposes? In another cable on September 10, 2009, Hillary insisted, “Do opposition leaders or groups plan to protest or demonstrate if they suspect election fraud? Do they have a plan to abstain from voting or attempt to commit fraud?

In contrast to the speed with which the OAS issued its first incendiary communiqué, the final report arrived with great delay almost a month later, on December 4. In response, a hundred international experts have demanded that “it withdraw misleading statements about the elections, which have contributed to the political conflict and have served as one of the ‘justifications’ most used to consummate the military coup”. Given this precedent, as well as recent examples of OAS interference in the cases of Nicaragua and Venezuela, it will be necessary for the people to draw their own conclusions. After the coup in Bolivia, what country will take the OAS seriously, enabling it to issue certificates of democracy?

Media war at its peak

Against the backdrop of a properly mediatized suspicion of fraud, violence took on increasing dimensions, although it was tolerated. After being singled out as government supporters, journalists and public service media workers were attacked, humiliated and prevented from working. The police seemed not to act after the opposition came to meet them and convinced them to join the coup. It was probably prepared in advance. The mutiny of police forces in Cochabamba and other departments was duly staged and mediatized by banners announcing “We don’t want dialogue, all together for democracy!” and others visualizing a rude caricature of President Evo hanging face up from his private parts. The psychological and media warfare reached its peak when fear seized masism, as the criminal attacks of the opposition counted on the passivity of the police forces and the army barracks. With their help, an authentic strategy of terror could be carried out: members of the government were threatened, kidnapped, their private homes burned with impunity, and they ended up resigning their positions under the pressure of reprisals against their families.

To the left, Cochabamba police riot greeted by civilians equipped with helmets, truncheons and artisanal rocket launchers (photo: France 24). To the right, children’s illustrations broadcast on social networks by the Cruceña Youth Union, aimed at disguising violence.

In those moments, with the betrayal of the security forces, the destiny of plurinational Bolivia was at stake. It was the event that tipped the balance in favor of a coup strategy conceived as a set of combined forces. An opposition whose sole purpose was to sabotage democracy. Its objective? Allowing once again the plundering of national wealth and preventing the industrial development of Bolivia from its significant reserves of lithium. The military command entered the scene: it “suggested” to President Morales that he resign the presidency for the good of the country. On November 10, Evo Morales was forced to resign in order to end the violence of the opposition and avoid a bloodbath. Significantly, the shock groups or motorcyclists went out to celebrate the arrival of what they consider democracy… many of them still hooded!

Once the coup was consummated, those same forces went out to repress without any qualms those who resisted, whom private sector media described as “mobs“, “vandals,” or “radicals. Contrary to the idea that one could get a “dictatorship” installed 14 years ago, the private press combined with the use of social networks played a crucial role in justifying the coup d’etat through a propaganda campaign in which the role of the victim and the aggressor was inverted and President Evo Morales demonized. In what tyrannical regime could the media have become so open and free on the side of coup sectors?

It’s time to call the facts by name. Neofascist groups played a decisive role in this real coup. A privileged place was reserved for them, favouring the organisation of armed militias acting in cooperation with the police forces. Groups like the Unión Juvenil Cruceñista, defined by the International Federation of Human Rights as a “fascist paramilitary group”. On November 25, its members occupied the headquarters of the Santa Cruz Federation of Peasant Workers’ Unions to burn their equipment and documentation. In Bolivia, the thugs and the military are now making their own rules. It is impossible to imagine in the current context any kind of “transition” without continuing the bloodshed.

Imputing the Massacres to the victims themselves

On Friday, November 15, a march of peasants from the 6 Federations of the Tropic of Cochabamba was on the Huayllani bridge, from Sacaba to Cochabamba. This strategic place of connection with the capital of the department was the object of an important security forces deployment to prevent the coca growers of the Chapare from entering the city. The result was a bloody massacre that resulted in 9 deaths and dozens of wounded. Through videos recorded by the peasants themselves, the excessive use of chemical weapons could be evidenced. In addition, several testimonies evidenced the use of military weapons used by soldiers from helicopters flying over the place. On the same day, Jeanine Añez had signed decree 4078 allowing the Armed Forces to use military weapons without further responsibility, with the aim of neutralizing the social movements in favor of Evo Morales. This document also specified that all public and private entities of the State should provide support to the Military Forces. The media and social networks inoculated in people’s minds the crazy idea that the marchers had shot each other to attract attention, and that the government’s repression was justified to “pacify the country” after the coup.

In Senkata, El Alto, a new massacre took place that the private sector media justified as a sort of “preventive attack,” using the idea that the demonstrators, presented as “terrorists,” would have sought to provoke an explosion of the gas plant that would have made the city of El Alto disappear.

De facto President Añez spared no resources in presenting the aggressor as a victim and vice versa: “we never thought of attacking, we were being attacked (…) from the Army (…) no bullets  were fired (…) There was information from experts telling us that if a flame ignites in Senkata, all of El Alto can fly. Those who conceived this trope reached the pinnacle in the art of propaganda. However, contrary to the lie repeated a thousand times that the army did not shoot “not a single bullet,” different testimonies affirm that the mortal victims were targeted from helicopters.

During its observation mission, the IACHR (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights), which is not suspected of bias in favor of Evo’s government, collected numerous testimonies of the Sacaba and Senkata massacres and denounced that currently there is “no guarantee of the independence of the judiciary” in Bolivia. In response, on December 6, the self-proclaimed president approved the “supreme decree 4100” with the aim of compensating the families of the 35 dead and hundreds injured by the repression she herself ordered. The price to buy their silence? 50,000 bolivianos, just over 7,000 dollars. A fully-fledged “blackmail” for the spokespersons of the victims, who have already announced their willingness to take the case to the United Nations. Immediately a group of spokespersons replied: “We don’t want your money, it’s blackmail”. The silence of the victims is not bought. The IACHR declared its concern at the decree, for including a clause that would make it impossible for victims to appeal to international bodies to claim their rights. This would represent a violation of the commitments undertaken when ratifying the Rome Statute, in particular the principle of non-applicability of statutory limitations in the matter of crimes against humanity.

Frenetic political-judicial persecution

The persecution, arbitrary detentions and death threats against those responsible for the dismissed government and their families are increasing day by day. The same pattern used to achieve the coup remains active until the dictatorship’s goal of ending all resistance to the coup is achieved. This is how anyone who can be used as a scapegoat to launder their crimes continues to be preventively detained.

In recent weeks, the Bolivian Ombudsman’s Office, which confines itself to carrying out an assessment of human rights and counting the victims, has been harassed and its workers were prevented from carrying out their work. Its representative in Cochabamba, Mr. Nelson Cox, questioned “the role played by the Attorney General’s Office and the Police with respect to the cordon and protests in the Ombudsman’s Office facilities, calling those bodies permissive in the face of acts of aggression. The mere existence of this organization is unacceptable to the coup plotters. Rabid at this small demonstration of resistance, the representatives of the de facto government incite their followers to attack the members of the Defensoría even in their private homes: “They have carried out explosions of firecrackers in my home, they have accused me of committing illicit acts, of drug traffickers, murderers, terrorists (…), they have made threats against my daughters and my family” – declared Mr. Cox.

Far from being satisfied with having seized power by force, the de facto government is aware that its legitimacy hangs by a thread. That is why the repression must take a prominent turn until the next elections are organised. Without delay, special anti-terrorist units were presented with great pomp, presumably announcing the next crimes that will go unpunished.

Without fear of ridicule, on December 6, the self-proclaimed president announced the creation of an “inter-institutional committee for the defense of victims for political and ideological reasons of the last 14 years”. Shortly before, Añez had congratulated the spokesman of the paramilitary gangs that terrorized the population in the decisive moments of the coup, acting with the complicity of the police and the army (house fires, lynchings, racist attacks, etc.).

And if it was still necessary to demonstrate the kind of people Añez considers victims, on the same day four miners were released who were convicted for the torture and murder of the deputy interior minister Rodolfo Illanes in August 2016.

On 11 November, the president and former vice-president of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), Maria Eugenia Choque and Antonio Costas, were arrested along with 34 members.

On November 27, Chuquisaca governor Esteban Urquizu was preventively detained for “leaving office” after he resigned on November 10.

On December 3, former Minister of Productive Development Susana Rivero Guzmán denounced “Death threats to my son, destruction of our small house in La Paz and a hostile climate of intimidation of the family. For that reason, she announced her willingness to “turn to international human rights protection bodies.

On December 4, Idelfonso Mamani, a former member of the TSE (Supreme Electoral Tribunal), was arrested. The accusation read: “it is presumed that the TSE assigned the printing of the electoral material to one printing press, however, the work was done by another”.

On December 6, the departure from the country of former Economy Minister Luis Arce Catacora was announced, who was able to benefit from the asylum offered by Mexico. On the same day, former Communication Minister Amanda Dávila was accused of using funds from the State Publishing House to print MAS campaign material. Dávila denounced having been the victim of a montage through a photo of the visit of Morales’ daughter.

This non-exhaustive list allows us to understand that what is underway is a frenetic political-judicial persecution against all members of previous Morales governments, casting a shadow of suspicion on the issue of corruption, in order to challenge and completely erase the memory of 13 years of the process of change in Bolivia, whose economic and social balance has been recognized worldwide, in particular by reducing extreme poverty by 23%.

Confession of crimes against humanity

Because the best defense is attack, “government minister” Murillo, who incited “hunting” members of the ousted government and tried to intimidate those who defended them, has made public his intention to bring Evo Morales before the International Criminal Court in The Hague “for crimes against humanity,” blaming him for the 35 deadly victims, even after his resignation and exile from the country. To endorse a president who has deposed the responsibility for the victims of a regime that has militarized the country and repressed protest is to show boldness without limits, or a way to convince himself of the impunity he believes he can count on after resuming full relations with the United States.

Murillo undoubtedly tries to use everything in his power to invest the victim and the aggressor. This is how he has tried to present Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera as a “confessed terrorist” and a “narco-guerrilla”, reactivating the imaginary vision of the Cold War dictatorships. He has also widely released an audiotape in which Morales is supposedly heard encouraging the blockade of cities in order for the population to resist the coup. Whether an authentic or false document, the preamble to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, clearly inspired by the French declaration of 1789, implicitly foresees the right to rebellion in situations marked by the absence of democratic and constitutional guarantees: “It is essential that human rights be protected by a rule of law, so that man is not compelled to the supreme recourse of rebellion against tyranny and oppression.”

In fact, the de facto government of Añez-Murillo was imposed by an army whose first mission has been to crush protest and teach the humble people of rural areas a lesson, depriving them of their right to vote and their participation in democratic life after centuries of exclusion. Its foreseeable function is to conceal and justify the current wave of repression. But the dignfied people of the Plurinational State of Bolivia carry on their backs an experience of centuries of resisting with iron determination the tyranny of colonialism and its successors. It is time to understand that disinformation campaigns are a global mechanism whose objective is to break the sovereignty of the peoples of the world and demolish the bridges of solidarity. The apostle of Cuban independence José Martí summed it up in an unbeatable way: “Nations that remain strangers must rush to know one another, like soldiers about to go into battle together (…)”

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Alex Anfruns.

Featured image is from OneWorld; all the other images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bolivia: The 21st Century Coup d’État and Its Crimes Against Humanity
  • Tags: ,

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has certainly opened up pandora’s box in Libya that is now difficult for him to close after he made a series of gross miscalculations and aggression against Greece. This has triggered a crisis all across the Eastern Mediterranean. With Libya in a state of war since the NATO-jihadist alliance removed and murdered long-time ruler Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, two prominent forces have emerged from the initial chaos, the Turkish-backed Government of National Accord in coalition with the Muslim Brotherhood who control the capital city of Tripoli, and the Libyan National Army (LNA) led by General Khalifa Haftar, who controls about 80% of the country and has the backing of the Libyan Parliament based in Tobruk. Alliances are beginning to form and play out as a proxy in Libya.

The Erdoğan-Tripoli deal to steal Greek maritime space to exploit gas and oil deposits has hit a major roadblock as hostilities continue to increase between Greece and Turkey. Not only has the U.S., Russia, the European Union and Israel denounced Turkey’s moves in the Eastern Mediterranean, Egypt, Italy and France have all categorically supported Greece’s position and have vowed to intervene to any Turkish aggression.

As part of the wider Eastern Mediterranean crisis, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said yesterday that Turkey is willing to use the military to steal oil and gas from Cyprus’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The comments come as today Cyprus, France and Italy will conduct the “CYP/FRA/IT 2019 naval exercise in the island’s EEZ,” demonstrating that Paris and Rome want a greater role and influence in the Eastern Mediterranean by cooperating with fellow EU states – Cyprus and Greece.  The U.S. is also aiming to capitalize on pressuring Turkey for its strengthening relations with Russia in recent times, with Congress likely to lift a 1987 arms embargo against Cyprus today, which was already approved by the Senate in the middle of the year.

Meanwhile, the Turkish-Greek border has been intensified. Although Turkey violates Greek airspace on a daily basis resulting in an equal number of Greek jets chasing off Turkish warplanes, Tuesday was especially intense as 38 Greek jets surrounded and chased off over 20 Turkish jets, with a Greek military source saying “we had fun.” This comes as Turkey announced it is willing to use military force against Greece to exploit oil and gas close to Greek islands. This resulted in a flurry of responses from the Greek government and military all announcing that they are not afraid to respond to any Turkish aggression.

Athens is also taking diplomatic and soft power steps to prevent Turkey from beginning a military confrontation with Greece. Athens has utilized the EU mechanisms to ensure backing against Turkish hostilities, with Ursula Von Der Leynen, the new President of the European Commission, saying on Monday:

“We are on your side [Greece], Turkey’s action in the Aegean is unacceptable, we will send a clear message to Turkey.”

Greece also took the step of expelling the GNA (Government of National Accord) Ambassador, prompting the way for the LNA to have European recognition as it is only openly backed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This expulsion of the GNA Ambassador saw the LNA’s Navy Chief Faraz al-Mahtawi state on Greek television that he will personally sink Turkish ships if they arrive in Libya after Erdoğan threatened to militarily intervene in the North African country.

And this is exactly where the Greek-Turkish battle will take place, through a proxy in Libya and not directly with each other. Mahtawi, a Philhellene who was trained at the Greek Naval School, engaged in race politics by saying in perfect Greek on television that Fayez el-Sarraj, the Prime Minister of the GNA, was “not a Libyan, but a Turk,” as his ancestry is Ottoman Turkish colonists to Libya, while he also expressed his hope for Greek support.

With Greece, Egypt and Cyprus in a military alliance, Athens is now expanding its military cooperation further. A move of particular strategic importance made by the Greek military leadership, was the signing of a memorandum of military cooperation between Greece and the UAE, which if we recall, is a key ally of Haftar and opposed to Turkey. This comes as reports are circulating that the UAE and Saudi Arabia are preparing an air operation in coordination with Haftar to defeat the GNA in Tripoli.

It also comes as Libyan Parliament representatives are arriving in Athens to hold discussions with the Greek government. If the Libyan representatives can convince Athens to recognize them, there is likely to be a domino effect of several EU states withdrawing their recognition of the GNA, isolating Turkey further who has not received any international support for the crisis it began in the Eastern Mediterranean. Even Russia, which has strengthened relations with Turkey to the annoyance of NATO, has continued its consistent policy of following international law, with Russian Ambassador Andrei Maslov to Greece saying on Wednesday that “the rules laid down by the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea should be fundamental. There are no alternatives.” This of course is problematic as Turkey is one of only 15 UN members, out of 193, that has not signed it.

Although Turkey claims it is enacting international law, it has not specified which one. This has created a crisis all over the Eastern Mediterranean that is likely to spill over into Libya as Haftar’s forces continue to advance on Tripoli. Although it is unlikely Greece and Turkey will go to war, we can expect a proxy to emerge between the two rival countries with the battlefield being Libya.

*

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 DefenseWorld.net

NATO Summit – and 2020 Planned Aggression

December 12th, 2019 by Peter Koenig

A recent article “NATO is Brain Dead described the obsolescence Of NATO and NATO’s defense mechanisms against non-existence enemies. Amazing – with pretense of protection and security in Europe and the world, against Russia and China and fighting against “terror” – as the endless war against endless terror fought by the same forces which create the endless terror – is a very lucrative absurdity.

Now we learn from the French Peace Movement which was present at the 70th Birthday at Buckingham, London – that the horrors of NATO planned for the coming year – and if not stopped – they will be sowing destruction way beyond – are even more horrific than originally imagined. We also lean that Macron – who coined the by now legendary phrase “NATO is Brain Dead” is intimately part of the new NATO deal, Macron, again has launched a “nasty boy” propaganda, while in reality embracing NATO wholeheartedly.

Where is Charles De Gaulle when the world needs him!

Please read below – and spread this message to friends and foes – so as to divulge another lie of one of our European leaders – and be sure that there is NO truth that can ever be expected from the west.

***

2019.12.11

Mouvement de la Paix / The Peace Movement

Communique

NATO Summit: an even more aggressive and increasingly expansionary military alliance

Contrary to the media preparation cleverly orchestrated by President Macron, the NATO summit held in London on December 5 and 6, 2019 has not led to a questioning of this military alliance dating back to the Cold War. , on the contrary.

After celebrating 70 years of NATO at Buckingham Palace, the Heads of State and Government unanimously adopted a final declaration stating that “terrorism in all its forms and manifestations … remains a persistent threat to us all “and that” Russia’s aggressive actions pose a threat to Euro-Atlantic security “and for the first time showcasing China’s rise as a” challenge “for NATO. Thus we want to justify the revival of the arms race, a new enlargement of NATO in the Balkans with this year the accession of North Macedonia after the accession of Montenegro in 2018 and the implementation of NATO Readiness Initiative (NRI) announced by Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General. From 2020, NATO will be able to mobilize 25,000 soldiers, 300 fighter planes and 30 combat ships from the different armies of the partner countries in less than 30 days.

The London summit is therefore very much part of the aggressive and expansionist strategy of the United States, as analyzed by the international counter-summit organized in London on November 30 by pacifist forces from all over the planet – including the Peace Movement and the French collective “No à l’OTAN”. NATO no longer has “North Atlantic” as the name, because we are witnessing a dangerous globalization of NATO present on all continents through defense agreements with many countries.

The decisions taken in London reveal Emmanuel Macron’s statements on NATO’s “brain death” for what they are: a smokescreen aimed at putting France back as a champion of accelerated military integration. European Union, presented as an act of autonomy vis-à-vis NATO while it perfectly meets the objectives of NATO to finance more military spending by the European countries themselves while building capacity military facing Russia presented as a threat.

In 2020, Europe will be the setting for the Defender 2020 maneuvers, the biggest maneuvers since the end of the Cold War, when troops from the United States will deploy to Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. to go to the borders of Russia, crossing Eastern Europe. These maneuvers will culminate in April-May 2020 and France will participate without questioning their provocation vis-à-vis Russia.

President Macron has undoubtedly succeeded in getting himself talked about before the summit and he has obtained that is indicated in the joint statement the opening of a group of “prospective reflection” on the strategy of the Atlantic Alliance; in fact, France will remain in NATO an unconditional ally of the strategies decided in Washington.

The pacifist counter-summit decided to intensify its actions in 2020 to denounce NATO as a factor of war and insecurity and to demand its dissolution, in favor of a security alternative that includes all the countries of the continent. European. The Defender 2020 maneuvers will be the occasion for the mobilization of public opinion against NATO, an instrument of war in the service of North American hegemony, in favor of a Europe of peace in a safer world.

***

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

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 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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NATO Summit – and 2020 Planned Aggression

A team of Deutsche Bank macro analysts led by Oliver Harvey has produced its latest note economic note about Brexit expounding on the bank’s near-to-medium-term view on the outlook for British markets.

The bulk of the note is an examination of how the Conservative policy manifesto stacks up against Labour, while also examining how each party’s platform might impact longstanding economic trends in Britannia, including weak productivity (since the crisis, the UK has exhibited the most tepid productivity performance of any major economy, according to the OECD’s data)…

…and a standard of living that hasn’t yet recovered to surpass its pre-crisis peak.

And let’s not forget about taxes. Labour hopes to hike the capital gains tax on investment income, while also raising the inheritance tax and several other levies.

Looking further down the road, DB’s team said they “find it difficult to be bullish sterling until more detail is provided on Brexit outcome.” Strategists are increasingly expressing trepidation about Boris Johnson’s insistence that the Conservatives won’t allow an extension of the next meaningful Brexit deadline (that is, the Dec. 31, 2020 deadline to finish trade-deal talks)

In the near term, the biggest risks are related to the outcome of Thursday’s vote. Conservatives are ahead in the polls, but it’s likely they won’t win an outright majority. So, the first question is what kind of coalition will they form? Two possible iterations are: an alliance with the DUP and/or Brexit Party, or a minority government with the support of the Liberal Democrats. In the event of the former we would be very negative on the pound and bullish UK rates.

Neither route is free of problems for the Tories. The DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) has been a persistent thorn in No. 10’s side since last summer, and both they and the Brexit Party have criticized Johnson’s deal. If they win enough seats, they could try to force Johnson to scrap the deal and push for another round of negotiations, which would probably infuriate both the EU27 and the British public. If the Conservatives end up partnering with the Lib Dems, they might need to commit to a second Brexit referendum in order to pass Johnson’s deal. In the short term, at least, this would present a more optimistic outlook for the pound and UK markets more broadly.

In terms of growth, a Conservative majority followed by implementation of the government’s Brexit deal in January could trigger a bounce in consumer sentiment, in turn lifting growth in the short term. It probably goes without saying, but however the Tories choose to handle the situation, the composition of the governing coalition will be of critical importance to markets.

For example, DB’s team believes business investment would rise if the government (presuming a Tory plurality) agrees to extend the Dec. 2020 deadline, thereby increasing the chances of a lasting trade deal that’s agreeable to both sides.

Polls have consistently shown Conservatives with a sizable lead. But as DB shows, there’s not much of a relationship between the percentage of the vote and number of seats won.

Still, Labour’s program of massive public spending hikes is attractive to the average Joe who is tired of austerity and eager for better broadband access.

Labour’s party manifesto is ambitious, and includes nationalizing the broadband arm of BT Group (formerly British Telecom) to bring free broadband to all of Britain before 2030. The manifesto also calls for much higher regional investment to help smooth out the stark economic inequalities between various regions.

Johnson’s Conservatives are way ahead in the polls. But as investors learned during the Brexit referendum, polls can’t always be trusted.

And anybody who agrees with DB’s long-term skepticism about the pound can probably pick up some OTM puts for a reasonable price.

*

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 intense diplomatic efforts undertaken by Presidents Putin and Zelensky finally yielded credible hope that peace might eventually return to Ukraine following their first-ever face-to-face meeting during this week’s Normandy Summit in Paris, but the greatest obstacle that both leaders will have to surmount is the subversive efforts of Trump’s ‘deep state’ foes to sabotage the peace process by Color Revolution means.

Prospects For Peace

This week’s Normandy Summit in Paris represented a tremendous step towards the long-sought goal of finally bringing a lasting peace to Ukraine after the latest diplomatic efforts undertaken by Presidents Putin and Zelensky during their first-ever face-to-face meeting. The two leaders reached an agreement alongside their French and German counterparts to continue with the so-called “Steinmeier formula” of holding OSCE-monitored elections in the rebel regions sometime next year in parallel with Ukraine enacting the constitutional reform mandated by the Minsk Accords in order to ultimately return control of the international border to Kiev. Chairman of the Duma Committee on International Affairs Leonid Slutskiy celebrated this development for “exceeding expectations” because it “unblocked and restarted the peace process”, while Merkel reportedly told President Putin right before their joint press conference that “today you are a winner.”

“Deep State” Dangers

While there’s still a lot of work that needs to be done by both Kiev and the rebels, the latest Normandy Summit proved that Zelensky is staying true to his word in sincerely trying to bring peace to his country after he and his party received an unprecedented mandate from the people during this year’s presidential and parliamentary elections to do so. It took a remarkable amount of political will to publicly reaffirm the Minsk Accords that his predecessor signed despite Poroshenko never having had any intention of abiding by them in hindsight, especially since Zelensky is increasingly forced to confront an ever-vocal hyper-nationalist “opposition” at home with a clear track record of violence and even coups. Undeterred, the Ukrainian leader even committed to exploring the possibility for another prisoner swap with Russia, a ceasefire in Donbas, and the pullback of his country’s military forces from the area of operations as goodwill gestures under the right conditions.

Left to their own without any external interference, there’s little doubt that peace would eventually return to Donbas, but the problem is that there are some powerful foreign forces that don’t want to see that happen, namely President Trump’s “deep state” foes who are obsessed with doing anything that they can to thwart his desired rapprochement with Russia by encouraging Ukraine to continue the failed civil war as a proxy conflict against Moscow’s national security interests which they hope would indefinitely perpetuate the New Cold War. Trump is already facing enormous pressure by the so-called “opposition” as a result of the manufactured Ukrainegate impeachment scandal, and with the Democrats about to enter the primary season early next year, it’s entirely conceivable that their “deep state” allies might try to provoke the breakdown of the Donbas peace process in order to compel the President into offering even more military aid to Ukraine so as to “save face” before the voters but ruin his chances for a meaningful rapprochement with Russia before the election in exchange.

The Significance Of President Putin’s Srebrenica Statement

The most realistic way in which this scheme could be advanced is through the leverage of their NGO, intelligence, and on-the-ground “agent” influence over that same hyper-nationalist “opposition” that was earlier described as becoming increasingly vocal in their condemnation of Zelensky’s peace efforts. Their narrative is that he’s “selling out the country” even though the end result of the peace process as agreed upon by all parties through the Minsk Accords would arguably result in the exact same victory that Kiev is aiming for, albeit in a responsibly phased fashion alongside some constitutional concessions for sustaining stability in the conflict-plagued southeastern region after the war officially ends. His opponents, however, want a Croatian-like “Operation Storm” ethnic cleansing of the Russian-affiliated people of Donbas in order to send a message to all of their “fellow” dissatisfied citizens that there will be a bloody price to pay if they ever dare to follow in their footsteps.

President Putin knows that the West will never recognize the worst ethnic cleansing in Europe since World War II so he instead sought to change his narrative tactics by warning about a second “Srebrenica” if Kiev jumps a few steps ahead of the peace process by demanding the return of its military forces to the international frontier before Donbas’ elections and the completion of the country’s subsequent constitutional reform. This statement, while intended to put additional pressure upon Ukraine by the comparatively responsible members of the West (such as Trump, Macron, and Merkel) to abide by its international commitments, caught Russia’s “brotherly” Serbs off guard since it strongly implied some measure of guilt on their part for the so-called “genocide” that they’ve been falsely accused of carrying out since 1995 but which was completely discredited by the research conducted by many independent experts such as Stefan Karganovic for example.

Whether a faux pas or a sign of something sinister such as the impending sell-out of Kosovo that some strongly suspect is in the cards, the point to focus on in this context is that President Putin’s rhetoric was intended to achieve the immediate effect of scaring the West using its own “genocide” mythology in order to counteract the pernicious influence of Trump’s “deep state” foes in possibly sabotaging the peace process. The means through which they could accomplish this mostly boil down to encouraging another Color Revolution, which could also serve the indirect purpose of putting pressure on oligarch Kolomoysky who allegedly wields enormous influence over Zelensky and also recently threatened to “switch sides” towards Russia after previously financing Neo-Nazi death squads. Accepting the likelihood of this asymmetrical threat, the question becomes one of whether the Ukrainian security services can be relied upon to remain loyal to their internationally recognized president or not, and if so, whether they can responsibly respond to a nascent Color Revolution without unwittingly worsening it.

Assessing The Threat

It’s difficult to answer these questions from afar, but one can reasonably speculate that the odds are in Zelensky’s favor. After all, the successful conclusion of the peace process would result in an incontestable victory for Kiev despite the constitutional concessions that it’ll have to undertake beforehand, something that all of its servicemen want to see happen even though some would prefer for it to be preceded by an ethnic cleansing without any constitutional concessions being made. Those hyper-nationalist and sometimes outright fascist forces are probably in the minority despite being so vocal and highly visibly in both the media and the streets that one would be forgiven for thinking otherwise since they would have already undermined the peace process before this point had they been in the majority or had the power to overturn the will of the aforesaid. They’re still a threat, but they can only succeed with their scheme through a Color Revolution, the viability of which depends on the “moderate majority” of the security forces’ response to any such incipent threat.

The use of disproportionate force against anti-state provocateurs who take advantage of mostly peaceful protesting crowds and/or the unprovoked use of force in the first place against the latter category of demonstrators could incite the public to spill out into the streets at a much larger scale than some of their members already threatened to do in order to pass the critical threshold whereby a Color Revolution could prospectively succeed. The Ukrainian security services aren’t known for their discipline so it’ll be difficult for them to deal with this scenario, though they might be able to handle it if they stay focused and are briefed by their superiors about the specific nature of the threat that they’re responding to which always attempts to tempt them into triggering a self-sustaining cycle of violence that eventually destabilizes the state and ultimately leads to either a regime change or unconventional (civil, terrorist, etc.) war. Their response to any impending Color Revolution will be the test that determines whether or not the peace process succeeds.

Concluding Thoughts

Ukraine has never been closer to peace since the civil war first began almost six years years ago, yet it still has a long way to go considering the rest of the steps that must first be undertaken (especially elections in Donbas and Kiev’s constitutional reform) and the intense efforts of Trump’s “deep state” foes to thwart this by proxy via the influence that they wield over the country’s Color Revolution-prone hyper-nationalist “opposition”. If Kiev and the rebels succeed in carrying out the mutual concessions mandated by the Minsk Accords, then Ukraine will finally be reunited, with any malcontents in the southeast being able to simply move to Russia by taking advantage of the passport program that began earlier this year which the author correctly predicted was intended to facilitate their migration eastward instead of legally enabling their region’s incorporation into Russia like many “wishfully” speculated at the time. Looking forward, there’s certainly a reason for observers to be hopeful about the prospects for peace, though they also shouldn’t get their hopes unrealistically high either.

*

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.

Today the Washington Post published a bombshell report titled “The Afghanistan Papers,” highlighting the degree to which the American government lied to the public about the ongoing status of the war in Afghanistan. Within the thousands of pages, consisting of internal documents, interviews, and other never-before-released intel, is a vivid depiction of a Pentagon painfully aware of the need to keep from the public the true state of the conflict and the doubts, confusion, and desperation of decision-makers spanning almost 20 years of battle.

As the report states:

The interviews, through an extensive array of voices, bring into sharp relief the core failings of the war that war is inseparable from propaganda, lies, hatred, impoverishment, cultural degradation, and moral corruption. It is the most horrific outcome of the moral and political legitimacy people are taught to grant the state. persist to this day. They underscore how three presidents — George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump — and their military commanders have been unable to deliver on their promises to prevail in Afghanistan.

With most speaking on the assumption that their remarks would not become public, U.S. officials acknowledged that their warfighting strategies were fatally flawed and that Washington wasted enormous sums of money trying to remake Afghanistan into a modern nation….

The documents also contradict a long chorus of public statements from U.S. presidents, military commanders and diplomats who assured Americans year after year that they were making progress in Afghanistan and the war was worth fighting.

None of these conclusions surprise anyone that has been following America’s fool’s errand in Afghanistan.

What makes this release noteworthy is the degree to which it shows the lengths to which Washington to knowingly deceive the public about the state of the conflict. This deception extends even to the federal government’s accounting practices. Notes the report, the “U.S. government has not carried out a comprehensive accounting of how much it has spent on the war in Afghanistan.”

As the war has dragged on, the struggle to justify America’s military presence. As the report notes:

A person identified only as a senior National Security Council official said there was constant pressure from the Obama White House and Pentagon to produce figures to show the troop surge of 2009 to 2011 was working, despite hard evidence to the contrary.

“It was impossible to create good metrics. We tried using troop numbers trained, violence levels, control of territory and none of it painted an accurate picture,” the senior NSC official told government interviewers in 2016. “The metrics were always manipulated for the duration of the war.

Making Washington’s failure in Afghanistan all the more horrific is how easily predictable it was for those who desired to see the warfare state for what it is.

In the words of Lew Rockwell, in reflecting on the anti-war legacy of Murray Rothbard:

War is inseparable from propaganda, lies, hatred, impoverishment, cultural degradation, and moral corruption. It is the most horrific outcome of the moral and political legitimacy people are taught to grant the state.

On this note, it is important to note that the significance of the Washington Post’s report should not distract from another major story that has largely been ignored by mainstream news outlets.

Recently, multiple inspectors with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons have come forward claiming that relevant evidence related to their analysis of the reported 2017 chemical gas attack in Syria. As Counterpunch.org has reported:

Assessing the damage to the cylinder casings and to the roofs, the inspectors considered the hypothesis that the cylinders had been dropped from Syrian government helicopters, as the rebels claimed. All but one member of the team concurred with Henderson in concluding that there was a higher probability that the cylinders had been placed manually. Henderson did not go so far as to suggest that opposition activists on the ground had staged the incident, but this inference could be drawn. Nevertheless Henderson’s findings were not mentioned in the published OPCW report.

The staging scenario has long been promoted by the Syrian government and its Russian protectors, though without producing evidence. By contrast Henderson and the new whistleblower appear to be completely non-political scientists who worked for the OPCW for many years and would not have been sent to Douma if they had strong political views. They feel dismayed that professional conclusions have been set aside so as to favour the agenda of certain states.

At the time, those who dared question the official narrative about the attack – including Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Rep. Thomas Massie, and Fox News’s Tucker Carlson – were derided for being conspiracy theorists by many of the same Serious People who not only bought the Pentagon’s lies about Afghanistan but also the justifications for the Iraq War.

Once again we are reminded of the wise words of George Orwell, “truth is treason in an empire of lies.”

These attacks promoted as justification for America to escalate its military engagement in the country, with the beltway consensus lobbying President Trump to reverse his administration’s policy of pivoting away from the Obama-era mission of toppling the Assad regime. While Trump did respond with a limited missile attack, the administration rejected the more militant proposals promoted by some of its more hawkish voices, such as then-UN Ambassador Nikki Haley.

In a better timeline, the ability of someone like Rep. Gabbard to see through what increasingly looks like another attempt to lie America into war would warrant increased support in her ongoing presidential campaign.

Instead, we are likely to continue to see those that advocate peace attacked by the bipartisan consensus that provides cover for continued, reckless military action abroad.

*

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.

On December 3rd, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced that NATO must address the “security implications” of China’s rise as a “military power”, and in true Orwellian doublespeak, insisted that he did not want to make an adversary out of Beijing but rather was interested in analysing how best to respond to the challengesChina poses in a balanced way…by announcing it a ‘security threat’.

What are these challenges? That China now has the second largest defense budget in the world and has modern capabilities such as long-range missiles that can reach the whole of Europe and the U.S. This alone is apparently enough cause for Stoltenberg to announce publicly that NATO must address this as a challenge to western ‘security’ rather than actually engaging in diplomatic talks with China in order to resolve their concern in the matter like civilised people do. Let’s not forget that the American navy has been actively expanding their presence around China for several years now, yet despite this transparent hostility, it is China who is deemed a ‘security threat’ for having a competent defense budget.

But we know this is not the whole story.

Of course no bully likes it when their victim suddenly learns the art of self-defense, and who would be more paranoid of aggression than those who have been practising it for years on others only to increasingly find the tables turned.

This western paranoia of the communist boogeyman has its roots in Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech which ushered in the Cold War.

Last month was the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and along with its celebration the continuation of a false narrative, not only as to what had instigated the Cold War, but more importantly what the world was promised and ultimately denied when they were told that the Cold War was supposedly finally over.

In a recently published paper, On Churchill’s ‘Sinews of Peace’, I went over the drastic shift in geopolitics that occurred with the passing of Franklin D. Roosevelt who had upheld, along with his vice-president Henry Wallace, an anti-colonial post-WW II vision known as “The Century of the Common Man”. Churchill was very much dependant on American support to destroy the Frankenstein monster that the Bank of England had helped fund into significance and though Churchill loathed FDR’s vision, he was not in a position where he could outright resist it and instead found himself needing to make large compromises and often, most likely with the thought that this would all be temporary…and so it was.

Upon the death of FDR in 1945, the Iron Curtain speech shortly after created an oppressive division throughout the world, the effects of which we are still reeling from.

The Cold War division

Germany was officially divided according to this map by the Soviet Union, the UK, USA and France from 1945 to 1949. This was done to ensure that Germany would not attempt any further military action after WWII. It was Churchill’s Iron Curtain announcement in 1946 that turned the USSR into the free world’s public enemy #1, without any specific reason as to what the Soviets had done to warrant this declaration of the ‘Cold War’ division. This split with the Soviets was formalised in May 1949 when the British, French and American zones were joined to form the Federal Republic of Germany. The Soviets had no choice but to form a separate German republic in October 1949; the German Democratic Republic.

Despite these two German republics being set up, the British, French and American militaries would remain in West Germany until May 5, 1955, and ended their nearly 10 year occupation only after West Germany had joined NATO in 1954. Under these terms, West Germany would be allowed to establish a military force of up to half-million men and resume the manufacture of arms. The end of the Allied occupation of West Germany meant a full recognition of the republic as a member of the western alliance against the Soviet Union.

It should be evident that such manoeuvres were a clear show towards the USSR of not only a hostile stance but an ever increasing aggressive military doctrine that was preparing for a war.

Although West Germany was given ‘independence’ on a short leash, Allied presence never left West Berlin up until at least 1990. Berlin, as the capitol of Germany, held great strategic significance and became a form of battleground in intelligence gathering and espionage. Berlin had been split in two after WWII, and the Allied occupied West Berlin not only became a symbol of ‘freedom’ in response to the ‘tyranny’ of the Soviets, but was an important stronghold to keep in the Cold War, since it was in the middle of Soviet-held territory.

The blockade of roads and rail lines into West Germany by the Soviets in 1948-1949 and the later building of the Berlin Wall in 1961 were terrible decisions made by the USSR but should be measured in the context that such reactions were primarily instigated by an escalating western military aggression against them.

West Berlin would be surrounded by a wall that stretched out to 140 km, was 11.8 ft high, was for the most part electrified and had over 116 watchtowers and over 14, 000 guards and dogs. It would divide Berlin for 28 years.

This was indeed a very terrible period not only for those in Berlin but for much of the world. The Cold War thinking had allowed for the justification of the Spanish Inquisition-like Red Scare that occurred in the United States and elsewhere, where Americans who refused to follow the very narrow line of what was deemed acceptable thoughts and opinions in the free world newspeak could at any point in time face a judicial inquisition on them, akin to having committed a thoughtcrime.

Schools and workplaces were put through drills on a regular basis of how to react if the Soviets were to launch a nuclear bomb against America. Such tactics were used to put the American people in an ongoing fear state and thus quickly, the former allies who had by far the largest death toll in WWII in their essential role in combating fascism, were turned into a terrifying race of boogeymen with seemingly no sense of ‘humanity’ or ‘morality’.

As a quick side note, I want to bring attention to Elbe Day April 25, 1945, which marked the day when the American and Soviet forces met for the first time near the end of the war. There was a very strong comradery that occurred, and these men would become forever united since they experienced together the brutality and hardship of a hard won war.

It is also important to note that the Russians and Americans never had any historical conflict with each other at this point. In fact, Russia’s navy would place itself along both east and west coastlines of the United States during its Civil War to protect Lincoln’s Union from foreign intervention- that is, from Britain and France. The Russian navy were treated as heroes during their seven month stay in the US

Therefore, American and Russian soldiers had always been comrades in arms up until the point of the Iron Curtain speech by Churchill, upon which a division would be forcefully imposed between the two.

China’s invisible role

China’s involvement in both WWI and WWII is too often forgotten today. What is also forgotten is that the Iron Curtain was also directed against their country, and the level of extreme betrayal that occurred against them was on par with that suffered by the Soviet Union. Recall that under FDR’s post-war vision, both Russia and China were intended to be equal partners alongside the USA and Britain in shaping a multi-polar world order.

When WWI had started, China offered their support militarily to the cause of the Allies. Japan had already become a member of the Allied force and it was recognised that their relationship with China was not on ‘friendly’ terms, especially since the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895. China’s loss in this war allowed for a series of treatises that divided chunks of China amongst several nations. One particular region that China very much wanted back was Shandong, which was considered sacred land for the Chinese people since it was not only Confucius’ birthplace but also home to the ancient state of Qin, the last kingdom conquered by Qin Shi Huang, who proclaimed himself China’s first emperor in 219 B.C. Japan was at the time in possession of this region.

Japan was asked whether China could be ‘permitted’ to contribute military support for the Allied cause, to which Japan refused since this would give China a more equal footing with its relations to the West. Despite this refusal, China offered to support the Allies as laborers. Starting in 1916, China began shipping thousands of men to Britain, France and Russia who would work to repair tanks, assemble shells, transport supplies and munitions. Since China was officially neutral, commercial businesses were formed to provide the labor.

After a year of supplying labor, the Chinese contribution remained largely unrecognised diplomatically. By the end of the war, Chinese workers would rank as the largest and longest-serving non-European contingent in WWI.

By the end of the war, western powers ultimately awarded the Shandong territory to Japan in the Treaty of Versailles. China was understandably upset and refused to sign the treaty. The Versailles Treaty became a clear sign to the Chinese that they could not trust the European nations to support China’s welfare and that China would have to look elsewhere for support moving forward. [America did eventually intervene on this decision and awarded the territory to China in 1922.]

Another blow would be China’s earning of only two seats at the Paris Peace Conference, relative to Japan’s five seats, the reason why China had fewer seats was because they did not play a military role in the war- a role they were forbidden to play.

When WWII started and Japan had taken the side of fascism, China contributed its military forces on the side of the Allies. China had the second highest death toll in WWII after the Soviet Union. However, if you look more closely at the graph depicted above, the number of civilian deaths is much higher than military deaths (by about 12 million). This is because the Japanese fascists committed genocide on the Chinese people. The most notorious being the Nanking massacre which not only had a gruesomely large death toll but became infamous for its horrific torture and mass rape on the Chinese people. During this ethnic cleanse by the Japanese fascists throughout the entire WWII (which overlapped the second Sino-Japanese war), mass graves were dug out and millions of Chinese people would be told to step inside before they were shot to death. The Jewish holocaust is recognised as one of the worst crimes against humanity in recent history. However, not much is given to the memory of the mass genocide that was committed on the Chinese people during the same period.

Despite their great sacrifices, both the USSR and China would be labeled less than a year after the war as the new face of anarchy and barbarism, not by their actions but simply because Churchill and the British Empire had decided it so.

The empty promises of a post-Cold War world

On November 9th, 1989 the Berlin Wall fell and the end of the Cold War quickly followed… or at least this is what we are told.

The USSR agreed to the destruction of the Berlin Wall specifically on the basis that the western powers would agree to dismantle the war drive and that NATO would cease to expand its military bases any further. Many of the terms of these agreements were outlined in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. However, this treaty that promised the dissolution of the Cold War paradigm was ultimately breached by NATO, with Russia suspending its participation in 2007 and in 2015 ultimately removing its participation in the treaty since NATO had no intention to honor it. Since the supposed end of the Cold War, NATO has only continued its expansion, increasing tension towards an ultimate conflict with Russia.

In 2007, President Putin gave a now famous speech at the Munich Security Conference. In this speech he discussed the fallacy of a unipolar world order envisioned by NATO and that there can only exist a multipolar world at this stage in history:

This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.”

Where are we now?

We need to grow up, and grow up fast. We cannot afford to be led by childish stories of the boogeyman and be governed by fear so easily any longer.

It is time we, the West, recognise our faults and hypocrisy. The western hegemony over the world is coming to an end and we should be happy for our brothers and sisters who have a renewed hope for a better life, largely from the New Silk Road. We have no place to condemn their rise as a threat to western stability. Western powers have been guilty of breaching trust with the Russians and Chinese time after time. We need to correct this monstrous inability to be able to trust and love those outside the western sphere. These cultures, some which may have been considered by us backwards not that long ago, have grown and cultivated themselves such that we today look very small next to them. We have become the backwards culture. We have become the barbaric culture that only knows war and is a disbeliever in peace. We who are privileged enough to never have experienced war in our homelands for almost a century, are the ones who condone it as necessary on others. What an ugly belief this is. It is time the West, and its people, have the humility to admit that they have something to learn from the rest of the world. Only then can there be a true dialogue amongst civilisations towards the common goal of 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.

Cynthia Chung is a lecturer, writer and co-founder and editor of the Rising Tide Foundation (Montreal, Canada).

All images in this article are from SCF except the featured image

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NATO Secretary General Targets ‘Rising China’: Why Cold War Newspeak Never Went Away
  • Tags: , ,

It has been termed the ‘Brexit’ election, but in fact what is arguably the most important election of our lifetime has opened a can of worms when it comes to exposing the ails in our society. Not that the Conservative party have wanted to discourse to be about anything other than Brexit, of course. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s motto of ‘Get Brexit Done’ is all we hear in his soundbites, as he continues to insist this is the one issue of interest to voters. He struggles to deal with any other domestic topic, be it education, welfare or health. This was made clear just the other day when he randomly confiscated a journalist’s phone when confronted with the photograph of a young boy, forced to lie on the floor of a Leeds hospital due to a shortage of beds, much to the perplexity of viewers. It was obviously a gut reaction, an act of desperation by a politician devoid of empathy and unable to relate to others in need, and one which demonstrates sheer irritation that someone is daring to ask him such ‘awkward’ questions.

But for those voting for the Labour party on Thursday, this action is indicative of the callousness and detachment of the current ruling party, and symbolic of why it is that we urgently need a change of government. Almost a decade of the Conservatives in power, and the impact on the lives of many Brits has been catastrophic. Austerity, cuts to the welfare budget, police officers taken off the streets, lack of investment in the NHS has led to some shocking statistics. For example, just this year the UN released a damning report which concluded that 1 in 5 children were living in poverty in the UK. But moreover, they linked it directly to government policy, stating that the UK’s social safety net had been “deliberately removed and replaced with a harsh and uncaring ethos”.  It is abhorrent to think that from being deemed ‘necessary’, these cuts referred to as ‘ideological’ by the UN special rapporteur. In fact he went as far to suggest Britain was being deliberately being transformed into the unequal society of the Victorian era: “Some observers might conclude that the DWP had been tasked with “designing a digital and sanitised version of the 19th Century workhouse, made infamous by Charles Dickens”, he said.

And yet, in England at least, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s message of equality, higher wages, raising taxes for the super rich, more money for the NHS, and the nationalisation of public services, does not seem to be getting through. Boris Johnson is still leading in the polls, as people still express support for his pro-Brexit stance. In Scotland it has long been a different story. The Scottish National Party has won elections north of the border for years now, and the strong Remain stance up north means that the Tories are unlikely to gain a significant proportion of the vote. Labour has little support in Scotland also, arguably because their policies are too similar to those of the SNP and their politicians less inspiring. The SNP are blessed with an array of competent, eloquent MPs and MSPs who continue to gain the confidence of Scottish voters. And the emphasis of the Scottish government not just on remaining in the EU, and on Scottish independence, but on welfare, has proved a winning combination for Nicola Sturgeon, and is likely to continue to be.

So as Scotland is forecast to be bathed in a sea of yellow once again this Friday on the political voting map, the rest of the country looks set to be a tricolour of blue, yellow and red, representing a hung parliament. And where does this leave Brexit, one may ask? Well it could very well be what every Brexiteer has dreamt of.  If the Conservatives get the highest percentage, but not enough for a majority in Westminster, it is not too far-fetched to imagine a scenario whereby the Conservatives join forces with Nigel Farage’s Brexit party. Then together they would proceed to ‘Get Brexit Done’ either with a No Deal Brexit or with Johnson’s negotiated withdrawal agreement. A dream scenario for the Brexiteers perhaps, but for the rest of the country, a nightmare. An uncertain future for Britain lies ahead…

*

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.

Former presidents, ministers, members of parliament, trade unionists, and political leaders from four continents sign an open letter explaining why the world needs a Labour government.

***

We, the undersigned, express our solidarity with the Labour Party for today’s election in the United Kingdom.

After a decade of austerity, the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister would send a message of hope across the world that a future of social justice is possible. A Labour victory would be an inspiration to millions fighting for a future beyond neoliberalism – one in which the interests of ordinary people could be advanced, our social fabrics restored and the domination of an economic elite over our democracies brought to an end.

Faced with the rising tide of the far-right in many countries, the need for progressive governments with transformative social agendas has never been greater. Electing Labour under Jeremy Corbyn would be a step in the right direction – helping to contribute to a new era of internationalism, peace and diplomacy, which challenges reactionary politics with a spirit of co-operation.

It is also increasingly clear that we are running out of time to tackle the climate crisis. A Labour government, with a commitment to a Green New Deal and radical action to bring about carbon neutrality, would be a watershed in the battle to save our planet and particularly its poorest people from the consequences of ecological breakdown.

We wish the Labour Party the best in this election, and hope it can be the start of building not just a better Britain – but a world for the many, not the few.

Signed,

Dilma Rousseff, former president of Brazil, Workers’ Party

Yanis Varoufakis, MP, leader, MeRA 25 (Greece)
Srećko Horvat, co-founder, DiEM 25
David Adler, policy director, DiEM 25

Rafael Correa, former president of Ecuador, Acuerdo Nacional
Guillaume Long, former Foreign Minister of Ecuador, Acuerdo Nacional

Pablo Iglesias, MP, leader, Podemos (Spain)
Miguel Urban, MEP, Podemos
Idoia Villanueva Ruiz, MEP, international spokesperson, Podemos
Juan Carlos Monedero, founder, Podemos

Íñigo Errejón, leader, Más País (Spain)

Noam Chomsky, academic
Leo Panitch, academic
Gar Alperovitz, co-founder, Democracy Collaborative
Erik Sperling, executive director, Just Foreign Policy

Andrew Feinstein, former minister, African National Congress (South Africa)
Ronnie Kasrils, former minister, African National Congress (South Africa)

Cansel Kiziltepe, MP, Social Democratic Party (Germany)

Bernd Reixinger, co-chair, Die Linke (Germany)
Jörg Schindler, general secretary, Die Linke (Germany)
Fabio de Masi, MP, Die Linke (Germany)
Martin Schirdewan, MEP, Die Linke (Germany)

Sabine Schatz, MP, Social Democratic Party (Austria)
Eva-Maria Holzleitner, MP, Social Democratic Party (Austria)

Matthew Green, MP, New Democratic Party (Canada)
Andrew Jackson, former chief economist, Canadian Labor Congress

Marisa Matias, MEP, Bloco de Esquerda (Portugal)
Ivan Goncalves, former MP, Socialist Party (Portugal)

Francesco Laforgia, Senator, La Sinistra (Italy)

Pernille Skipper, MP, leader of the Danish Red-Greens
Nikolaj Villumsen, MEP, Danish Red-Greens

Audun Lysbakken, MP, leader, Socialist Left (Norway)
Bjørnar Moxnes, MP, leader, Red Party (Norway)
Torstein Solberg, MP, Labour Party (Norway)

Li Andersson, MP, chairperson, Finnish Left Alliance

Jonas Sjöstedt, MP, leader, Swedish Left Party
Ali Esbati, Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez, Ciczie Weidby, Jessica Wetterling, Elin Segerlind, Håkan Svenneling, Tony Haddou, Ulla Andersson, MPs, Swedish Left Party

Luka Mesec, MP, leader, Slovenian Left Party
Matej Tasner Vatovec, MP, Slovenian Left Party

Sara Nelson, international president, Association of Flight Attendants (USA)
Teferi Gebre, executive vice-president, AFL-CIO (USA)
Jesse Sharkey, president, Chicago Teachers Union (USA)
Bob Master, policy director (district one), Communication Workers of America
Andrew Porter, organiser, National Nurses United (USA)
Ryan Kekeris, organiser, International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (USA)

Maurice Mitchell, national director, Working Families Party (USA)
Alan Minsky, executive director, Progressive Democrats of America
Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, alderman, Chicago 35th, Democratic Socialists of America
Rossana Rodriguez-Sanchez, alderman, Chicago 33rd, Democratic Socialists of America
Mike Sylvester, Maine congressman, Democratic Socialists of America
Bhaskar Sunkara, publisher, Jacobin Magazine

Circe Camacho, Mexican Labour Party

Lara Merling, research officer, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)

Joan Collins, MP, Independents 4 Change (Ireland)

*

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.

For the past 30 years, no matter which party has been in power, the US economy has produced more and more “bad” jobs – because the Race to the Bottom is ruling class policy.

“Whole sectors have become precarity zones.”

A Brookings Institution study  shows 44 percent of all American workers toil in “low-wage” jobs, with median earnings of $18,000 a year. Most of them are adults in their prime working years, whose paychecks provide the main sustenance for their families, 20 percent of which live at below 150 percent of the poverty line. Blacks and Latinos are overrepresented  in low-paid employment, but more than half of these bad jobs are held by whites.

The corporate consensus, shared by its monopolized media, is that the economy is booming – which only confirms that the Race to the Bottom is ruling class policy, no matter how much the “liberals” at places like Brookings bemoan the hardships inflicted on the working poor.

Working class precarity is built into the system, by design. Another study, measuring the Job Quality Index , shows that the proliferation of low-paid work isn’t a hangover from the 2008 meltdown, but a characteristic of late stage capitalism. “In 1990, the jobs were pretty much evenly divided” said one of the creators of the index. “We discovered that 63% of all jobs that were created since 1990 were low-wage, low-hour jobs.” The data show the Race to the Bottom has accelerated for U.S. workers under both Republican and Democratic administrations:  the elder and younger Bushes, Clinton, Obama, and now Trump, who is running for re-election on the strength of the economy.

Precarity is built into the system.”

The duopoly system is a magnificent mechanism of corporate rule and working class ruin. When only corporate parties are permitted to govern, and corporate mouthpieces monopolize the media, capitalist-inflicted misery is made to seem natural and inevitable. The highly-educated researchers at Brookings can imagine only one way out of the downward spiral for those localities where bad jobs are the norm: “attract and grow more high-wage jobs by drawing new companies in and helping existing companies grow and increase their productivity.” In other words, more capitalism, of the more socially-conscious kind. But clearly, the stock market favors precarity capitalism, which it rewards with high returns, and punishes capitalists that don’t immiserate their employees or farm them out to low-wage contractors.

Low-wage labor mixes uneasily with higher-paid employment in the so-called success-story cities, as well. According to Brookings, bad jobs number “nearly one million in the Washington, D.C. region, 700,000 each in Boston and San Francisco, and 560,000 in Seattle. Addressing the challenge of low wages combined with high housing prices is a key issue in these places.”

Brookings concedes that education isn’t the answer. “There simply are not enough jobs paying decent wages for people without college degrees (who make up the majority of the labor force) to escape low-wage work,” say the researchers. Lots of low-paid workers already have degrees. “Fourteen percent have a bachelor’s degree and an additional 8% have an associate degree,” according to the study.

Whole sectors have become precarity zones, where 75 percent or more of the workers earn low wages: “These include retail sales workers, cooks and food preparation workers, building cleaning workers, food and beverage serving workers, and personal care and service workers (such as child care workers and patient care assistants),” the latter being mostly female and heavily Black and brown.

“The stock market favors precarity capitalism, which it rewards with high returns.”

The Brookings think-tankers are not permitted to think outside the tank. But they are required to make broad statements of good societal intentions. “The goal of economic development should be to support growth that is shared and enduring, increase the productivity of firms and workers, and raise standards of living for all,” said the Brookings Institute’s Amy Liu. But of course, that would mean forcing capitalists to restructure their practices for the common good, or – the truly unthinkable! – putting the economy in the hands of the workers that create the wealth, while ensuring that everyone that wants work, has it.

The proposition is quite simple, but unmentionable in the thought-free bubble imposed by monopoly media and rigged search engine algorithms. Therefore, the capitalist narrative always ends with a question mark for the hobbled intelligentsia employed to rationalize the social hell created by their think-tank funders. “’Where will the good jobs come from?’ is perhaps the defining question of our contemporary political economy,” the Brookings researchers write – and then leave it at that, having no answer that the Lords of Capital would approve.

The Race to the Bottom fuels consolidation of wealth and power at the Top. Socialism is the only answer, a socialism rooted in the self-determination of all the peoples subjugated by capitalism since its emergence in colonialism and slavery – half a millennium of unrelenting, merciless, genocidal theft of land, labor and peoplehood.  The “democratic” nature of this socialism lies not in ballots supervised by capitalist ruling class servants, but in the mass movement to dethrone the thieves that claim to “own” the world’s resources – a class so numerically tiny that we know the top guys’ names, starting with Bezos. Any thoroughgoing redistribution, no matter how chaotic, would be more “democratic” than the current oligarchy, and nothing could be more irrational.

The rules and definition of democracy will be decided by people in motion in the process of building a new world.

*

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

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected]

Featured image is from BAR

The Art of Doublespeak: Bellingcat and Mind Control

December 12th, 2019 by Edward Curtin

In the 1920s, the influential American intellectual Walter Lippman argued that the average person was incapable of seeing or understanding the world clearly and needed to be guided by experts behind the social curtain.  In a number of books he laid out the theoretical foundations for the practical work of Edward Bernays, who developed “public relations” (aka propaganda) to carry out this task for the ruling elites.  Bernays had honed his skills while working as a propagandist for the United States during World War I, and after the war he set himself up as a public relations counselor in New York City. 

There is a fascinating exchange at the beginning of Adam Curtis’s documentary, The Century of Self, where Bernays, then nearly 100 years old but still very sharp, reveals his manipulative mindset and that of so many of those who have followed in his wake.  He says the reason he couldn’t call his new business “propaganda” was because the Germans had given propaganda a “bad name,” and so he came up with the euphemism “public relations.”  He then adds that “if you could use it [i.e. propaganda] for war, you certainly could use it for peace.”  Of course, he never used PR for peace but just to manipulate public opinion (he helped engineer the CIA coup against the democratically elected Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954 with fake news broadcasts).  He says “the Germans gave propaganda a bad name,” not Bernays and the United States with their vast campaign of lies, mainly aimed at the American people to get their support for going to a war they opposed (think weapons of mass destruction).  He sounds proud of his war propaganda work that resounded to his credit since it led to support for the “war to end all wars” and subsequently to a hit movie about WWI, Yankee Doodle Dandy, made in 1942 to promote another war, since the first one somehow didn’t achieve its lofty goal.

As Bernays has said, “The American motion picture is the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda in the world today.”

He was a propagandist to the end.  I suspect most viewers of the film are taken in by these softly spoken words of an old man sipping a glass of wine at a dinner table with a woman who is asking him questions. I have shown this film to hundreds of students and none has noticed his legerdemain.  It is an example of the sort of hocus-pocus I will be getting to shortly, the sly insertion into seemingly liberal or matter-of-fact commentary of statements that imply a different story.  The placement of convincing or confusing disingenuous ingredients into a truth sandwich – for Bernays knew that the bread of truth is essential to conceal untruth.

In the following years, Bernays, Lippman, and their ilk were joined by social “scientists,” psychologists, and sundry others intent on making a sham out of the idea of democracy by developing strategies and techniques for the engineering of social consensus consonant with the wishes of the ruling classes.  Their techniques of propaganda developed exponentially with the development of technology, the creation of the CIA, its infiltration of all the major media, and that agency’s courting of what the CIA official Cord Meyer called in the 1950s “the compatible left,” having already had the right in its pocket. Today most people are, as is said, “wired,” and they get their information from the electronic media that is mostly controlled by giant corporations in cahoots with government propagandists.  Ask yourself: Has the power of the oligarchic, permanent warfare state with its propaganda and spy networks increased or decreased over your lifetime. The answer is obvious: the average people that Lippman and Bernays trashed are losing and the ruling elites are winning.

This is not just because powerful propagandists are good at controlling so-called “average” people’s thinking, but, perhaps more importantly, because they are also adept – probably more so – at confusing or directing the thinking of those who consider themselves above average, those who still might read a book or two or have the concentration to read multiple articles that offer different perspectives on a topic.  This is what some call the professional and intellectual classes, perhaps 15-20 % of the population, most of whom are not the ruling elites but their employees and sometimes their mouthpieces.  It is this segment of the population that considers itself “informed,” but the information they imbibe is often sprinkled with bits of misdirection, both intentional and not, that beclouds their understanding of important public matters but leaves them with the false impression that they are in the know.

Recently I have noticed a group of interconnected examples of how this group of the population that exerts influence incommensurate with their numbers has contributed to the blurring of lines between fact and fiction. Within this group there are opinion makers who are often journalists, writers, and cultural producers of some sort or other, and then the larger number of the intellectual or schooled class who follow their opinions. This second group then passes on their received opinions to those who look up to them.

Image result for bellingcat"

There is a notorious propaganda outfit called Bellingcat, started by an Englishman named Eliot Higgins, that has been funded by The Atlantic Council, a think-tank with deep ties to the U.S. government, NATO, war manufacturers, and their allies, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), another infamous U.S. front organization heavily involved in so-called color revolution regime change operations all around the world, that has just won the International Emmy Award for best documentary.

The film with the Orwellian title, Bellingcat: Truth in a Post-Truth World, received its Emmy at a recent ceremony in New York City.  Bellingcat is an alleged group of amateur on-line researchers who have spent years shilling for the U.S. instigated war against the Syrian government, blaming the Douma chemical attack and others on the Assad government, and for the anti-Russian propaganda connected to, among other things, the Skripal poisoning case in England, and the downing of flight MH17 plane in Ukraine. It has been lauded by the corporate mainstream media in the west. Its support for the equally fraudulent White Helmets (also funded by the US and the UK) in Syria has also been praised by the western corporate media while being dissected as propaganda by many excellent independent journalists such as Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley, Catte Black, among others.  It’s had its work skewered by the likes of Seymour Hersh and MIT professor Theodore Postol, and its US government connections pointed out by many others, including Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal at The Gray Zone. And now we have the mainstream media’s wall of silence on the leaks from the Organization for the Prohibition on Chemical Weapons (OPCW) concerning the Douma chemical attack and the doctoring of their report that led to the illegal U.S. bombing of Syria in the spring of 2018.  Bellingcat was at the forefront of providing justification for such bombing, and now the journalists Peter Hitchens, Tareq Harrad (who recently resigned from Newsweek after accusing the publication of suppressing his revelations about the OPCW scandal) and others are fighting an uphill battle to get the truth out.

Yet Bellingcat: Truth in a Post-Truth World won the Emmy, fulfilling Bernays’ point about films being the greatest unconscious carriers of propaganda in the world today.

 

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

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. Visit the author’s website here.

Have you paid for an ancestry report? Perhaps someone gave it to you as a gift. Either way, pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline now owns your genetic fingerprint.

In a paradigm shift that is making some people uneasy, human DNA has been dubbed a commodity. The company 23andMe boasts the world’s largest database of genetic code. This extensive library of DNA has been acquired by offering the public a genealogy report in exchange for a fee.

Many people excitedly paid to hand over their DNA to the company not realizing it would become the “new frontier” for pioneering drugmakers. Pharmaceutical companies now stand to profit greatly from the DNA people paid to send in.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) purchased a $300 million share in the genlogy company 23 and me, which provides ancestry reports to those who submit their DNA. GSK’s CEO stated that this “merger” will accelerate the development of “novel treatments and cures.”

Now that GSK has access to customers’ genetic blueprints, the company says it can use this DNA in studies in order to fast track new drugs for approval, according to the press release.

Reports indicate that 80% of 23andMe customers opt-in to share their genetic fingerprint along with information about their health and lifestyle through a survey. This survey is simply framed to be for research purposes.

More than 5 million people have willingly submitted their DNA to 23andMe in exchange for a chance to access details about their ancestry.

Privacy Concerns

“If people are concerned about their social security numbers being stolen, they should be concerned about their genetic information being misused,” says Peter Pitts, president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.

“This information is never 100% safe. The risk is magnified when one organization shares it with a second organization. When information moves from one place to another, there’s always a chance for it to be intercepted by unintended third parties.”

What is Pitts talking about when he says third parties? Health insurance companies is a big one. Here’s an alarming quote straight from the 23andMe website:

“Your genetic data, survey responses, and/or personally identifying information may be stolen in the event of a security breach. In the event of such a breach, if your data are associated with your identity, they may be made public or released to insurance companies, which could have a negative effect on your ability to obtain insurance coverage.[emphasis mine]

Big pharma is laughing all the way to the bank seeing as how pharmaceutical companies can now use this DNA data to create experimental drugs. These experimental drugs can then be marketed to consumers based merely on their genetic profiles which may or may not be very accurate in the first place.

Even the FDA has pointed out that false positives or false negatives for certain genetic traits do occur. Of course this won’t stop them from approving fast-tracked experimental drugs based on genetic data.

If you want to close your account at 23andMe you can access that here, however, the company outright states,

“Any research involving your data that has already been performed or published prior to our receipt of your request will not be reversed, undone, or withdrawn.”

Tough luck for those who have willingly paid to hand over their DNA.

*

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 https://www.maxpixel.net

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Big Pharma Bought Access to Your DNA from Genealogy Company and What They’re Using It for Should Concern Everyone
  • Tags: , ,

In an October article, I made the argument that Yemen has become Saudi Arabia’s “Vietnam” because despite their technological, demographical and economical advantage over Yemen, it has completely failed to break the Yemeni resistance, headed by the Houthi-led Ansarullah Movement. Although “Saudi Arabia mobilized about 150,000 of its soldiers and mostly Sudanese mercenaries,” this large force has not been able to break the dogged Yemeni resistance.

The Ansarullah Movement announced in November that 4,335 Sudanese soldiers have been killed in the ongoing conflict in the country since 2015, with military spokesman Yahya Seri, saying that the Sudanese people, like other peoples in the region, were subjected to false propaganda by the media to conceal facts. Seri revealed that the 15,000 Sudanese mercenaries were divided on the northern border under the supervision of Saudi Arabia and on the south and west coast under the supervision of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). He then went onto to allege that Sudanese soldiers in the last two years have conducted sexual abuse against women and children, war crimes and violations of human rights – reminiscent of Sudanese war crimes in Darfur and South Sudan.

Many parties and deputies in Sudan have stated that the presence of Sudanese military forces in Yemen had a negative effect on the relations of the peoples of the two countries and called for the withdrawal of these forces. Former President Omar al-Bashir, who was overthrown by the military coup in Sudan earlier this year, argued that Sudanese forces should take part in the Yemeni war at every opportunity possible to help their Saudi friends.

However, Sudanese Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok said that he would recall Sudanese troops from the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, correctly asserting that

“There is no military solution to the conflict in Yemen, either from us or from the other side of the world. The problem needs to be solved by political means.”

This is part of Sudan’s efforts to normalize relations with the West by demonstrating it is a responsible country, with Hamdok even having talks with U.S. officials to discuss the process of removing Sudan’s name from the list of countries that support terrorism. Although Washington lifted the economic sanctions imposed on Sudan since 1997 in October 2017, they did not remove Sudan from the “list of countries supporting terrorism” that was imposed in 1993 for hosting al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Yemeni Defense Minister Mohammed Nasser al-Atıfi asked Sudan to withdraw its troops from the country just days ago in a written statement, explaining that the UAE does not want peace in Yemen, before reiterating their call “to the Sudanese regime to withdraw its troops from Yemen before it is too late.” With this, Hamdok announced the reduction of Sudanese forces in Yemen from 15,000 to 5,000. Part of this effort to completely withdraw from the impoverished Arab country.

The question then remains why Sudan is now withdrawing from Yemen. Sudan has now demonstrated that it wants to act to serve its own direct interests, in which it has none in Yemen. Hamdok has a clear vision for Sudan, that is becoming ever closer to the U.S. His vision for Sudan is to become a leading country in the region that yields significant influence, however, it appears Hamdok does not have much self-confidence and believes this can only be achieved by aligning with Washington.

Discussing the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam that has been a source of tensions between Egypt and Ethiopia, Hamdok added that he wanted to bring the two rival countries together with the Washington to reach an agreement between the three African countries. These tensions started when Ethiopia began construction of a dam in 2011 to increase its electrical capabilities, which worries Egypt as it relies on for 90% of its water needs from the Nile. Egypt believes this waterflow from the Ethiopian highlands could be affected by the dam. Although it was Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi who requested Trump to help mediate during a meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly summit in September, Sudan is demonstrating that it also wants to spearhead efforts to normalize relations between Ethiopia and Egypt.

Hamdok’s efforts to expand Sudanese influence has been in complete opposition to former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir who wielded the military with great power. By withdrawing from Yemen and supporting dialogue so that the tense relations between Ethiopia and Egypt can be eased shows a Sudan that is changing dramatically. With its improving relations with the U.S., Sudan could become a state in northeast Africa that is more aligned to Washington in a region that is increasingly coming under Chinese influence, and it all begins with Sudan’s slow withdrawal from Yemen.

*

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