“If Ghaani follows the same path of killing Americans then he will meet the same fate,” U.S. envoy Brian Hook told the Arabic-language daily Asharq al-Awsat.

***

The U.S. envoy to Iran Brian Hook has threatened Iran’s Quds Force commander Esmail Ghaani with the same fate as his predecessor, Qassem Soleimani, if he followed the latter’s path.

AccordIng to the Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper, Hook and the rest of the Trump administration will not tolerate Soleimani’s approach any further. The U.S. representative said the Trump administration will take similar action against Ghaani if seeks to replicate Soleimani’s approach.

“If Ghaani follows the same path of killing Americans then he will meet the same fate,” U.S. envoy Brian Hook told the Arabic-language daily Asharq al-Awsat.

He said in the interview in Davos, Switzerland that Trump had long made it clear “that any attack on Americans or American interests would be met with a decisive response.

The U.S. military assassinated Qassem Soleimani using a drone near the Baghdad Airport on January 3rd. Soleimani’s death was said to be in response to his plans to allegedly attack the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

In retaliation for the Soleimani assassination, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards fired 22 missiles at the U.S. forces in Iraq on January 8th. The U.S. initially denied any casualties; however, a report leaked shortly after claiming as many as 11 U.S. soldiers were wounded.

Following the death of Soleimani, General Esmail Ghaani was named the commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force. He was considered Soleimani’s number two and a close confidant of the late Quds Force commander.

*

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

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

Ruling Amid Ruins: The Plot to Break Up Iraq

January 27th, 2020 by David Hearst

Any reader of these columns is familiar with the landscape – an intergalactic Star Wars struggle between three blocks of regional powers, as the US retreats in disarray.

The struggle for power is played out in one sandbox after another – first Yemen, to Libya, to Syria – with little thought for the Yemenis, Libyans or Syrians who live there.

Native populations are held in disdain, treated as agents of a higher will, to be bought, sold and betrayed at will.

Democracy, sovereignty and self-determination are meaningless concepts to be trotted out to western audiences only. It is force that matters, and power that prevails.

The same characters, forces, and destructive power are at play in each country – like a blockbuster movie with endless sequels. In each, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed bin Zayed, paces around his Death Star with his squadrons of hackers, mercenaries and assassins, plotting his next strike.

No one should be surprised to learn that yet another proxy war is being waged. This is proving to be bigger than Yemen, Libya and Syria. If the plans I am about to describe succeed, Bush and Blair’s invasion in 2003 would pale in comparison.

The great game has moved to Iraq and a once proud and powerful state is facing great peril.

The following is taken from three senior Iraqi sources who are familiar with the intelligence acting Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi has received, the actions he took and the conversations that took place.

The plot

Nine months ago, a group of Iraqi politicians and businessmen from Anbar, Salah al-Din and Nineveh provinces were invited to the private residence of the Saudi ambassador to Jordan in Amman.

Their host was the Saudi minister for Gulf affairs, Thamer bin Sabhan al-Sabhan, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s point man for the region.

It is not known whether Mohammed al-Halbousi, the speaker of parliament with ties to both Iran and Saudi Arabia, attended the secret Amman conference, but it is said that he was informed of the details.

On the agenda was a plan to push for a Sunni autonomous region, akin to Iraqi Kurdistan.

The plan is not new. But now an idea which has long been toyed with by the US, as it battles to keep Iraq within its sphere of influence, has found a new lease of life as Saudi Arabia and Iran compete for influence and dominance.

Anbar comprises 31 percent of the Iraqi state’s landmass. It has significant untapped oil, gas and mineral reserves. It borders Syria.

If US troops were indeed to be forced by the next Iraqi government to quit the country, they would have to leave the oil fields of northern Syria as well because it is from Anbar that this operation is supplied. Anbar has four US military bases.

Under pressure, Washington has stepped up efforts to partition Iraq to counter Iranian influence.

The western province is largely desert, with a population of just over two million. As an autonomous region, it would need a workforce. This, the meeting was told, could come from Palestinian refugees and thus neatly fit into Donald Trump’s so-called “Deal of the Century” plans to rid Israel of its Palestinian refugee problem.

Anbar is almost wholly Sunni, but Salah al-Din and Nineveh aren’t. If the idea worked in Anbar, other Sunni-dominated provinces would be next.

Map

The meeting ended in vigorous agreement. However, the Iraqi and Saudi participants were not the only ones listening.

Jordan’s mukhabarat, its powerful secret police, an organisation big enough to be considered a parallel government, were less than pleased with what they were hearing.

They were upset with Sabhan for using the embassy in their country as a base for plotting moves in Iraq. Jordan enjoys warm relations with Baghdad, particularly after Abdul Mahdi began giving the kingdom much-needed supplies of oil.

One way or another, details of the meeting were leaked to the Iraqi premier.

Relations between Abdul Mahdi and the Saudi kingdom were good at that time. Mohammed bin Salman had opened the Kaaba in Mecca for the visiting dignitary and chose him as their intermediary with Iran.

The prime minister was privately upset, but he did not know at the time how serious this project was and whether indeed it had the crown prince’s backing. Soon afterwards, Abdul Mahdi raised the issue of the Amman meeting with the crown prince in Riyadh.

Under his premiership, sectarian tensions had declined. He had withdrawn the mainly Shia Hashd al-Shaabi paramilitary from the centres of Sunni towns and had prided himself on making sure that Sunnis were not arrested illegally by government forces.

Once again, a scheme was being hatched behind his back which would stoke sectarian tensions, and in the long run, lead to the breakup of his country.

When confronted, Mohammed bin Salman lied, as he always does. He told Abdul Mahdi the plan was “nonsense” and he would order his people to stop.

The meetings, however, continued. Some weeks later, a bigger meeting was held in Amman. This time, according to my sources, a US and Israeli representative were present.

The US representative was not overtly supportive and only stayed for part of the meeting, an hour in all, but told his Saudi counterpart: “If you can do it, it’s welcome.” Recent tensions have changed that equation, and now Washington is fully behind the plan.

More significantly, an envoy from the United Arab Emirates was present at the second meeting in Amman. This was a way of showing the Iraqi MPs present that the file of the Anbar project had been passed from the Saudis to their Emirati allies.

It also allowed the Saudi crown prince to claim he had nothing to do with the scheme.

The second meeting in Amman agreed to give full support to Halbousi, the speaker of parliament, in his efforts to weaken the government and to continuously raise the issue of Sunnis who disappeared at government checkpoints, which is the subject to an inquiry by Iraq’s Supreme Judiciary Council.

They discussed ways of “remobilising” Sunni public opinion against the Baghdad government.

The second meeting was again leaked to the government in Baghdad, which this time dispatched a top security envoy to meet the Saudis.

The behind-the-scenes confrontation happened in Paris.

“The Iraqi government only then realised the Saudis were serious and that they were not listening,” an Iraqi governmental source said.

“We said to them: “How would you like it if we received political activists from your Shia Eastern Province in Baghdad and discussed with them ways of declaring themselves independent from Riyadh?”

Iraqi objections proved in vain.

A third meeting was held in Dubai. A list of people who attended was widely publicised. This time Halbousi was present, along with Iraqi Sunni members of parliament, a TV mogul and party leader.

Though Halbousi has publicly denied that plans to create a Sunni region were discussed or agreed upon, others in the group itself have begun to break cover.

One of the most vocal of this group, deputy for Anbar province Faisal al-Issawi, said that “practical steps” had started towards forming an autonomous province on the lines of Iraqi Kurdistan in the north of the county.

Speaking to the Rodao website, Issawi said the idea of an autonomous Sunni region was inspired by the success achieved by Kurdistan.

“Regions are a constitutional development and most countries of the world depend on them to distribute power and reduce the burden on the centre,” he said.

An official in Abdul Mahdi’s office neither confirmed nor denied the account of talks.

Halbousi, meanwhile, has publicly denied that plans for Iraqi partition have been discussed or agreed upon.

The consequences

Though this scheme has gathered steam in recent weeks, it predates the assassination of Qassem Soleimani and the missile crisis with Iran. But Tehran has reacted vigorously to it recently nonetheless.

As soon as Tehran learned that the Emiratis had taken over the file of promoting an autonomous Sunni enclave in western and northern Iraq, it made clear in the days after Soleimani’s killing that US bases on Emirati territory would be regarded as legitimate targets.

What I have reported does not downplay or minimise the strong internal forces at play in Iraq and the manoeuvrings over the choice of the next Iraqi government and prime minister.

Political forces in Iraq should never be described as pawns on its neighbours’ chess boards, as Tehran knows to its cost.

The two secret meetings in Amman and the publicly acknowledged meeting in Dubai do, however, attest to a determination by one Saudi crown prince to rule and dominate the region whatever the consequences.

As we have already seen in Yemen, the breakup of a state is not necessarily an unforeseen consequence of a military campaign gone wrong. It could be one of the objectives.

This future king will rule, whatever the cost and amid ruins, if necessary. If he gets his way in Anbar, Iraq will only be another one of his ruined states.

*

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

David Hearst is the editor in chief of Middle East Eye. He left The Guardian as its chief foreign leader writer. In a career spanning 29 years, he covered the Brighton bomb, the miner’s strike, the loyalist backlash in the wake of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in Northern Ireland, the first conflicts in the breakup of the former Yugoslavia in Slovenia and Croatia, the end of the Soviet Union, Chechnya, and the bushfire wars that accompanied it.

With the Environmental Protection Agency’s own data showing that nearly half of our rivers and streams and a third of our wetlands are in “poor biological condition,” and with millions of Americans exposed to unsafe chemicals in water systems, this is a bad time to make a mockery of the Clean Water Act. But that is precisely what the Trump administration did this week when it issued its Navigable Waters Protection rule and completed its rollback of the Obama administration’s 2015 Waters of the United States rule.

Clear navigation for polluters

Fitting of the Trump administration, the “protection” in the rule’s name doesn’t really have anything to do with water. Not when it will reportedly remove half of the nation’s wetlands and nearly 20 percent of streams from protection. It cannot be about water when the administration excludes from regulation other potential aquatic transporters of toxic chemicals, such as groundwater, rivers that run only during rainfall (a huge feature of the arid West), waste treatment systems, ditches, and ponds and depressions related to mining and construction.

No, the Trump rule is designed to allow oil and gas producers, chemical makers, agricultural interests, and developers to navigate a federal water regulatory world cleared of permits and penalties for pollution, a world not seen since the 1960s. It flies in the face of a 2018 study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and Iowa State University that found that the 1972 Clean Water Act “has driven significant improvements” in water quality. The study reminded readers, “These investments have large costs but could have larger benefits. In the early 20th century, water-related mortality like cholera and typhoid killed tens of thousands of people every year. At the same time, regular fires occurred on many US rivers.”

That past was not on the mind of EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler when he unveiled the rule to several rounds of applause at the National Home Builders Association show in Las Vegas. In a press release, Wheeler said the new rule assured “regulatory certainty and predictability for American farmers, landowners and businesses to support the economy and accelerate critical infrastructure projects.”

Wheeler offered no such certainty or predictability for the welfare of mothers and children drawing a drink from the faucet, nor for cities that need wetlands as a buffer against storms, not to mention the threat of floods, dangers to wildlife, or the outdoor recreation, fishing and hunting industries. Instead, he boasted that EPA rollbacks of regulations under Trump, which are among the nearly 100 environmental rollbacks being tallied by the New York Times, have saved American businesses $6.5 billion.

But as I have previously pointed out such claims of saving businesses from regulatory costs are nothing compared with the benefits of clean water. For instance, there is the $400 billion annual national outdoor recreation economy and the $9.5 billion annual economic output provided by jobs in clean water mitigation. Wildlife recreation alone, according to the Trump administration, involves more than 103 million Americans and pumps $157 billion into the economy in fishing, hunting, birdwatching, and photography.

Against all scientific sense

Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist, not only went against dollars and cents in pleasing his fellow polluters, he went against all scientific sense. In 2015, the EPA, in a review of 1,200 publications in peer-reviewed scientific literature, determined that:

  • “Streams, regardless of their size or frequency of flow, are connected to downstream waters and strongly influence their function.”
  • Wetlands, even when they do not seem connected on the surface, “provide physical, chemical, and biological functions that could affect the integrity of downstream waters.”
  • “Incremental contributions of individual streams and wetlands are cumulative across entire watersheds.”

Last week, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and 44 former scientists and administrators of government environmental and conservation agencies wrote the EPA Acting Inspector General Charles Sheehan to say that the Trump EPA has violated scientific integrity policies by ignoring the “Herculean” 2015 review of 1,200 studies. PEER, which has cited internal EPA documents indicating that the new rules might exclude at least 1.35 million miles of streams and more than 40 million acres of wetlands from protection said in the letter:

“The final Rule contradicts the overwhelming scientific consensus on the connectivity of wetlands and waters, and the impacts ephemeral streams and so-called “geographically isolated” wetlands have on downstream waters.” The letter also said that the EPA did not consult with regional experts, did not allow those experts to formally register dissenting opinions, and “failed to disclose the potentially adverse impacts the final Rule will have on human health and the environment.”

Scientists have long tried to impress these points upon the current administration. At the very beginning of the rollback of the Waters of the United States rule, a coalition of expert groups including the Society of Wetland Scientists, the American Fisheries Society, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the Ecological Society of America, the Phycological Society of America, the Society for Ecological Restoration, and the Society for Freshwater Science wrote:

“Wetlands provide many services that promote human well-being including economic and non-economic benefits. Foremost, they keep our streams, lakes, and groundwater cleaner by ‘treating’ urban and agricultural runoff; this treatment includes reducing the negative effects of pollutants, transforming harmful nitrates into harmless nitrogen gas, trapping sediment, and removing pathogens.

They store water, and thus are a source of water during times of drought.  Many wetlands soak up runoff and floodwaters, which reduces peak flood-flows and avoids costly flood damage.  Lastly, wetlands sustain essential habitat for wildlife, fish, and waterbirds to feed, nest, breed, spawn, and rear their young in ‘productive nurseries.’. . .Like diamonds, they can be small, but extremely valuable.”

Last but not least, the EPA’s own Science Advisory Board recently slammed Wheeler’s process—to his face.

In a draft letter the board said the EPA ignored:

  • The 2015 review of 1,200 studies that “emphasizes that 20 functional connectivity is more than a matter of surface geography”
  • That “chemical or biological contamination of ground water may lead to contamination of functionally connected surface water”
  • That irrigation canals from vegetable farms can carry E. coli and canals from confined feeding operations can be contaminated with chemicals such as steroids

The board said in summary that it was “disappointed” that Wheeler’s rule “is not fully consistent with established EPA recognized science,” and may not be consistent with objective of the Clean Water Act to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”

If the Trump administration’s own scientific advisory board, a host of biological societies, and scores of former government agency officials are disappointed, the rest of America should be fearful and angry.

Muhammad Ali once said, “Rivers, lakes, ponds, streams, oceans all have different names, but they all contain water.” He was referring to many religions believing in a god. The Trump administration may claim that rivers, lakes, ponds, streams and oceans have different levels of protection, but the end result is obvious: all of them will contain more pollutants.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on EPA’s New Water Rule a Mockery of Science and the Clean Water Act
  • Tags:

We live in an era of protests. Everyone feels they have to fight to change things. Unless they are comfortable in their work routine, are wealthy and indifferent, or cannot risk getting fired.

There is manipulation and mobilization of protests by given political actors to achieve political goals.

There is genuine resentment and anger.

There are people who protest for a variety of reasons.

But what we cannot accept is a simplistic narrative that distorts reality, no matter where it comes from.

As a graduate of “fine western universities”, I gradually learned (and am still learning) to avoid simplistic, black-and-white arguments. Academics think in more complex ways, make more nuanced arguments. One of the greatest contributions of the western academic world to the third world was, arguably, the introduction of complexities. The educated mind (receiver of an education paid for in money), and a mind that was not in fear, could make nuanced arguments, offer thoughtful analysis, not fall into the trap of black-and-white thinking.

As one who grew up in a fundamentalist environment, whose thinking was rigid and conditioned by violence and tension, the western university landscape opened my horizons. In a US academic environment single-pointed arguments that lacked depth could appear somewhat uneducated, (and who wants to appear uneducated unless he uses it as a tactic to deceive his enemy?).

But now I am discovering that the west has embraced fanaticism and one-sided arguments. It has embraced the backward unthinking mentality that cannot tolerate dissent or doubts. This is the same mentality adopted by fanatics and extremists the world over.

Masses of Iraqis took to the streets yesterday in a massive display of defiance of the US occupation forces that brought untold suffering and misery to their country. They took to the streets demanding an end to the illegal and immoral US occupation.

But, for the New York Times [1], this was no good. First, the protests were “anti-American” (I suppose Iraqis have to lick the boot that steps on them, if to borrow Eric Hoffer’s idiom). That is of course the one thing that protests cannot be and still receive western legitimacy. No matter the fact that the US went to war in Iraq based on deliberate lies and killed millions in the country, first by sanctions, then by bombing.

How many actually participated in the protest?

The New York Times claims there were hundreds of thousands while Press TV claims [2] that they were millions. I don’t know who to believe, but judging from the pictures of Press TV and even while considering the fact that when protesters fill physical spaces they may appear more numerous than they actually are due to the optical illusion that can be formed, still, the truth seems to be closer to the numbers offered by Press TV.

Then the New York Times takes issues with the fact that people came from all across the bleeding country to Baghdad, the capital. The paper notes that “people were brought in from other cities to participate rather than holding smaller simultaneous demonstrations across the country.”

Here is a wise anti-American ploy. First, the protesters were “brought-in” as if the protesters are not independent actors with their own agency (a term favored by western post-modern academics). Second, the protesters tried to deceive the western readers by getting together and making their numbers larger, while across the country their numbers would appear smaller. Third, the fact that the protesters were “brought in” by organizers delegitimize the protest itself.

The protesters did not engage in violence and vandalism. Scenes of destruction, as the ones that have become a daily occurrence in Hong Kong for instance, were absent. That is all the more reason to be suspicious of the protesters. If they are not violent, then they do not receive sympathy. But if they are violent, then they must be Shiites.

The New York Times aptly notes that

The vast majority of the participants are Shiite Muslims, who are the main constituency of the cleric Mr. al-Sadr and the armed groups close to Iran.

So, even if the claim of a majority Shiite representation is correct, the religious convictions of a given group of protesters cannot negate the political demands or arguments of the protesters themselves, that must be judged on their distinct basis. I mean, does the New York Times write about pro-Israel parades in the United States that“the vast majority of participants are Jews, who are the main supporters of the State of Israel”?

But a double standard between the legitimate protesters and illegitimate protesters is seen as appropriate when dealing with the Shiites. The New York Times, in a display of subtle racism, reminds its readers that it’s those damn Shiites who are protesting, so it is to be expected that we must not be worried that perhaps we are not that liked in Iraq. A simple equation is offered: The Shiites like Iran and hate America. Case closed.

The New York Times did not engage in the propaganda style typical of historical Communist governments in which the uncomfortable truths are simply blanked out. It did note that

[The protest] also reflected a genuine desire shared by Iraqis to have a government and economy that serves the Iraqi people and not outside interests, many participants said.

Delivering on that may prove to be virtually impossible. But the United Statesrecent actions in Iraq drew the wrath of many and distaste even among some Iraqis who support the United States presence.

But it ended the article with a post-modern argument. Criticism of the protest, besides the stigmatization of protesters and spinning of events, came not from the writer itself but from the oppressed, those individuals Iraqis who were skeptical of the protest.

First, even if the Americans leave, protesters won’t get more jobs, as an elder man noted resignedly. (Of course, that is correct, but how about inserting a little bit of positive American optimism, and on what can happen if we pursue our dreams?) Second, Iran and its militias may take over if the US leaves, the article end by reminding, while quoting another participant. But, if Iran and its militas take over, that is no business of the United States. The United States has no right to be in Iraq, period. It’s not a matter of the lesser of two evils.

The suffering people of Iraq who saw the death of 500,000 Iraqi children due to US sanctions, which Secretary of State Madeleine Albrightbelieves were “worth it”[3], have risen up to support a parliament vote in favor of US forces withdrawing, another act of democracy. But this democratic protest is not greeted positively by the New York Times. It was too organized, even if the Americans leave the jobs may not come, Iran may take over, and the protesters were Shiite. (By the way, are the majority of parliamentarians in Iraq’s parliament who voted for the Americans to leave also Shiite?) And did the neo-Conservatives time and time again not advocate for a majority Sunni rule in Syria [4], regardless of the consequences (namely a victory of Daesh)?

American soldiers died, supposedly, for Iraqi democracy. The democratic right to loot museums (of course, even the return of the objects looted from the National Museum of Iraq is attributed to a single US soldier by The Independent, while overlooking the invasion itself as the enabler of the massive theft [5]). Is the fact that the vote of the Iraqi parliament being ignored by the White House not an issue for the New York Times?

*

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.

Joshua Tartakovsky is an independent journalist.

Notes

1. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/world/middleeast/protests-iraq-baghdad.html)

2. (https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2020/01/24/616968/Iraq-Protest-US)

3. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dYTO9voeBM)

4. (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/opinion/john-bolton-to-defeat-isis-create-a-sunni-state.html)

5. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-the-real-story-behind-the-great-iraq-museum-thefts-515067.html

Featured image is from Project Syndicate

As the Senate impeachment trial of Donald John Trump unfolds, one fundamental issue is whether witnesses will be called to give live testimony. The parties, not surprisingly, are sharply and bitterly divided on that. 

There can be little question that justice demands that witnesses be called, and that a Senate trial without them would be a sham—if the goal of a trial is to arrive at the truth, witnesses are essential.

And at the top of any witness list should be the President himself.

Trump should be subpoenaed to raise his right hand in the august arena of the U.S. Senate to give his account of the facts averred in the two articles of impeachment that have been lodged against him, accusing him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Senate Republicans led by Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell, the most Machiavellian Majority Leader in recent memory, would doubtless be apoplectic at the suggestion that the President himself should appear and testify. In fact, the Republicans, with some exceptions, are skeptical about allowing any live witnesses to be called. They seek a swift acquittal and know full well that witness testimony is messy, time-consuming, and could be  devastating to the President’s defense. And they have naked power on their side, rooted in their fifty-three-seat majority.

What the Republicans want is not a fair trial but a cover-up. And a cover-up is the last thing the nation needs at this critical juncture in its history.

The articles of impeachment set forth a narrative of extreme malfeasance, stemming from Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch investigations into Joe Biden and the discredited rightwing conspiracy theory that Ukraine, rather than Russia, meddled with the 2016 American election. The articles also cite Trump for ordering past and present administration officials not to cooperate with the House’s impeachment inquiry.

Democrats insist, correctly, that live testimony from key witnesses is imperative to ensure a full and fair adjudication of the President’s conduct. And in this, they have long-standing precedent on their side.

As Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, noted in a recent op-ed in The Washington Post : “Only 19 other individuals besides Trump have been impeached by the House of Representatives. The Senate completed a trial in fifteen of those cases, and in every single one of them, it heard testimony from witnesses.”  Most of these impeachment trials involved federal judges.

Although House Leader Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, in November welcomed Trump to testify in the impeachment inquiry (an invitation Trump declined), Senate Democrats thus far have omitted the President’s name from their potential impeachment witness list.

In a December 15 letter to McConnell, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, named four witnesses with direct knowledge of the alleged abuse of power and obstruction: Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney; Senior Advisor to the Chief of Staff Robert Blair; former National Security Advisor John Bolton; and Associate Director of National Security Programs at the Office of Management and Budget Michael Duffy. All had been blocked by Trump from appearing before the House.

During the first day of the impeachment trial, the House managers in charge of prosecuting the case requested subpoenas for the four witnesses. Their motions were tabled by the GOP majority by way of 53-47 votes.

While they are important, none of these witnesses could offer evidence as relevant as the President on his motives in dealing with Zelensky and ordering a hold on American aid. Only he can definitively explain what he meant by the “favor” he asked of Zelensky regarding Biden and the 2016 election in his July 25 phone conversation with the Ukrainian leader. Trump has repeatedly described the conversation as a “perfect call.”

To be sure, testifying before Congress is rare for Presidents, but it is not unprecedented. Abraham Lincoln voluntarily appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in 1862 to answer questions about the premature publication of part of his 1861 State of the Union address. Woodrow Wilson testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 1919 on the treaty of peace with Germany and the creation of the League of Nations.

More relevant, Gerald Ford explained his decision to pardon Nixon in testimony before a House Judiciary subcommittee in 1974. And in 1998, Bill Clinton testified under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky before a grand jury run by independent counsel Ken Starr via a television hookup installed at the White House.

Both former acting Solicitor General Neal Kaytal and prominent conservative attorney George Conway, the husband of Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway, have publicly urged Trump to testify at his impeachment trial.

“If you really believed this [your innocence in the Ukraine affair], you’d be trying to clear your name—clamoring for a real trial,” Kaytal tweeted on January 12. “[Y]ou would testify under oath that you did ‘nothing wrong.’ The fact that you don’t speaks volumes.”

Now I don’t believe there is any realistic chance that Trump would honor a Senate subpoena in the event that one is issued. Although testifying would surely play to his unbridled ego and narcissism and offer him an opportunity to execute a prime-time TV takedown of his “deep-state” adversaries, in the end I would expect Trump and his lawyers to claim executive privilege or immunity, or, more telling still, to invoke the Fifth Amendment, allowing Trump to remain silent, even as he continues to fulminate on Twitter.

But that is no reason for the House managers not to go after Trump directly. Nor is it any reason for Senate Democrats not to support a request to subpoena the President.

The President is on trial for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It doesn’t get much more serious than this. It’s time to hold Donald John Trump to account in the most aggressive manner permitted by law.

*

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.

Bill Blum is a Los Angeles lawyer and a former state of California administrative law judge.

Featured image is from Infowars

The dubious legal proceedings at the Guantanomo Bay (Gitmo) prison camp continue to promote the idea of justice for victims of 9/11. Unfortunately, these proceedings do not represent an administration of law but an unstated claim that the Global War on Terror is above the law. More importantly, the Gitmo antics have one obvious objective—to perpetuate willful ignorance of the 9/11 crimes. There is a dangerous elephant in the Gitmo courtroom, however, and if it ever gets reported it could bring down the terror-torture house of cards.

Reporters covering Gitmo continue to call it a trial but it is not a trial, it is a “military tribunal.” They continue to call the site “Camp Justice” when justice is as far from the prison camp as it has ever been from any human endeavor. What they don’t do is think critically about the information they are parroting from court sources.

The history is profoundly absurd. The suspects were brutally tortured and held without charges for up to 18 years. The alleged evidence obtained from the torture was made secret. Then the records of the secret torture evidence were illegally destroyed. Then the secret evidence simply turned out to be completely false. FBI and CIA officers then began to make a mockery of the whole thing, secretly bugging defense team discussion rooms and covertly inserting themselves as translators and defense team members.

This is not just a matter of an extreme violation of human rights and an utter disrespect for the law. Within this sequence of stupidity looms the mother of all oversights. That is, the secret evidence that turned out to be false was used as the basis for The 9/11 Commission Report.

At the center of the media’s willful ignorance is “forever prisoner Abu Zubaydah, the first alleged al Qaeda leader captured and tortured. In 2009, the U.S. government began correcting the record by admitting, in habeus corpus proceedings, that Zubaydah was never associated with al Qaeda and that he had no role in, or knowledge of, the 9/11 attacks. That Zubaydah was never associated with al Qaeda is no longer challenged by anyone and is regularly repeated in the mainstream press. What is not mentioned is the astounding implication of that admission.

Abu Zubaydah’s “torture testimony” was used to construct the official narrative of 9/11 that is still accepted as fact today.

Check for yourself. Do a quick search for the word “Zubaydah” in The 9/11 Commission Report. You’ll find it 52 times. As you read these references and claims, ask yourself—how could a man who the government now says had nothing to do with al Qaeda have known any of these things? How could he be a key travel facilitator for al Qaeda operatives when he wasn’t associated in any way with al Qaeda? How could Zubaydah give detailed accounts of Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM)’s plans for 9/11 when he had no knowledge of those plans?

Disassociating Zubaydah from al Qaeda causes so many problems for the official narrative of al Qaeda and 9/11 that people like Lee Hamilton, the co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, simply develop amnesia when asked about him.

As seen in the 9/11 Commission Report, the official account begins with linking “Mukhtar” (KSM) to “al Qaeda lieutenant Abu Zubaydah,” who we now know was never associated with al Qaeda. Both FBI interrogator Ali Soufan, in a 2009 New York Times opinion piece, and Vice President Dick Cheney, in his 2011 book, claimed that Zubaydah (who never had any knowledge or connection to 9/11) identified KSM as the “mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.” The official account of 9/11, and the ongoing fake trial at Gitmo, all proceeded from there.

But none of it was true.

The latest crime of 9/11 is that this fact is not being reported. The media admits that Zubaydah was never associated with al Qaeda but entirely ignores the devastating consequences of that admission. The false official account for 9/11 is the root cause and ongoing justification for greater crimes—1) wars of aggression in multiple countries that have destroyed millions of lives, 2) the public’s acceptance of torture and indefinite detention, and 3) mass surveillance and an overall attack on freedom.

Instead of reporting that the basis for those greater crimes has been obliterated, the media reduces the subject to a discussion of how torture is bad but perhaps still justified by the gain. Of course, torture is bad but mass murder is much worse and the justification for both the wars and the torture is now indefensible! Until the media reports this fact there will be no justice for victims of 9/11 or for the victims of the resulting wars and torture.

We know that there are many striking anomalies and inexplicable facts about 9/11 that have yet to be resolved. But the fake Gitmo trial stands as a final absurd crime in the history of 9/11 as it is represented as an attempt at justice yet includes more farcical elements every day. For example, the CIA-driven architect of the torture program recently claimed that he was acting on behalf of the 9/11 families and that he would do it again.

The final proceedings have been set to officially begin in January 2021, aligning with the 20th anniversary news cycle and re-emphasizing that propaganda is the primary goal. The propaganda narrative focuses on setting the false official account in stone and further normalizing torture. Sadly, reporters and editors covering these events don’t seem to have an interest in challenging any substantial part of the story. Let’s hope that one or more of them comes to their senses and proves that suspicion wrong.

*

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, Dig Within.

We live in a fabricated reality where the visible world became nearly meaningless once the screen world became people’s “window on the world.”  An electronic nothingness replaced reality as people gleefully embraced digital wraparound apparitions.  These days people still move about in the physical world but live in the electronic one.  The result is mass hallucination.

This is the fundamental seismic shift of our era. There is a lot of bitching and joking about it, but when all is said and done, it is accepted as inevitable. Digital devices are embraced as phantom lovers. Technological “advances” are accepted as human destiny.  We now inhabit a technological nightmare (that seems like a paradise to so many) in which technology and technique – the standardized means for realizing a predetermined end most efficiently – dominate the world. In such a world, not only does the end justify the means, but to consider such a moral issue is beside the point. We are speeding ahead to nowhere in the most “efficient” way possible.  No questioning allowed!  Unless you wish to ask your phone.

These days there is much political talk and commentary about fascism, tyranny, a police state, etc., while the totalitarianism of technocracy and technology continues apace.  It is not just the ecological (in the human/natural sense) impact of digital technology where one change generates many others in an endless spiral, but the fact that technical efficiency dominates all aspects of life and, as Jacques Ellul wrote long ago, “transforms everything it touches into a machine,” including humans.  For every problem caused by technology, there is always a technological “solution” that creates further technological problems ad infinitum.  The goal is always to find the most efficient (power) technique to apply as rapidly as possible to all human problems.

Writing nearly fifty years ago in Medical Nemesis, Ivan Illich, explained how in medical care the human touch was being replaced by this technical mindset.  He said,

In all countries, doctors work increasingly with two groups of addicts: those for whom they prescribe drugs, and those who suffer from their consequences. The richer the community, the larger the percentage of patients who belong to both…In such a society, people come to believe that in health care, as in all fields of endeavor, technology can be used to change the human condition according to almost any design.

We are of course living with the ongoing results of such medical technical efficiency.  The U.S.A. is a country where the majority of people are drugged in one way or another, legally or illegally, since the human problems of living are considered to have only technological solutions, whether those remedies are effective or anodyne.  The “accidents” and risks built into the technological fixes are never considered since the ideological grip of the religion of technology is all-encompassing and infallible.  We are caught in its web.

Marshall McLuhan, the media guru of the 1960s – whether he was applauding or bemoaning the fact – was right when he claimed that the medium is the message.

Cell phones, being the current omnipresent form of the electronification of life, are today’s message, a sign that one is always in touch with the void.  To be without this small machine is to be rendered an idiot in the ancient Greek sense of the word – a private person.  Translation: one who is out of it, detached, at least temporarily, from the screens that separate us from reality, from the incessant noise and pinging messages that destroy reflection and create reflex reactions.

But to be out of it is the only way to understand it.  And to understand it is terrifying, for it means one knows that the religion of technology has replaced nature as the source of what for eons has been considered sacred. It means one grasps how reality is now defined by technology. It means realizing that people are merging with the machines they are attached to by invisible manacles as they replace the human body with abstractions and interact with machines.  It means recognizing that the internet, despite its positive aspects and usage by dissenters intent on human liberation, is controlled by private corporation and government forces intent on using it as a weapon to control people. It means seeing the truth that most people have never considered the price to be paid for the speed and efficiency of a high-tech world.

But the price is very, very high.

One price, perhaps the most important, is the fragmentation of consciousness, which prevents people from grasping the present from within – which, as Frederic Jameson has noted, is so crucial and yet one of the mind’s most problematic tasks – because so many suffer from digital dementia as their attention hops from input to output in a never-ending flow of mediated, disembodied data.  As a result, a vicious circle has been created that prevents people from the crucial epistemological task of grasping the double-bind that is the ultimate propaganda.  Data is Dada by another name, and we are in Dada land, pissing, not into Marcel Duchamp’s ridiculous work of Dada “art,” a urinal, but into the wind.  And data piled on data equals a heap of data without knowledge or understanding.  There is no time or space for grasping context or to connect the dots. It is a pointillist painting in the form of inert facts that few can understand or even realize that they don’t.

I am typing these words on a Hermes 3000 manual typewriter, a beautiful piece of technology whose sound and movement creates a rhythmic sanctuary where my hands, head, and heart work in unison. It allows me to think slowly, to make mistakes that will necessitate retyping, to do second and third rereadings and revisions, to roll the paper out of the machine and sit quietly as I review it.  My eyes rest on the paper, not a blue-lit screen.

Technology as such is not the problem, for my typewriter is a very useful and endurable machine, a useful technology that has enhanced life. It does not break or need to be replaced every few years, as computers do. It does not contain coltan, tantalum, or other minerals mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and other places by poor people working under oppressive conditions created by international consumer greed that is devouring the world.  It does not allow anyone to spy on me as I type.  I am alone and unplugged, disconnected, off-line and out of line, a sine qua non for thinking, and thinking about deep matters.  The typewriter is mine, and mine alone, unlike the connected digital devices that have destroyed aloneness, for to be alone is to contemplate one’s fate and that of all humanity.  It is to confront essential things and not feel the loneliness induced and exacerbated by the illusion of always being in touch.

But while this typing machine allows me to write in peace, I am in no way suggesting that I have escaped the technological condition that we all find ourselves in.  There are little ways to step outside the closing circle, but even then, one is still in it.  I will eventually have to take my paper and type it into a computer document if I wish to publish it in the form you will be reading it.  There is no other way. The technocrats have decreed it so. We are all, as George Orwell once wrote in a different context and meaning, “inside the whale,” the whale in this case being a high-tech digital world controlled by technocrats, and we have only small ways to shield ourselves from it. Sitting in a quiet room, working on a typewriter, taking a walk in the woods without a cell phone, or not owning a cell phone, are but small individual acts that have no effect on the structural realty of what Neil Postman calls technopoly in his masterful book, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology.  And even in the woods one may look up to admire a tree only to find that it is a cell phone tower.

Humans have always created and used technology, but for a very long time that technology was subject to cultural and religious rules that circumscribed limits to its use.  Today there are no limits, no rules to constrain it.  The prohibition to prohibit is our motto.  In our acceptance of technical efficiency, we have handed over our freedom and lost control of the means to ends we can’t fathom but unconsciously fear.  Where are we heading? many probably wonder, as they check the latest news ping, no doubt about something to fear, as a thousand pieces of “news” flash through their devices without pause, like wisps of fleeting dreams one vaguely remembers but cannot pin down or understand.  Incoherence is the result.  Speed is king.

Of course, this kaleidoscopic flood of data confuses people who desire some coherence and explanation.  This is provided by what Jacques Ellul, in Presence in the Modern World, calls “the explanatory myth.”  He writes,

This brings us to the other pole of our bizarre intellectual situation today: the explanatory myth.  In addition to its political and its mystical and spiritual function, the explanatory myth is the veritable spinal column of our whole intellectual system…Given that appearances produce confusion and coherence is needed, a new appearance unifies them all in the viewer’s mind and enables everything to be explained.  This appearance has a spiritual root and is accepted only by completely blind credulity.  It becomes the intellectual key for opening all secrets, interpreting every fact, and recognizing oneself in the whirl of phenomena…this myth [is] their one stable point of thought and consciousness…enables everyone to avoid the trouble of thinking for themselves, the worry of doubt, the questioning, the uncertainty of understanding, and the torture of a bad conscience.  What prodigious savings of time and means, which can be put usefully to work manufacturing some more missiles…[they] have a good conscience because they have an answer for everything; and whatever happens and whatever they do, they can rely on the explanation that myth provides.  This process places them within the most complete unreality possible.  They live in a permanent dream, but a realistic dream, constructed from the countless facts and theories that they believe in with all the power of ‘mass persons’ who cannot detach themselves from the mass without dying.

Today that myth is the religion of technology.

So if you have any questions you want answered, you can ask your phone.

Ask your phone why we are living with endless wars on the edge of using our most astounding technological invention: nuclear weapons.

Ask your computer why “nice” Americans will sit behind computer screens and send missiles to kill people half-way around the world whom they are told they are at war with.

Ask your smart device why so many have become little Eichmanns, carrying out their dutiful little tasks at Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and all the other war manufacturers, or not caring what stocks they own.

Ask your phone what really happened to the Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752 in Iran.  See if your phone will say anything about cyber warfare, electronic jamming, or why the plane’s transponder was turned off preventing a signal to be sent indicating it was a civilian aircraft.

Ask who is behind the push to deploy 5 G wireless technology.

Ask that smart phone who is providing the non-answers.

Ask and it won’t be given to you; seek and you will not find. The true answers to your questions will remain hidden.  This is the technological society, set up and controlled by the rulers.  It is a scam.

Google it!

God may respond.

*

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.

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Hovering in Cyberspace. Digital Technology and the Inevitable “Seismic Shift of Our Era”
  • Tags:

 

Who is telling the truth.  Compare the images.

The Mainstream Media is lying.

“Fake News”?

See the official tweet of the Associated Press.

Hundreds, Thousands? Millions?

It’s what you call “investigative reporting”…

You show them what you want them to see.  

Public opinion in the US is misled.  

The Iraqi people including Sunni, Shiite, Christians are demanding that US Troops Leave their Country.

The entire Iraqi population want the US to Withdraw from their Country.

Here is the mainstream version of what happened in the Miami Herald, AP report.  focussing on factional social, political and religious divisions.

The mass movement of several million Iraqis against US military occupation is casually presented as a protest against the Iraqi government:

Officials and experts said the rally was the cleric’s attempt to capitalize on brewing anti-American feeling and show he had the upper hand among Iraqis as political elites wrangle over who should be the next prime minister.

Large crowds gathered on the Muslim day of prayer as loudspeakers blasted, “No, no America!” at a central square. Some of al-Sadr’s followers were shrouded in white capes to symbolize the fact that they were ready to die for the cause.

.

“Hey Trump! We will not allow you to turn Iraq into a battlefield,” read one banner. A child held up a poster reading, “Death to America. Death to Israel.”

Apparently seeking to show control, his supporters did not clash with the heavy security presence or target the separate, anti-government protests in neighboring Tahrir Square, a possibility feared by activists.

Followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr gather in Baghdad, Iraq, Friday, Jan. 24, 2020. Thousands of supporters of an influential, radical Shiite cleric gathered Friday in central Baghdad for a rally to demand that American troops leave the country amid heightened anti-US sentiment after a drone strike ordered by Washington earlier this month killed a top Iranian general in the Iraqi capital. (AP Photo) (emphasis added)

The Associated Press (AP) authoritative news report. “Hundreds of supporters”. Where was that picture taken?

Fake News at its best.

 

And this is what really happened.

Several million Iraqis called for the FULL withdrawal of  US forces

 

 

 

Telesur and Global Research.

 

 

Our message to US Forces. This is an Illegal War. 

“Abandon the Battlefield”

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Fake News”: “Hundreds” of Iraqis Want US Troops to Leave their Country

Iraqis are furious that the U.S. continues its military occupation — a continuation of the 2003 U.S. invasion — of their country, after the U.S. was finally ordered out by Iraq’s Government on January 5th. U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media constantly lie about this and about anything else which reveals the ugly imperialist reality of U.S. foreign policy. Americans are deceived, and kept in the dark, by ‘our’ ‘news’-media.

First, the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media lied and reported that U.S. troops were only ‘requested’ to leave — though Iraq’s Parliament had unanimously voted for a resolution to demand the U.S. to leave, and Iraq’s Prime Minister supported it 100% so that the entire Iraqi Government were demanding — not merely ‘requesting’ — the U.S. to leave.

Then, when the Trump regime refused to leave, a call went out by an opponent of the occupation, Muqtada al-Sadr, for Iraqis to march in Baghdad on January 24th to demand that the U.S. regime immediately comply with their Government’s demand; and, on the morning of Friday January 24th, America’s AP ‘news’ agency bannered “Iraqis rally against US troops, demanding they leave”, and reported:

“Tens of thousands of Iraqis marched peacefully through Baghdad on Friday to demand the ouster of U.S. troops from their country. … There were no official estimates of the turnout and organizers gave varying figures, but it clearly fell short of the ‘million-man’ march that had been called for by al-Sadr.”

That’s a lie, because there already had been tweeted photos and videos of the march showing that

“This is a Million-Man miracle for the largest human gathering in Iraq’s history. This morning in the capital, Baghdad, struck by a two-million human-flood in a demonstration to expel American troops and to end their bases in Iraq.”

And: “The Chief of Police in Baghdad just estimated the number of Iraqis protesting against the US’ presence in Iraq today to be in excess of one million people.”

Photos like this were shown, which would never be shown in U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media. And this tweet showed four such photos, and said,

“Over 8 Kilometres of packed streets with millions of Iraqis calling for FULL withdrawal of American forces from #Iraq.”

That’s 5 miles packed with people, which would be around two million people. All of this was before the AP ‘journalists’ issued their ‘news’-report saying “Tens of thousands of Iraqis marched.”

The U.S. regime uses other countries’ territory for its own purposes, regardless of what the residents in the invaded/occupied land want or need. In the case of Iraq, the purpose of invading that land was theft of Iraq’s oil. Until 2003, Iraq’s oil had been nationalized — a national instead of private investor-owned asset. George W. Bush cut U.S.-and-allied investors in on it. (Donald Trump wants not only Iraq’s oil but Syria’s, and so U.S. taxes are funding propaganda to help steal that too for American billionaires.)

The U.S. regime had invaded Iraq on 20 March 2003 based entirely on lies by the U.S. President and his Administration and the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media, about “Saddam’s WMD” that they had no evidence existed and which actually did not exist, but the gullible U.S.-and-allied masses believed those lies and still believe the regime’s lies — and so supported U.S.-and-allied invasion-destruction of Libya 2011, Syria 2012-now, Yemen 2015-now, and Iran-yet-to-come, and the leading U.S. Presidential candidates are Donald Trump and Joe Biden, both of whom are committed to those very same imperialistic (or ‘neoconservative’) foreign policies, in order to serve America’s billionaires, who own-control not just the ‘news’-media but the Government, in this ‘democracy’.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri

“Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to allow themselves to change the law.” – Former US Supreme Court justice, John Paul Stevens

This week almost all media failed in their duties, as did the US Supreme court a decade ago, to bring you the true and most important- and unreported- story of this generation in American election politics.

It is now ten years since the United States Supreme Court vacated its duties regarding the US constitution, particularly regarding election law. The American voter now steamrolls towards another mega-money election as a result of this legal skullduggery- if not treason–  willfully created by a divisive majority within a constitutionally ambivalent Supreme Court.

Supreme Court justices rarely, if ever, speak within their carefully crafted written opinions in a manner that incorporates strong emotion. One of the most notable exceptions in decades came with eloquence and outrage from the pen of thirty-five-year veteran court justice, John Paul Stevens. The dissent he authored can, in review, be considered as a scathing indictment of the modern court. Steven’s dissenting opinion on the landmark  CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, better known as “Citizens United,” tells the story of the cunningly crafted sell out by this third branch of government and of… the day the US Supreme court made corporations into people.

This week marks that day on Jan 21, 2010, when the incredible decision in Citizens became public. Steven’s decades on the SCOTUS bench had spanned seven presidencies and nine national elections and witnessed dramatic changes in American social history and the make-up of the court itself. While reading his fifty-seven-page dissent, written at his request on the behalf of Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg, there is almost a desperation within the incredibly well-crafted reasoning and legal precedents that he presents. His becomes a chronicle of the final vestige, via Citizens, of any remaining independence or constitutional respect by the court.

In reading Steven’s dissent, one feels his words as a howl of outrage only restrained by the written word. Stevens’ dissenting opinion exposes that this court has implicitly sold its soul and its legacy to the same corporate masters as the corporately controlled US Congress and the Presidency.

The story provided within Steven’s bold dissent shows why the results of Citizens United were far more divisive than the mere decision itself. For, within this story is the behind the scenes legal machinations of a court thus forever steeped in corporate influence; a court that first dutifully stepped up to court bench with one set of intentions. These had nothing to do with the US constitution or justice.

More importantly, Stevens’ dissent is the prescient story of why this court, in its current make-up this term will now, this very month rule- very predictably– on six of the biggest landmark cases in many years. The American citizen should be greatly concerned since Steven’s dissent was more important than a mere examination; his dissent foretold the America of this day. One beholden onlyto corporate interests.

As Steven’s so succinctly and satirically suggests as the implicit ludicrous ruling in Citizen’s United,

Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech. “

The Immaculate Conception

To comprehend the ultimate constitutional treason by America’s highest court it is also necessary to follow the chronology of legislation and precedent of the previous court decisions in the cases of First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), Buckley v Valeo (1976), Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce,(1990), McConnell v F.E.C. (2003) and the congressional legislation contained in the Tillman Act, The Taft- Hartley Act, the Federal Election Campaign Act[FECA] and section 203 of the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act [BCRA].

Prior to the SCOTUS conceiving America’s soon to be born corporations, way back in 2008, a small pro-republican conservative lobbying firm knows as Citizens United had then produced and wanted to show a documentary about Hillary Clinton. They attempted to do so within weeks of the Democratic convention on local broadcast television. In keeping with multiple previously established congressionally legislated laws restricting this type of coercion, the D.C. District Court, ruled that this was a violation of the 2002 BCRA (specifically sect.203) also known as the McCain-Feingold Act. Regulations, then, prohibited corporations and unions from funding “electioneering communications” about a political candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

And, that was, supposedly, that. However, here is where the plot begins.

It took a divisive court just two years to craft a path that would allow the view of five co-conspirator justices to outvote the other four. In doing so, this majority pushed the Supreme Court to interfere with more than a century of ongoing, well crafted, and established election law and thus rule in favor of corporations. In overturning the appellate court’s affirmation of the lower court’s decision in Citizens United v. FECthese five justices effectively ruledthat corporations, including those that are for-profit, can spend unlimited amounts of money on “electioneering communications.”

Communications, in all its forms, is the keyword. Stevens:

“A century of more recent history puts to rest any notion that today’s ruling is faithful to our First Amendment tradition. At the federal level, the express distinction between corporate and individual political spending on elections stretches back to 1907, when Congress passed the Tillman Act, banning all corporate contributions to candidates.”

The Tillman Act was a natural populist reaction to the run-away laissez-faire capitalism of the late 19th century that had, similar to this day, taken over functional control of the presidency and congress. But this legislation was just the beginning. Although it stood virtually unchanged for decades, congress slowly defined, if not watered down, the Tillman Act with new legislation to allow more and more corporate campaign funding to enter elections. However, congress maintained essential corporate restrictions each time.

Stevens, referring to this past, cites a report by the 1906 59th congress and its initial legal response to the rational in creating the Tillman Act:

 “[t]he evils of the use of [corporate] money in connection with political elections are so generally recognized that the committee deems it unnecessary to make any argument in favour of the general purpose of this measure. It [the Tillman Act] is in the interest of good government and calculated to promote purity in the selection of public officials.”

He adds to this comparison President Roosevelt’s 1905 annual message to Congress when he too bolstered the need for these protections, declaring:

“All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law; moreover, a prohibition of this kind would be, as far as it went, an effective method of stopping the evils aimed at in corrupt practices acts.”

The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 is of special significance to the eventuality of Citizens since at that time as well, more than 60 years ago, Congress extended the prohibition on corporate support of candidates to cover not only direct contributions but independent ones.

Despite this, corporations quickly circumvented Taft- Hartley and the Labor Management Relations Act [LMRA] of 1947. Notes Stevens, “The bar on contributions ‘was being so narrowly construed’ that corporations were easily able to defeat the purposes of the Act by supporting candidates through other means.”

Corporate regulations were ultimately defined within the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 which was eventually slightly modified in 1974 as a reaction to Watergate. This was a comprehensive attempt by Congress, both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, to regulate how the candidates for the presidency and Congress raised campaign money and reported those funds. FECA provided regulation of the four greatest concerns: 1) the size of contributions to political campaigns, 2) the source of such contributions, 3) public disclosure of campaign finance information, and 4) public financing of presidential campaigns.

Stevens points out how entrenched were the many existing corporate election regulations even before FECA:

“By the time Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) in 1971, the bar on corporate contributions and expenditures had become such an accepted part of federal campaign finance regulation that… in Buckley,424 U. S. 1, no one even bothered to argue that the bar as such was unconstitutional.” [Emph. Added]

Four years later, in Austin, 494 U. S. 652, the court next articulated whether corporations could be barred from using general treasury funds to make independent expenditures in support of, or opposition to, candidates. Even at this time, the matter was very easily settled in keeping with the already referenced precedents. In recognizing the importance of “the integrity of the marketplace of political ideas”in candidate elections, the court noted the obvious: that corporations have “special advantages—such as limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets,”—that allow them to spend prodigious general treasury sums on campaign messages that have “little or no correlation”with the beliefs held by actual persons. So, Austin, too, prevailed.

For more than twenty years Austin remained established law and was repeatedly affirmed in the subsequent court decisions, most importantly in apparent finality within McConnell, 540 U. S. 93. Here, the court upheld very similar provisions that were eventually challenged in Citizens United. McConnell was also a reaction to a corporate challenge to section §203 of the BCRA whichCongress had crafted in response to a problem created by the challenge in the Buckley case. The Buckley Court had incorrectly construed FECA’s definition of prohibiting “expenditures” narrowly to avoid any problems of constitutional vagueness, holding it applicable only to “communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.”

Congress passed §203 of the BCRA to address this circumvention, once again prohibiting corporations and unions from using general treasury funds for electioneering communications that “refe[r] to a clearly identified candidate.”

Steven’s points out the rock-solid conference of these many past precedents and legislation by next referring to the corporate challenge to election laws in McConnell, which was so easily dispatched by the court:

“…in McConnell…, we found the question ‘easily answered’… We have repeatedly sustained legislation aimed at ‘the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.’ 

In total, the subsequent decision in Citizens is shown by Stevens again and again as an incredible violation of established law and sound constitutional reasoning. Inciting Bellotti, which the majority used as a primary rationale to overturn Citizens, Steven’s shows without a doubt that the majority completely turned Bellotti on its head to serve their unfathomable reasoning,

“…it could not have been clearer that Bellotti’s holding forbade [the] distinctions between corporate and individual expenditures like the one at issue [in Citizens]. The Court’s reliance is odd…the opinion [Bellotti] squarely disavowed the proposition for which the majority cites it [in Citizens].

This is, of course, an outrageous reading of Bellotti by the majority. Stevens also points out that the Bellotti Court confronted a dramatically different factual situation from the one in Citizens. Calling the majority’s logic in Citizens further into question, Stevens adds:

“Austin and McConnell, then, sit perfectly well with Bellotti. Indeed, all six members of the Austin majority had been on the Court at the time of Bellotti, and none so much as hinted in Austin that they saw any tension between the decisions.”

Reiterating respect for the aforementioned long list of historical precedent, Stevens continues:

“Continuously for over 100 years…[the court has ruled against]threats to electoral integrity… posed by large sums of money from corporate or union treasuries. Time and again, we have recognized these realities in approving measures that Congress and the States have taken. None of the cases the majority cites [in Citizens] is to the contrary.”

Stevens points out that, at the time Citizens United brought its lawsuit, the only types of speech that could be potentially regulated under BCRA §203 were: (1) broadcast, cable, or satellite communications; (2) capable of reaching at least 50,000 persons in the relevant electorate; (3) made within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general federal election; (4) by a labor union or a non- MCFL, non-media corporation;(5) paid for with general treasury funds; and (6) “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.”

Hence, Stevens cuts the matter to the bone:

“So let us be clear: Neither Austin norMcConnell held or implied that corporations may be silenced; the FEC is not a “censor”; and in the years since these cases were decided, corporations have continued to play a major role in the national dialogue. … the majority’s incessant talk of a ‘ban’ aims at a straw man.”

But this was a court predisposed to fiction, a court that was not interested in correct legal reasoning, precedent, congressional intent, or justice.

Five men had an inside job to do.So… the Supreme Court Plumbers began their work.

The Corporate Mid-Wife

“Stare Decisis” (Latin): ‘Stand by Things Decided’.”

With repeated corporate attempts at increasing their control on US elections thwarted by the court in the public interest, the Plumbers had a problem. To confirm their plot they needed a case to overturn however, Citizens had not, as was necessary, petitioned the court for review.

But Chief Justice John Roberts saw opportunity buried within Citizens; if he could only get the case before the bench without a request for standing by a petitioner. So, as went one hundred years of election law precedent, so easily went another two hundred years of procedural precedent along with it.

Roberts’ initial problem was the long-established universal court tenet of Stare Decisis.

Applied to the SCOTUS, this functionally means, that other than in exceptional circumstances, the court will not provide a review of any law or legislation unless asked to do so by a losing litigant at the lower court and only then if it can show a “facial” or specifically constitutional challenge. ‘Citizens’ did not apply to the court nor provide a legally correct facial challenge.

So, the Plumbers cast these legal obligations to the winds as well.

Citing established law while referring to Stare Decisis, Steven’s provides,

“The appellant, in this case, did not so much as assert an exceptional circumstance, and one searches the majority opinion in vain for the mention of any. That is unsurprising, for none exists.

One of the reasons that Stare Decisis is so important is that federal and state legislatures need to operate with the confidence that they can create their own laws within the tenets of the US constitution in an autonomous manner without concern for external intervention by the courts unless constitutionally necessary, i.e., the states do not need court approval before they enact legislation.

Stevens adds:

 “Stare decisis protects…the elected branches to shape their laws in an effective and coherent fashion. Today’s decision [Citizens applied Stare Decisis] takes away a power that we have long permitted these branches to exercise.”

As an example, inFEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197 (1982), the court had previously unanimously ruled that legislatures are entitled to decide “that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation” in an electoral context.

Regarding the majority’s failures within Stare Decisis, Stevens assesses:

“… the majority opinion…. says almost nothing about the standard considerations we have used to determine stare decisis value, such as the antiquity of the precedent, the workability of its legal rule, and the reliance interests at stake. “

The motivation of Roberts in bringing Citizen’s before the court in violation of Stare Decisis had one primary goal, overturning Austin and by extension BCRA sect 203.

“The only relevant thing that has changed since Austin and McConnell is the composition of this Court. Today’s ruling thus strikes at the vitals of stare decisis…”

In the end, the Court’s consideration of Citizens said Stevens, with regard to Austin and McConnell, comes down to “nothing more than its disagreement with their results.”

Steven’s continues:

“Virtually every one of [the majority’s] arguments [in Citizens] was made and rejected in those cases [McConnell, Austin, Bellotti, Buckley] and the majority opinion is essentially an amalgamation of resuscitated dissents.”

“The only relevant thing that has changed since Austin and McConnell is the composition of this Court.”

Now that the Plumbers had their much needed constitutional skeleton key of Citizens finally in hand- after their wholesale ignorance of Stare Decisis– it was time for the five to go to work.

Birthin’ the Baby

“Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.”- Stevens.

Oh, and change it they did, throwing out along with Stare Decisis one of the most basic legal principles: the requirement of a facial challenge: the assertion of an error in the correct application of constitutional law within an appellate court ruling so that it may be brought to the court. Citizen never made this facial challenge because it never petitioned the court for review.

So, the plumbers built their own, once again, out of straw.

This is not merely a technical defect in the Court’s decision. Stevens continues his attack on the use of Citizensby next looking at the purely procedural problems and lack of a facial challenge, that would, without the assistance of the Plumbers, never have been heard by the court. These were serious errors.

Notes Stevens:

“The jurisdictional statement [of Citizens] never so much as cited Austin. In fact, not one of those questions raised an issue based on Citizens United’s corporate status and never sought a declaration that BCRA §203 was facially unconstitutional …instead it argued only that the statute could not be applied to it because it was “funded overwhelmingly by individuals.”

So, Citizens was not asking for Austin to effectively be struck-down; neither was it asking to be considered a person. This was entirely the work of the Plumbers, since:

“Citizens United expressly abandoned its facial challenge, (May 16, 2008), and the parties stipulated to the dismissal of that claim.”

Yet, to serve their true purpose of overturning Austin the majority incredibly suggested that,

“even though [Citizens] expressly dismissed its facial challenge, Citizens United nevertheless preserved it—not as a freestanding “claim,” but as a potential argumentin support of “a claim that the FEC has violated its First Amendment right to free speech.”

To this, Steven cryptically assesses this reasoning of this irrational, incorrect, and outrageous legal premise, since;

“There would be no need for plaintiffs to argue their case; they could just cite the constitutional provisions they think relevant, and leave the rest to us.”

Therefore;

“There is no legitimate basis for resurrecting a facial chal­lenge that dropped out of this case 20 months ago.”

Making the majority decision all the more divisive, there were other remedies that the majority might have considered if it were not going for the big prize of instead smashing Austin by using Citizen’s. Said Stevens,

“The Court operates with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel when it strikes down one of Congress’ most significant efforts [BCRA] to regulate the role that corporations and unions play in electoral politics. It compounds the offence by implicitly striking down a great many state laws as well.

“It is all the more distressing that our colleagues have manufactured a facial challenge because the parties [in Citizens]have advanced numerous [alternate] ways to resolve the case.”

Stevens continues that the problem goes still deeper, for the Court ignores these possibilities on the basis of pure speculation.

Congress crafted BCRA in response to a virtual mountain of research on the corruption that previous legislation had failed to avert. The Court by overturning Citizens negated Congress’ efforts “without a shred of evidence on how §203 or its state-law counterparts have been affecting any entity other than Citizens United.”

“The fact that a Court can hypothesize situations in which a statute might, at some point down the line, pose some unforeseen as-applied problems, does not come close to meeting the standard for a facial challenge”.

So, the Plumbers, within their ruling that overturned Citizens, allowed for a facial challenge that did not exist in order to adulterate the supposed review of Citizen while in reality being after Austin.

Unbelievably, the work of the Plumbers and their sudden legal acumen would become more egregious than thus far described in Stevens’ parable.

Spanked into Life

“The novelty of the Court’s procedural dereliction and its approach to stare decisis is matched only by the novelty of its ruling on the merits.”

The Citizens majority ruling, once it took the form presented by the Plumbers, rested on several premises.

First, the Court claimed that Austin and McConnell had “banned” corporate speech.

Second, it claimed that the First Amendment precludes regulatory distinctions based on speaker identity, including the speaker’s identity as a corporation.

Third, it claimed that Austin and McConnell were radical outliers in the history of First Amendment tradition applied to campaign finance jurisprudence. Stevens, within the next thirty-plus pages of his dissent, thrashes all of these legally irrational contentions to their core, thus exposing beyond doubt that each premise used by the majority is incorrect.

Within his succinct analysis Stevens provides three avenues of thought that the majority could have taken if it had been reviewing Citizens and not Austin with the reminder that the majority has transgressed yet another “cardinal” principle of the judicial process:

“[I]f it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more,” PDK Labs., Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 362 F. 3d (CADC 2004)

In lieu of this fundamental precedent, Steven highlights two of the narrower grounds of the decision that the majority had bypassed and that would have preserved BCRA and Austin while appeasing Citizens.

First, the Court might have ruled, on statutory grounds, that a feature-length film distributed through video-on-demand does not qualify as an “electioneering communication” under §203 of BCRA.

Second, the Court could have expanded the MCFL v F.E.C. rulingto cover §501(c)(4) nonprofits that accept only a de minimis amount of money from for-profit corporations since, “Citizens United professes to be such a group.”

“…the Court could have easily limited the breadth of its constitutional holding had it declined to adopt the novel notion that speakers and speech acts must always be treated identically—and always spared expenditures restrictions…”

Stevens’ examples and harsh legal examination is meant to show that there were principled, narrower paths that the court could have taken if the Plumbers had been serious about traditional judicial restraint. To this, Stevens again provides precedent…

“[A] decision to overrule should rest on some special reason over and above the belief that a prior case was wrongly decided.”Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 864 (1992).

…to bolster his opinion that:

“The conceit that corporations must be treated identically… is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case…I emphatically dissent from its principal holding.”

Steven provides a final, all-encompassing comment on this two-year plot to circumvent BCRA sect 203 and Austinby way of Citizens.

“The only thing preventing the majority from affirming the District Court, or adopting a narrower ground that would retain Austin, is [the majority’s] disdain for Austin.”

The Child Grows Fangs

In looking at the future as resultant to Citizens, Stevens opined ten years ago;

“Going forward, corporations and unions will be free to spend as much general treasury money as they wish …thus dramatically enhance[ing] the role of corporations and unions—and the narrow interests they represent…in determining who will hold public office.”

With this, Stevens foresaw, as all the great justices have done, the future of his America applied to any landmark decision. Long gone, even in mind, are the carefully crafted rulings of a Warren, Powell, Marshall, Black or Douglas.

When the Plumbers ruled to overturn Citizens, and effectively BCRA sect. 203 and Austin, this set a new precedent. Post-2000 rulings would also help to spawn the advent of the super PACs, which, thanks to the Plumbers and Citizens, can accept unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and other groups.

In the many two, four or six-year election cycles since Citizens United, the “dark money” political nonprofits have increasingly unleashed unprecedented amounts of money in order to influence voters. This has given rise to this massive funding being used to propagate favored candidates at all levels of government including the local judgeships as well as its use to defeat opposition candidates as well.

Underhandedly, post- Citizens political party leaders helped establish many of these super PACs, so as to effectively and secretly funnel unreported money from a growing number of well-connected outside groups. This result, as intended by the Plumbers, blurred the lines between super PACs and candidates.

Today, super PACs far surpass national party committees as the top political spending groups. In 2018, the top three outside spending groups were RNC connected super PACs. The  Congressional Leadership Fund ($136 million), Harry Reid-connected Senate Majority PAC ($112 million) and the Mitch McConnell-linked Senate Leadership Fund ($94 million) were just three of these election war chests.

Although super PACs must disclose their donors, they can accept unlimited contributions from dark money nonprofits and these are not required to disclose their donors. Therefore, a super PAC can simply list the nonprofit as the donor, keeping the identity of the actual sources of funding secret.

Another lasting impact of Citizens United is the rising influence of megadonors. In 2010, the top individual donor gave out $7.6 million to candidates and groups. That number shot up in 2012 when Sheldon and Miriam Adelson by themselves gave out nearly $93 million. Aiding these scores of mega-donors was the 2014 McCutcheon v. FEC Supreme Court ruling that removed limits on how much an individual donor can give in an election cycle.

Constitutional Measles

In a matter of days, the SCOTUS will reveal its annual court decisions. The docket this year is one of the most important in decades since the issues that the court will decide are some of the most duplicitous in decades. These include DACA, abortion restrictions, gun rights, state funds for religious schools, and two Separation of Powers issues about Trump’s finances.

With Steven’s saga of Citizens and the Supreme Court Plumbers now firmly in mind, American society should be very concerned. The constitution in these upcoming decisions, as was the case with Citizens, will not be of concern legally, but merely theologically.

In the past ten years, the make-up of the SCOTUS has turned even further away from constitutional obligations into the realm of the corporately ideological. No longer is there a perceived swing vote as there was with justice Kennedy and the majority now sits firmly in one camp of five-plus justices, a camp that former Chief Supreme Court Justice, Earl Warren would have blasted as he does today in absentia having declared a half-century ago:

“…the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system.”

But, that was a long time ago.

So in conclusion, while considering that the SCOTUS decisions to be rendered in the coming days are- post-Citizens– far too predictable, the thus utterly disenfranchised voter might do well to consider this aforementioned parable and the words so carefully crafted by this nation’s third longest-serving justice when he said in sardonic finality:

“[Before Citizens]few outside the majority of this Court would have thought [that America’s] flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”

Mere months later, as the aftermath of Citizens swept the country, United States Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Steven, the second oldest justice in US history at age ninety, retired.

His dissenting opinion, his cutting critique and its implicit indictment of the unconstitutional- if not mercenary- direction of its majority was the very last court opinion to come from this great man’s pen.

***

Few knew this story. Few understand the true gravity of Citizens United. Fewer realize how much this case was the bellwether of an America that the voter must again attempt to overcome in mere months.

The Plumbers of the Watergate failed. They were brought to justice, convicted, vilified and unwittingly toppled a corrupt president who considered himself above the law.

The Plumbers of today, those who walk the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court building, they, however, will continue to whisper with impunity their constitutional heresy from within the obfuscation of their specious and corporatist landmark decisions.

These Plumbers of today? They have already done far more damage than the gang of ’72 could have ever imagined.

A president? Shit…

These guys took down a constitution…and a country!

 

*

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

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

Last week the US and China finally signed phase 1 of their long awaited trade deal. Despite Trump’s hyperbole financial markets reacted in a rather muted way to the ‘deal of the century’. The continuing inflation in stock markets is due to the QE4 programme of the US Federal Reserve that’s pumping hundreds of billions into the short term debt (repo) market and the purchasing of $60 billion of US Treasury debt every month.

Nearly 2 years after he launched the trade war with China has Trump finally got the deal he originally wanted? Definitely not.

The current deal does not address any of the major structural issues that the US wants China to make concessions over. Those thorny issues seem insurmountable unless China is willing to make major compromises over its national sovereignty reminiscent of the unequal treaties it was forced to sign with Western imperialism during the 19th and 20th centuries.

The second round of the trade war will be much more protracted and problematic and is likely to greatly exacerbate tensions between the two largest economies in the world pushing their relationship to breaking point.

Having said this, Trump has extracted a series of concessions from the Beijing government led by the misnamed Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Effectively, China has conceded the first round of the trade war to the US. giving Trump’s re-election prospects a major boost.

This begs the question: why has China signed a trade deal, that makes so many concessions, with a country that is unrelentingly aggressive towards it?

The phase 1 trade deal will also create domestic problems for the CCP leadership which has played the nationalist card for all its worth over the last year and ramped up its anti-American propaganda claiming that it would,“fight to the end”. The CCP leadership is in danger of boxing itself into a corner having raised public expectations that it would resist any trade deal which stifled China’s economic prospects.

The Chinese population has a long historical memory of concessions made by past governments to the West. It will be interesting to see how the Chinese people react to the compromises made by their government in the ‘phase one’ trade deal at a time of slowing economic growth. In 2019 China’s economy grew at its slowest pace in three decades. This is a major concern to the government which is acutely aware that slowing economic growth poses a threat to social stability and the continued rule of the one party state.

Vincent Kolo a journalist based in China makes the observation that the trade deal:

“… is very likely to be panned as an “unequal treaty” and an American victory by netizens in China. China’s state media has been unusually defensive and restrictive with its coverage of the deal. The normally bombastic Global Times (a government mouthpiece), which in December insisted the rolling back of all US tariffs was the bottom line for reaching a phase one agreement, ran an editorial after the deal was signed admonishing its readers that debating “about who had lost or gained is shallow.”

“We urge individuals and forces to exercise some restraint in their nit-picking of the agreement and bad-mouthing future trade negotiations,” it wrote.

Can President Xi’s government successfully sell the trade deal as an achievement that will benefit China’s economy? Time will tell. Let us look at the series of concessions that China made to the United States before considering the domestic and geo-political implications of this trade deal.

Concessions made by China in the ‘Phase One’ trade deal

The mainstream media has widely reported the $200 billion of agricultrual goods, manufactured goods, energy products and services that China has agreed to purchase during the 2020-2021 period.

The ability of China to purchase this amount of American imports has been questioned by many financial experts, never mind the fact that the EU is threatening WTO legal action stating that the phase 1 deal violates free trade.

Under the terms of the phase 1 deal China’s exporters will still be suffering under $360 billion worth of US tariffs that cover two thirds of all goods that Americans buy from China. Conversely, these tariffs will also hurt American shoppers who will pay more for their consumer goods and cut into the profits of many US importers.

If we get into the meat of the 96 page agreement we shall see how the concessions that China has made go much further than these headline catching figures.

Counterfeiting, copyright and intellectual property theft

One of the earliest sections of the agreement deals with counterfeiting, copyright and intellectual property theft for which China has received a bad reputation. The agreement specifies that China will take a whole host of measures to deal with these issues. These measures range from a substantial increase in the number of customs personnel and raising legal penalties to significantly increasing the number of enforcement actions. The agreement puts no obligations on the United States as it merely acknowledges that existing U.S. measures afford effective enforcement.

Agricultural goods

In the politically charged section on trade in agricultural goods we see how the U.S. has successfully pressured China to lower food standards in many areas. In section 3-9 China is now committed to adopting maximum residue limits for growth hormones zeranol, trenbolone acetate, and melangesterol acetate in American beef. These growth hormones in beef have been banned by the EU as potential risks to human health.

China has agree to lift its ban on American pet food containing ruminant ingredients and agrees to no longer carry out Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing (i.e. DNA testing) on all U.S. pet food products containing ruminant ingredients. However, one recent scientific study into the importance of PCR testing in food safety noted that there is a:

“complex widespread disease of the small grains (wheat, maize, or barley) … Fusarium head blight (FHB) produced by the Fusarium sp. infection. Besides the considerable loss of yield, it has the ability to produce mycotoxins which are harmful to human and animal consumer.’’

More controversially, is the agreement regarding Agricultural Biotechnology. According to section 3-20 China has a year in which to produce an assessment procedure for approval of American food derived from genetically modified microorganisms.

This could prove difficult for the Chinese government which has failed to persuade its people of the merits of GMO foods. In a country plagued by food scandals that have produced violent protests it is no surprise that a nationwide survey in 2018 revealed that 46.7% of people disapproved of GMO food. This is despite government propaganda campaigns telling people that GMO food is safe to eat.

The Chinese government, nervous of public feeling on this emotive issue, has even allowed government organizations to issue duelling official narratives on the safety of GMO food. According to Eugene K.Chow of The Diplomat there is, ‘anti-GMO fervour, spread by everyone from popular TV personalities to Maoists and NGOs like Greenpeace.’

Besides this public distrust of GMO food China has its own soybean industry. Its largest producer is based in the north east of the country in Heilongjiang province. Chinese soybeans are GMO free and may be seen by the public to be preferable to GMO soybeans from the United States.

Financial Services

The most perilous part of the phase 1 trade deal is the section concerning the further opening up of China’s financial markets to foreign capital. Over the last 10 years China has been very cautious in reducing capital controls and allowing foreign banks and hedge funds to invest in its capital markets.

The 1997 Asian financial crisis was caused by south-east Asian economies allowing foreign speculative capital into their tightly controlled financial markets. Forbes magazine has summed up the dangers posed by this process:

“Once a market deregulates, there’ll be lots of speculative investments that go after higher interest rates. But as a result, with excessive amounts of foreign money stacking up, along with hot sectors and hot money, the economy ends up screeching to a sudden halt.

Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and other South-east Asian countries …. sought soaring stock markets, higher property prices and increased consumer lending, [just as China currently does-LT] they forfeited control over their financial systems.

Whenever the free-market gets mixed up in a closed controlled financial system, then something will go wrong.’’

Economists Fengjuan Xiao and Donald Kimball in examining China’s capital controls have concluded that there are many dangers to opening it’s economy to international financial markets:

“As it now stands, there is considerable risk that the outcome of quickly liberalizing capital account transactions will be costly for China. As demonstrated during the Asian financial crisis, there is no stronger, quicker, or more unforgiving punisher of poor financial practices than the power of free capital markets.’’

Despite these warnings from history the phase 1 trade deal mandates China to granting banking licences to the “too big to fail” banks of Wall Street. The same banks that created the 2008 financial crisis. Since 2008 they have engaged in a massive crime wave fleecing American consumers and small-medium businesses helping to create the greatest increase in wealth inequality in over a century.

To add insult to injury, the trade deal allows American owned credit rating agencies to operate in China. These are the same credit rating agencies (Standard and Poor’s, Fitch Group and Moody’s) which gave triple A ratings to sub-prime mortgages that triggered the global financial crisis of 2008. Incredibly, China is now giving them the power to rate Chinese bonds sold to domestic investors and international investors.

The phase 1 trade deal also allows American banks to provide securities investment, fund custody services and to serve as underwriters for all types of non-financial debt instruments. You can imagine the hedge funds and “too big to fail” banks of Wall Street drooling at the prospect of the massive fees they can extract from investors in China.

The phase 1 trade deal also allows American payment processes such as MasterCard and Visa to operate in China. No doubt they see China as a lucrative market in which they can extract large amounts in fees from heavily-indebted consumers.

The phase 1 trade deal gets even worse when it comes to allowing American capital to conduct its parasitical activity within other key areas of the Chinese economy.

China will now allow American financial services providers to acquire non-performing loans directly from Chinese banks. Shareestates a New York investment firm notes the lucrative opportunities of this particular financial market, particularity in real estate where China has seen a massive boom with the growth of its ‘ghost cities’:

“Non-Performing real estate loans are a huge opportunity for investors who are serious about turning a discounted asset into a positive ROI [return on investment] and potentially a passive income that will keep your returns flowing in for years to come.

In 2019 China’s banks had non-performing loans worth over $317 billion which is the highest since 2003. This comes at a time when Chinese authorities have been encouraging domestic banks to sharply increase the number of loans to small and medium businesses to help combat the slowdown in economic growth.

According to Price Waterhouse Cooper this poses systemic risks to China’s economy:

“Yet the real level of bad debt in China might be much higher than the official figures, according to some international rating agencies. NPL rates may have already been as high as 15%-21% for the financial system. If that was true, it would mean that if all these were written off, it would wipe out Chinese banks’ capital base.’’

China’s government has overseen a massive credit binge over the last 10 years which has seen the country’s total debt rise from 164% of GDP in 2008 to over 300% of GDP (over $40 trillion) accounting for over 15% of overall global debt. Offering non-performing loans to rapacious American banks is unlikely to help the country deal with its gigantic debt hangover.

The phase 1 trade deal also directs China to remove the legal barriers to American owned insurance companies supplying services to China’s 19.1 trillion yuan insurance sector. In 2019 Chinese insurers premium income rose 15.9% from 2018 to 1.6 trillion yuan.

To cap it all off, the phase 1 trade deal also allows American owned companies to participate in China’s derivatives markets that encompasses speculation in price movements for stock indexes, energy, foodstuffs, precious metals and bonds.

Needless to say, the sum total of all these concessions in the financial services sector amounts to a major retreat by the Beijing government. Now it will give American capital a considerable influence over vitally important sectors of its economy. By allowing foreign capital into its financial markets it remains to be seen whether China will suffer the same fate as the economies of south-east Asia during the 1997 financial crisis that swept the region.

Why has the CCP government made so many concessions to the American empire?

The number one priority of the Beijing government is to maintain economic growth at all costs to avoid the type of mass protests currently afflicting Hong Kong. President Xi and the oligarchs whom he represents have not forgotten the Tiananmen Square uprising of 1989. Social stability must be maintained at all costs.

They are acutely aware that the economic revolution, that has swept the country along since the 1980s, has created an enormous urban population. As long as the desire of the urban population for rising living standards can be met then the CCP government can sleep peacefully at night.

The phase 1 trade deal can be seen as a desperate attempt to help stave off a recession. American tariffs have undoubtedly hurt China’s exporters and the limited partial relief on tariffs must have been accepted by Beijing as better than nothing at all.

It could be argued that China is playing for time while its major economic projects such as the Made In China 2025 initiative and One Belt and Road endeavour come to fruition. If allowed to develop unimpeded they will enable China to achieve its objective of becoming a high-tech manufacturing hub.

The phase 1 deal has helped postpone American demands that China abandon its state capitalist model that has played such a major role in the country’s emergence as an economic powerhouse. American capital would love to see China privatize its strategic state developed industries as happened in Russia during the wild west days of the Yeltsin regime.

The China Worker publication makes the perceptive comment that Xi’s regime felt squeezed by a number of intersecting forces that exerted an:

“…enormous pressure to sign the deal and stave off further tariff increases, given a banking sector crisis which is beginning to flash red warning lights, an accelerating slump in investment and consumption, and fear of significant social unrest. The regime fears the effects on mass consciousness if it is seen as weak or as having capitulated to US pressure, especially as this comes after a number of serious political setbacks – not least the mass rejection of the Chinese regime in Hong Kong and Taiwan.’’

Prospects for the next period

Many financial pundits argue that China’s strategy in the trade war is to wait and see if the U.S. presidential election in November produces an incumbent who is less hostile to its interests.

This would be a huge mistake as recent votes in Congress reveal how the political establishment (both Democrat and Republican) share the same world view when it comes to China. Congress keeps voting unanimously for anti-China measures such as the Hong Kong Human Rights Act.

Regardless of who wins the presidential reality show in November China cannot expect any change in the hostile stance of the American empire.

China’s relations with America over the next period will be shaped above all else by developments in the global economy.

The weak economic growth experienced by the world economy since the 2008 economic depression has been fuelled by a gigantic increase in debt the likes of which have not been seen before in human history. According to the Institute of International Finance global debt grew to mind-boggling” levels from $173 trillion in 2008 to $253trillion by 2019. Global debt to GDP hit an all time high of over 322% in 2019. Global debt it set to continue growing rapidly in 2020 largely driven by China and the United States.

Yet this has not been matched by a corresponding growth of the real economy in goods and services.

Central banks across the globe, including China’s, have taken a series of crisis measures in a desperate attempt to stave off the next economic depression. These measures range from the 67 interest rate cuts carried out by 46central banks to the huge stimulus measures i.e. money printing on a scale that was last seen during the depths of the 2008-9 financial crisis. The U.S. Federal Reserve, the ECB and the People’s Bank of China have all been forced to print digital cash in huge quantities – yet it’s not working.

Numerous metrics indicate that there is a synchronized global economic slowdown’ due to the limits to debt-fuelled growth. The Institute of International Finance estimates that, “Over 60% of the world’s countries expected to see below-potential growth in 2020,…’’ Global manufacturing activity is hovering barely above the recession at 50.1. The Baltic Dry Index (which monitors bulk commodities shipping) is a closely watched indicator of future trading activity has fallen 50% during 2019. Meanwhile, the DHL Global Trade Barometer indicates that a global economy in serious trouble. According to the Brookings Institute:

“The indexes for China and the U.S., the two main drivers of global growth, are below 50 and have been falling. The indexes for other major advanced economies have also declined, reflecting the broad-based nature of the slowdown in trade as well as GDP growth. The low and declining index for Germany, the main driver of growth in Europe, points to an economy that is flirting with recession, as it has experienced virtually zero growth in recent quarters.’’

The dizzying new heights reached by financial markets, particularly in the U.S., are reminiscent of the roaring twenties boom that ended in the disastrous Wall Street Crash of October 1929.

The economic upswing since 2009 is very long in the tooth. If the global economy recedes into recession during 2020-2021 then China will be placed in a very difficult position as markets for its export industries start to dry up.

The uprisings currently taking place across the globe before a recession may well spread to mainland China once an economic downturn starts and living standards start to fall and people feel the pain.

In such a situation the Beijing government will have very limited room for making any further trade concessions to its American enemy. Yet the American empire will be even more hostile in such an economic environment. It will use its vast military machine and the its control of trade, through the U.S. dollar, as cudgels to try and pressure China into making more fundamental concessions.

The Chinese nation will face a choice: draw upon its rich heritage of revolutionary anti-imperialist action to resist the U.S. empire or capitulate to its enemy.

Long term, the current strategy pursued by Beijing of peaceful coexistence with U.S. imperialism will not work. History is full of examples where declining empires fight to maintain their hegemony.

*

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.

Censorship is the new normal in America and the West, wanting the message controlled, targeting what conflicts with it for elimination, notably on major geopolitical issues.

Digital democracy is the last frontier of free and open expression.

It’s threatened by social media, Google, and other tech giants —  complicit in a campaign against content conflicting with the official narrative.

Media scholar Robert McChesney earlier said without digital democracy, “the Internet would look like cable TV…a handful of massive companies (controlling) content” — deciding what’s permitted online and what’s suppressed.

Without free expression rights, all others are threatened — where things are headed in US and other Western societies.

Fundamental rights are eroding, at risk of disappearing altogether on the phony pretext of protecting national security at a time when alleged foreign threats to the West are invented, not real.

Pompeo earlier claimed “Julian Assange has no First Amendment freedoms (sic)…He’s not a US citizen.”

Despite no evidence suggesting it, Pompeo called Assange “a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia (sic),” adding:

“We have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us (sic).”

“To give (him and others) space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for (sic). It ends now.”

Pompeo declared war on speech, media, and academic freedoms — supported by Trump, falsely calling Assange an “enemy of the people.”

Following his latest kangaroo court hearing in London on Thursday, pertaining to the Trump regime’s unjustifiable extradition request, the UK complicit in its war on free expression, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson said the following:

“We have now learned from submissions and affidavits presented by the United States to this court that they do not consider foreign nationals to have a First Amendment protection,” adding:

“Now let that sink in for a second. At the same time that the US government is chasing journalists all over the world, they claim they have extra-territorial reach.”

“They have decided that all foreign journalists which include many of you here, have no protection under the First Amendment of the United States.”

“So that goes to show the gravity of this case. This is not about Julian Assange. It’s about press freedom.”

Denying Assange the universal right of free expression endangers all journalists and everyone else. His case is precedent-setting.

If extradited to the US, convicted of the “crime” of truth-telling journalism and imprisoned, it’ll have far-reaching consequences, all truth-telling journalists potentially threatened the same way.

Fundamental rule of law principles are universal, in place to protect everyone from abuses of power.

Dark forces in the US and other Western societies want views conflicting with official ones silenced.

In the US, earlier Supreme Court rulings upholding First Amendment rights are ignored, notably Justice William Brennan’s majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson (1989), saying:

“(I)f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.”

Justice Thurgood Marshall once said:

“(A)bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Nor does anyone else.

Separately he said:

“If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.”

“Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men’s minds.”

No one on the US Supreme Court today approaches the stature of Brennan and Marshall.

Their support for equal justice under law no longer exists in the US, police state injustice replacing it, including efforts to censor views dark forces consider objectionable.

We’re all Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, and others like them.

Their fate could be ours by challenging powerful interests — wanting free and open expression replaced by controlling the message.

What’s going on is the hallmark of totalitarian rule — enforced with police state harshness.

When truth-telling and dissent are considered existential threats, free and open societies no longer exist — the slippery slope where the US, UK, and other Western states are heading.

A Final Comment

Last year, WikiLeaks said the following:

Assange is “an Australian journalist who founded WikiLeaks in 2006.”

He “was the editor of WikiLeaks until September 2018: six months of his effective incommunicado detention in the Ecuadorian embassy in London then prompted Julian to appoint Kristin Hrafnsson as WikiLeaks editor-in-chief. Julian remains WikiLeaks’ publisher.”

“Wikileaks’ publications have had enormous impact. They have changed many peoples’ views of governments, enabling them to see their secrets.”

“They have changed journalism as a practice, as debates have raged over the ethics of secrecy, transparency and reporting on stolen documents.”

“WikiLeaks has gained the admiration of people and organizations all over the world, as evidenced in the numerous awards it has won.”

“For these contributions to public accountability and the historical record, Assange has been arrested in the United Kingdom and indicted in the United States.”

“The US requests Assange’s extradition and has charged him with 17 counts under the Espionage Act of 1917 for the publication of truthful material in the public interest.”

“Assange is the first journalist in history the US has charged with Espionage for publishing.”

“He also faces one count of conspiracy to commit computer crime based on his alleged reporter-source communications with whistleblower Chelsea Manning.”

“This charge would criminalize basic journalistic activity, as the indictment details alleged attempts to help Manning protect her anonymity as a journalistic source.”

“If extradited, Assange faces the prospect of life imprisonment in the United States” — for the “crime” of truth-telling journalism the way it’s supposed to be, what establishment media long ago was abandoned, operating as press agents for powerful interests.

*

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 “War on Dissent” Threatens Speech, Media and Academic Freedoms

Only One Lab in China Can Safely Handle the New Coronavirus

January 26th, 2020 by Nicoletta Lanese

As an escalating viral outbreak unfolds in China, only one lab in the country meets the required biosafety standards needed to study the new disease. 

The lab happens to sit in the center of Wuhan, the city where the newly identified coronavirus first appeared, according to the Hindustan Times, an Indian news outlet. The facility, known as the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory, is housed within the Chinese Academy of Sciences and was specifically designed to help Chinese scientists “prepare for and respond to future infectious disease outbreaks,” according to a 2019 report published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The Chinese government moved to construct such a lab following the 2003 SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) epidemic, during which more than 8,000 people caught the infection and more than 750 died worldwide, according to the CDC.

Laboratories that handle pathogens receive a rating of 1 to 4, depending on what class of microbe they can feasibly contain, with 1 representing the lowest risk and 4 representing the highest risk. Designated at Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4), the Wuhan lab can hold the world’s most dangerous pathogens at maximum biocontainment levels.

All researchers in a BSL-4 lab must change their clothing upon entering the facility, shower upon exiting and decontaminate all of the materials used during experimentation, according to the CDC. Lab members wear full-body, pressurized suits to isolate themselves from the surrounding environment. The lab itself must be held in a separate building or an isolated wing within the surrounding university and must be supplied with its own air filtration and decontamination systems.

BSL-4 labs are built to contain infectious agents such as the Ebola, Nipah and Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever viruses, all of which are highly transmissible and frequently fatal diseases.

Although China intends to build five to seven high-containment laboratories by 2025, as of now, only the Wuhan lab can currently contain pathogens of this nature, according to the 2019 CDC report.

Chinese health officials have classified the new coronavirus as a Class B infectious disease, placing the illness in the same category as SARS and HIV/AIDS, The Washington Post reported. However, the Chinese government announced that it will institute Class A controls — which are usually reserved for more dangerous diseases, like cholera and the plague — in an attempt to contain the outbreak.

Reports of the first infection of this coronavirus in a U.S. citizen, a man in Washington state, have already prompted Chinese health authorities to place Wuhan under quasi-quarantine, meaning that movement to and from the region is now under tight control. Authorities may forcibly quarantine individuals known or suspected to be infected with the virus and will inform the public of each new case identified in China, according to The Washington Post.

More than 400 people have contracted the new coronavirus in China so far, along with others in Thailand, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the U.S. China’s supply of surgical masks is running low, and many travelers have canceled their plans for the upcoming Lunar New Year because of fears of becoming infected, the South China Morning Post reported. Only time will tell how and when the outbreak will be quelled and whether the outbreak presents any substantial threat to global health.

*

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 CC2.0 Flickr/davidmartindavies

50 million Christian Zionists, including US VP Mike Pence, have succeeded in persuading a gullible Donald Trump to propose the forced annexation of Palestinian East Jerusalem and the West Bank by hard-line extremist Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, currently under threat of imprisonment for corruption.

The magnitude of the threat to regional peace cannot be overemphasised. It will give a green light for a concerted and combined attack by Hezbollah and other Arab states to finally put a stop to the astonishing theft of land by the Israeli state, armed and supported by a demented, megalomaniac American President.

Israel, itself, is a nuclear armed state, albeit undeclared and uninspected that is estimated by US scientists to have amassed an arsenal of up to 400 nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction.  However, Israel is not a party to any of the international conventions and agreements signed up to by the rest of the world including Britain, America, China, Russia, France, Germany etc. And that fact alone makes the current Israeli government a maverick entity that poses an existential threat to both regional peace and the world.

It was indicative that at this week’s commemorative event in Israel marking the 75th anniversary of the closing of Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp in Poland, only about 35 out of 195 UN Member States accepted an invitation to attend the proceedings – presumably in protest at US-backed, Israeli aggression.  From this one can reasonably assume that less than 18% of the global international community support Israel’s continued persecution of the Arab indigenous population.

Any attempt at the further theft of Palestinian land must be taken urgently to the U.N. Security Council for determination because the safety of the 82% majority of the global community is vitally more important than the illegal expansion of a maverick state.

*

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

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

The Battle for the Indian Ocean and Island States

January 26th, 2020 by Kester Kenn Klomegah

Russia has taken an increasing interest in strengthening consistently its diplomacy with small island States especially Cape Verde, Mauritius, Maldives and Seychelles. Late December, the Kremlin appointed Deputy Director Artem Kozhin at the Foreign Ministry as the new ambassador to the island of Seychelles, signalling the strategic importance it attaches to this island state of Seychelles with an estimated population of 85 thousand, located in the Indian Ocean, northeast of Madagascar and east of Kenya.

Former Russian ambassador to Seychelles, Alexander Vladimirov said the relations between the two countries have been extremely cordial since the two countries established diplomatic relations following the independence of Seychelles in 1976. Russia and Seychelles have seen remarkable developments between the two countries, including the arrival of many Russian tourists. Russian investors have been investing in the country.

On June 30, 2016, Russia and Seychelles marked their 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Over the years, both have pledged to forge mutual cooperation in many spheres, but little is tangibly visible.

Notwithstanding that little progress, an agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Seychelles waiving visa requirements for short-term trips by citizens of both countries was signed in Victoria, Seychelles, on Sept 2, 2015. Under the agreement, citizens of Russia and Seychelles with a valid passport, including a diplomatic or official passport, are exempted from visa requirements and may enter, stay or transit the territory of the other state without a visa for a term of up to 30 days.

As expected, both countries have exchanged official visits and held meetings at different times. During one of such meetings, Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, underscored the mutual interest in and readiness for the development of a joint plan for partnership, including transport and energy between Russia and Seychelles, and that would include the Sountern African Development Community.

As far back as March 2015, on the topic that appeared that Russia planned to open military bases in Seychelles, Vietnam, Nicaragua and Cuba, Lavrov vehemently responded:

“It is absolutely wrong. We have no plans to create military or marine bases abroad, but to resolve specific tasks: fighting piracy, pirates have appear in many parts of the world. Our fleet makes long-distance voyages. We agreed with some countries, that our ships use the existing infrastructure for calling into ports for maintenance and small repairs, supplementing food and water reserves, and for recreation of crews.”

Seychelles has over the years, suffered fron sea piracy. However, the island is a key participant in the fight against Indian Ocean piracy primarily committed by Somali pirates. Former president James Michel said:

“The pirates cost a great percentage of the Seychelles GDP, including direct and indirect costs for the loss of boats, fishing, and tourism, and the indirect investment for the maritime security.”

These are factors affecting local fishing – one of the country’s main national resources.

As a support base, the island is currently strategic zone for the United States¸ China and India that are already competing in the Indian Ocean. But Sanusha Naidu, a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Global Dialogue based in Pretoria, South Africa, thinks that it is very strategic for Russia to strengthen engagements with these island States, especially Seychelles.

“Part of this will enable Moscow to have an important maritime security presence from the Indian Ocean Rim on the East Coast to the Altantic seaboard on the West Coast. This could offer important sea-lanes for Moscow’s economic transactions. But, it also represents crucial footprint to keep up with competitors like China and the United States in terms of geo-political interests,” Naidu explained in an interview in relation to this article.

In July 2019, President Vladimir Putin accepted the credentials of 18 newly appointed foreign envoys, among them was Louis Sylvestre Radegonde (Republic of Seychelles). Putin pointed to the fact that Russia maintains friendly relations with the Republic of Seychelles. It counts on further joint work to expand cooperation including tourism, trade, economic and humanitarian spheres, noting strongly that the tourism sector is the primary industry of that country.

Seychelles is ranked high in terms of economic competitiveness, a friendly investment climate, good governance and a free economy. It has strong and friendly relations with various African and foreign countries. Based on this fact, Professor Dmitry Bondarenko, Deputy Director of the Institute for African Studies, explained to me that “as part of the sustainable efforts by Russia with individual African countries, Russia and Seychelles could cooperate in the priority areas such exploring the seabed for minerals, fishing and seafood processing, aquaculture and marine services (including marine finance and marine biotechnology).”

In an emailed interview for this article, Punsara Amarasinghe, who previously held a research fellowship at Faculty of Law, Higher School of Economics in Moscow and now a PhD Candidate in Law from Scuola Superiore Universitaria Sant’Anna di Pisa in Italy, discusses some aspects of Russia’s relations with Seychelles.

The diplomatic relation between Russia and Seychelles does not have a long history compared to the robust relations between Russia and other African states. Nevertheless, in its brief history staring from 1976, Seychelles had made a rapport with the USSR. In particular, USSR ships anchored in Seychelles and Seychelles supported Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. However, Russian influence in Indian Ocean waned in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet era and Russia’s interest in Seychelles consequently diminished.

Recently, Russia’s interest in Indian Ocean and African states have been escalated as a part of its global agenda to restore Russia’s role. Especially just a week before the assassination of Iranian General Solemani, Russia participated in a naval exercise along with Iran and China in Indian Ocean proving its interest in the maritime expansion in Indian Ocean.

Amarasinghe wrote in his email:

“The indispensable importance of Indian Ocean appears as a key factor for any state interested in power expansion. It was not an exaggeration that Robert Kaplan vociferously exclaimed that one who controls Indian Ocean, will control the geo-political center of the world. Currently the only active military base of the US is located in Diego Garcia, 1800Km away from the Seychelles. The geographic position of Seychelles is alluring for Russia’s blooming military interests and if Seychelles allows Moscow to initiate a military base in the island, the maritime hegemony upheld by the United States will be undoubtedly challenged.”

More importantly, the crucial location of Seychelles parallel to African continent makes it a unique destination as a military base. However, realistically we cannot assume the possibility of seeing a Russian base in Seychelles in near future. Indeed, it is true that Seychelles’ main port Victoria was opened for Russian vessels for refuelling and other logistical issues. Yet, the same offer was given to many other nations including China and the United States.

On the other hand, Russia’s internal economic chaos have significantly hit the military expenditures of the Russian army and it is a fact beyond dispute that the Chinese and the United States military budgets are forged ahead Russian annual military budget. The practical circumstances may not make it an easy task for Russian Federation to build a military base in the Seychelles, even though it has a significant strategic importance, according to Punsara Amarasinghe.

Nevertheless, if Chinese can pursue its fortune in Seychelles, it would be much significant for them as a military access to Indian Ocean and an apt strategic position for maritime Silk road. China has already established a military base in Djibouti and its proximity to the Seychelles will secure Chinese military presence strongly in Indian Ocean challenging the US hegemony. It seems to indicate that rather than thinking of a military base fully controlled by Russia, it is likely to see much of Chinese presence in Indian Ocean, or perhaps, in Seychelles. It will inevitably assist Russian interests too.

Maldives, independent island in the north-central Indian Ocean, while Mauritius is further south, located about 2,000 kilometres off the southeast coast of Africa. Seychelles is ranked high in terms of economic competitiveness, a friendly investment climate, good governance and a free economy. It has strong and friendly relations with various African and foreign countries.

By demographic developments down the years, Seychelles is described as a fusion of peoples and cultures. Seychellois, as the people referred to, are multiracial: blending from African, Asian and European descent creating a modern creole culture. Evidence of this strong and harmonious blend is seen, for instance, in Seychellois food that incorporates various aspects of French, Chinese, Indian and African cuisine. French and English are official languages. Seychelles is a member of the African Union, the Southern African Development Community, the Commonwealth of Nations, and the United Nations.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Battle for the Indian Ocean and Island States

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” — Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

September 11th is around the corner and our nation flounders in an economic and psychological depression. Are you aware that our defense budget, the one we know about (not the extra Black Budget), grew from $ 316 billion in 2001 to $ 708 billion in 2011? Both houses of this controlled Congress and our controlled presidents overwhelmingly supported it. You see, it matters not which of the 2 party con job wins office, or if this new Tea Party joke gets its people elected. Bottom line: We are now, and have been for decades, not a Democratic Republic … rather a Military Industrial Empire that even cold warrior Eisenhower warned us about in January 1961. Of course, Ike and all of our presidents have been chosen by this ‘College of Corporations’ for centuries, relying upon the quiet obedience of the sheep… especially during each election cycle.

This writer, in recent columns, predicted that the 2 Party Con Job would make a deal with the Military Industrial Empire as to our current fiscal and budget crisis. This crisis is so great that even the masters who control most of our wealth had to manipulate some sort of hollow compromise. So, a few short weeks ago it was announced (ever so discreetly in the mainstream media) that ‘Congress agreed last month to cut military spending by $ 350 billion over the next… 10 years. ‘Sounds great, right? I mean, do they finally understand just how costly our illegal and immoral occupations of Iraq & Afghanistan are, or that of our 800+ military bases in over 100 countries? Ignore the fact that even Republicans like Ron Paul and Democrats like Dennis Kucinich are calling for military spending cuts of 25% to 50 %; the overwhelming majority of Congress and Mr. Obama are comfortable with an agreement that only averages spending cuts at about 5% each year. Meanwhile, our cities are crumbling, homes boarded up and foreclosed, and fewer and fewer good jobs, cuts in essential services, hospitals, libraries and schools under assault… you get it, right? We will never fully leave Iraq or Afghanistan, and the machine of this empire keeps churning out more and more weapons, more soldiers, more death and destruction and more …. Costs!

In the Monday, August 29th USA Today Money section, there was an article that should have been blasted throughout the media: Banks Start Offering Payday Loans. Of course, the banks call them Direct Deposit Loans. Here’s how it works: The bank customer has a checking account, where he or she has either a pension, payroll or government (Social Security or SSI) check direct deposited. When the customer needs money ASAP the bank offers a loan whereupon they charge $ 10 interest on every $ 100 borrowed. To guarantee repayment, the money is taken out of the next direct deposit. Sounds reasonable, just like the corner loan sharks in my Brooklyn neighborhood said when they got 6 for 5 on short term loans. Consumer watchdog groups say this new banking scheme amounts to a 300% annualized interest rate. Where was Mr. Obama when all this was being reported? He was at a fund raiser for his 2012 campaign hosted by… Goldman Sachs! Well, why not? After all, the rich bankers could afford the $ 30,000 a head to ‘break bread ‘with the president, which is more than many of the 2008 Obama voters earn in one year… IF they even still have a job! Tell me, when in the hell are the good Americans out there going to say ‘Enough is enough’?

Look at your cable or satellite television bill. Look at how much you are paying now, compared to what you paid 10 years ago. Look at the gasoline prices now, compared to 10 years ago. The food prices, banking fees charged now… it seems that the 95% of us are being told to bear the burden of the crimes and misdemeanors of the rich Fat Cats. Where is the outrage? Where is the protest? How about health care or lack of? Most of us cannot afford to get the needed health care or dental care we require. This writer, and many he knows and sees each day, has spaces in his mouth where once lived a tooth. Why? Well, do the math: It takes around $ 1000 for a root canal and another $ 1000 for a crown, or just $ 200 for an extraction. Forget about the choice to have implants put in. They cost maybe $ 5,000 a tooth. Do you think our Congress or Mr. Obama needs worry about such things?  Factor out the fools who think the Tea Party is about consumer rights, when it is the rich who are behind that whole movement.

Then we come to this Fair Tax movement, to take the place of an income tax. Don’t they ‘get it ‘? The Fair Tax is nothing more than a Sales Tax! Instead of the current and regressive 5% to 10% Sales Tax , these jokers want to saddle Americans with a 20+ % Fair Tax AKA Sales Tax. How many toaster ovens or pairs of shoes or dresses can a millionaire need compared to that of the hundreds of millions of us working stiffs or unemployed who wind up buying all those things? Check out how much you pay in taxes each time you fill up your gas tank. If that is not a regressive tax, than what is? Many of us need a car to get to work or school or the doctor, as mass transit funding has continually been cut for decades. Yet, these Fair Tax fools don’t insist on the real remedy to our tax needs: Surtax the millionaires! Yes, there were over 16 million millionaire households in America in 2007. Let’s issue a 50% Flat Tax on all income over one million dollars, no accountant’s pencil, no nothing! After all, Henry Paulson, when he left Goldman Sachs in 2006 to become Bush Jr.’s Treasury Secretary, earned 500 million in compensation! Yeah, the guy trusted with the trust of we saps and suckers cut the deal to bail out his friends on Wall Street with our tax money! Do you think Henry would not be able to survive on 250 million instead of 500 million?

Dear fellow sheep: Wake up! Get off your duffs and raise some hell! Stop supporting this 2 Party Tea Party scam! Stop allowing your hard earned income and savings to go to the empire instead of your families. Speak up, speak out! The masters of the manor hate it when the rabble gets organized and yells outside their door. Change and hope are out there… if you really want it!

*

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

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].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sheep Always Seem to Lose Their Wool: “Our Nation Flounders in an Economic and Psychological Depression”

Split Hearings: The Assange Extradition Case Drags On

January 26th, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

It is being increasingly larded with heavy twists and turns, a form of state oppression in slow motion, but the Julian Assange extradition case now looks like it may well move into the middle of the year, dragged out, ironically enough, by the prosecution.  Curiously, this is a point that both the prosecutors, fronted by the US imperium, and the WikiLeaks defence team, seem to have found some inadvertent agreement with. This is the biggest case of its kind, and will determine, for an era, how journalism and the publication of nationally classified information is treated.  Neither wish to misstep in this regard. 

The last procedural hearing ahead of the full extradition trial of Assange over 17 counts of espionage and one of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion was trained on the issue of logistics.  The prosecutors seemed to be bellyaching in their discontent, lamenting matters of availability for their staff.  One striking example concerned the US government’s chief barrister, James Lewis, who would be taken up with a trial in Northern Ireland of “a great deal of substance and importance”.  This would make him unavailable for up to three months after the commencement of the extradition case. 

Clair Dobbin, representing the US, was the first to make an application that the substantive hearing be split.  Various legal rulings, she argued, would have to be made subsequent to the full February proceedings, including the ticklish issue of whether certain witnesses were to remain anonymous or not.  WikiLeaks wishes that they remain so; the prosecution would like that cloak removed.

Despite already furnishing the court with a meaty affidavit, Dobbin claimed that more needed to be done in responding to the defence evidence.  (Good of them to give a sense of formality that are doing so.)  Besides all that, experts sought by the prosecution were “extremely busy practitioners and academics with very full diaries”, many still chewing over the issue of where Assange fitted in the security paradigm.  This statement of itself is odd, as is so much of the entire effort against the WikiLeaks publisher. 

Procedural dragging was also a matter of importance for the Assange team.  Despite working with manic dedication over Christmas, the issue of access remains crippling for the defence.

“We simply cannot get in as we require to see Mr Assange and to take his instruction,” argued one of Assange’s lawyers, Edward Fitzgerald.  “Frankly, we require more time before calling the main body of our evidence.” 

The point of journalism, and its legitimate pursuit in this nasty, brutish and rather long encounter, lies at the heart of the battle.  The framing of the US indictment purports to negate journalism as a factor in the case, with the prosecutors honing in on the issue of espionage and hacking.  Spies cannot be journalists, so goes the claim; espionage and publication should not be seen as comparable or even linked matters.  This very claim suggests that any form of national security journalism, the sort that exposes abuses of power, is illegal.

This round of submissions merely confirmed the point, though it is one sharpened to specifically exclude foreigners.  In other words, press protections enshrined by the First Amendment of the US Constitution cannot apply to non-US nationals, a daringly dangerous assertion.   

As WikiLeaks’ editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson crisply put it, “We have now learned from submissions and affidavits presented by the United States to the court that they do not consider foreign nationals to have a first amendment protection.” To the AAP, he surmised that the US had also “decided that they can go after journalists wherever they are residing in the world, they have universal jurisdiction, and demand extradition like they are doing by trying to get an Australian national from the UK from publishing that took place outside US borders.” 

The US case also insists that, should the extradition be successful, Assange will be subject to that troubling euphemism of “special administrative measures”.  Even in a bureaucratic penal system, such language entails a formal and legal disappearance of the subject.

Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi suggests with understandable gloominess that “Pandora’s box will open” if the prosecutors make their case fly in court.  The extradition of an Australian or Italian journalist by the US would just as easily justify the same action by Saudi Arabia and Russia.  This terrifying precedent is reiterated as a distinct possibility across the spectrum of commentary, an extra-territorial extension of US power to punish the world’s scribblers, bloggers and publishers. 

The outcome of this set of stuttered proceedings seemed to irritate District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, who conceded to the split, but sternly spoke of disfavour regarding any other requests for moving dates.  She did relent to another case management hearing scheduled for February 19.  The full extradition hearing is now set to open on February 24 at London’s Woolwich Crown Court, adjourning after one week, then continuing in May 18 with a three-week hearing.  The chess pieces in this critical encounter have again been moved.

In this dark turn, a smattering of light seemed to shine through.  Having been held in withering solitary confinement in the prison medical wing of Belmarsh, news came that Assange will be moved to an area with other inmates.  Joseph Farrell of WikiLeaks described it as “a dramatic climbdown”, “a huge victory for Assange’s legal team and for campaigners, who have been insisting for weeks that the prison authorities end the punitive treatment of Assange.”  The same could not be said about legal and medical access, both of which have been sorely lacking.

The decision to initiate the move seems to have sprung from prisoners within Belmarsh itself.  The prison governor has been petitioned on no less than three occasions by a group of convicts insisting that the treatment being afforded Assange smacked of injustice.  Human rights activist Craig Murray subsequently reflected on this “small victory for basic humanity – and it took criminals to teach it to the British state.”   

Such victories in penal terms do tend to be mixed.  Assange will hope that those inmates he keeps company remain sympathetic to his cause.  The new quarters will house some 40 of them, and the risks to his being remain.  Even in prison, Assange’s case and plight never ceases to astonish.

*

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]

It has now been one year since Juan Guaidó, then head of Venezuela’s National Assembly, swore himself in as “interim president” of the country on January 23, 2019. It is worth recalling that this scheme was hatched in Washington. The night before the swearing-in, Vice President Mike Pence called Guaidó to offer him the U.S. government’s full support. It must also be emphasized that his swearing-in was entirely devoid of legality and has absolutely no basis in Venezuela’s constitution given that Nicolás Maduro is a sitting, legitimately elected president. It was a farce designed to give the United States and its allies enough cover to openly engage in what Washington has wanted for years: regime change in Venezuela.

Early promises that Guaidó would be quickly recognized by a majority of the world’s nations went unfulfilled. A year later, fewer than 60 countries recognize him, while 80% of the world’s population live in countries that recognize Nicolás Maduro as the legitimate president of Venezuela. As international support for the Maduro government has remained steady, domestically, chavismo – the movement behind the Bolivarian Revolution – has come out of the year arguably stronger and more united than since President Hugo Chávez’s passing in 2013. Evidence of this are the 3.3 million members of the Bolivarian Militia, civilians and retired members of the military who have committed themselves to defending the country in case of invasion.

Guaidó’s troubles began on February 23, 2019, the day of the attempted delivery of humanitarian aid and a Live Aid style concert to raise funds. Having promised the Venezuelan people that U.S. aid would enter the country one way or another, Guaidó appeared in Colombia on a day that ended with his supporters burning aid trucks. Those who watched alternative media and Twitter that day saw journalists assaulted, mob violence, and Molotov cocktails—committed by opposition supporters on the Colombian side of the border. Those who watched corporate media were told that it was the Maduro government that burned aid and had blockaded a bridge (a bridge, that had never been open to traffic). The truth about the burning of the aid would finally be acknowledged by The New York Times weeks after the fact.

Worse news was to come for Guaidó as a result of that debacle. First, photographs were released of Guaidó arm in arm with members of Los Rastrojos, a paramilitary drug cartel infamous for its violence. This cartel, along with the Colombian government, helped Guaidó enter Colombia from Venezuela allegedly in exchange for impunity for future crimes. [Due to a court ruling, Guaidóis not technically allowed to leave the country, although he has not been punished for breaking this ruling.] Then the Pan Am Post, a Miami based right-wing newspaper, published an exposé: the humanitarian funds from the concert had been embezzled by Guaidó’s team in Colombia.

These facts were not yet known to the Venezuelan people, who woke up to an attempted insurrection on April 30. Guaidó, surrounded by about 20 rebel military members and accompanied by opposition figure Leopoldo López, took over a highway overpass and briefly made the world think he had taken over an airbase. The insurrection went nowhere, and López, who had broken out of house arrest, fled to the Spanish Embassy, where he remains to this day.

This failed uprising soured the Venezuelan opposition’s opinion of Guaidó, as his convening of mass demonstrations led to poorer and poorer turnout. The strategy quietly changed, as the two most extreme opposition parties, Guaidó’s Voluntad Popular and Primero Justicia, participated in talks with the Maduro government in Barbados and Norway. These broad talks were scuttled in August as a direct result of a new round of economic sanctions imposed by the Trump administration, sanctions that constitute an “economic embargo” and were welcomed by these two parties.

However, in September, a different faction of the opposition, representing 3 million people (or approximately 20% of likely voters), continued the dialogue with the Maduro government and produced immediate results, including the reincorporation of Maduro’s PSUV party into the opposition-controlled National Assembly (which the PSUV had been boycotting as a result of a Supreme Court ruling that placed the National Assembly in contempt).

A similar effort at dialogue had led to a potential loan to boost Venezuela’s electricity production, a result of months of dialogue between the government, opposition and multilateral organisms. Yet the extremists struck again, nixing the deal in the National Assembly in a December vote. In that same month, the extreme opposition launched attacks on army barracks in Southern Venezuela, apparently aided in the plot by the Bolsonaro government of Brazil, according to leading Brazilian newspaper O Globo. These attacks marked the end of the most stable period of Venezuela in 2019, a stability brought about by an economy that showed signs of life and the ongoing dialogue between the moderate opposition and government.

This dialogue was a point of contention within the fractured opposition, as were dueling accusations of corruption: the aforementioned embezzlement of humanitarian aid and the claim that certain opposition leaders were attempting to prevent a Colombian businessman from being sanctioned by the U.S. Another divisive factor was the allocation of U.S. funds among the opposition itself. A prominent right-wing Venezuelan journalist in Miami claims that Guaidó made a tactical error in the distribution of the over $128 million in funds his “administration” has received from USAID. According to this claim, the opposition became further divided as Guaidó, using U.S. taxpayer money, paid different salaries to legislators (some received $500/week, others merely $100/week) causing resentment and exposing divisions.

These divisions led to the events of January 5, when 31 opposition legislators joined the PSUV in voting for a new president of the National Assembly. Guaidó, knowing he didn’t have the votes to retain his position, made a spectacle of himself in front of the parliament, pretending to not be allowed into the premises, despite clear evidence that the people being blocked from entry were former legislators (including one who had been previously imprisoned for carrying C-4, a powerful explosive, before being released in an amnesty deal granted by President Maduro).

Afterwards, Guaidó held a parallel vote in which he claimed to get 100 votes in favor of his continued presidency of the legislature. A review of these 100 votes reveals that many of those who voted for him are legislators who serve as alternates to the 31 opposition legislators who voted against him (every member of the National Assembly has an alternate who votes in her or his place when the actual member cannot attend a vote). Contrary to what has been reported in mainstream media, Luis Parra, the new National Assembly president, is a member of the opposition, not a government supporter. The same is true for the other three legislators elected to positions of leadership. However, at this point the U.S. and its allies are not recognizing the National Assembly, instead choosing to recognize Guaidó’s parallel parliament.

Now, Guaidó is on a tour of Colombia and Europe. In Colombia, he participated in a multinational forum on combatting terrorism, attempting to capitalize on President Trump’s escalation of the conflict with Iran by baselessly linking the Maduro government to Iran’s ally in Lebanon, Hezbollah. In Europe, he will reassure allies that he remains in charge, while asking the Europeans  to increase pressure on the Maduro government.

It’s more of the same from a strategy that was ill-conceived in the first place. The Guaidó “presidential” experiment will likely continue until after the U.S. presidential elections, though there are signs that President Trump is growing tired of his administration’s Venezuela policy. Where once Venezuela was a staple of his campaign speeches, President Trump has mentioned the country less and less often on the stump. This is recognition that the policy of deadly sanctions and attempted international isolation has not yielded any positive results. Furthermore, there are growing indications that powerful U.S. business interests are tired of the sanctions and want to push for dialogue.

A saner Venezuela policy would recognize that President Maduro has a base of at least 6.3 million voters (roughly 40% of likely voters in a high turnout election), that there is a sizeable moderate opposition that wishes to engage in dialogue and politics (as opposed to coups and military intervention), that the sanctions – which have killed more than 40,000 people and have cost the economy at least $30 billion – are harming ordinary Venezuelans, and that a continued political crisis in the country can only further destabilize an already unstable region. Unfortunately, the Trump administration, with broad bipartisan backing, has opted to pretend that the government does not have a popular base of support, that the moderate opposition are government supporters in disguise and that the sanctions will lead to regime change. The United States must allow dialogue in Venezuela the opportunity to succeed, otherwise the economic and political crisis will continue.

*

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.

Leonardo Flores is a Latin American policy expert and campaigner with CODEPINK.

Featured image is from This Can’t Be Happening!

Auschwitz: The Role of IG Farben-Bayer

January 26th, 2020 by Vera Sharav

GR Editor’s Note

January 27, 2020 marks the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by Soviet troops.  Rarely mentioned by the media, the I. G Auschwitz concentration camp was a private undertaking owned by  I. G. Farben – Bayer. 

It is of particular relevance in relation to the merger between Monsanto and Bayer. Both companies are complicit in crimes against humanity,

Monsanto’s agent orange used by the US military in Vietnam,  IG-Farben Bayer’s historical links to Nazi war crimes.

International Holocaust Remembrance Day. In Commemoration of the Liberation of Auschwitz, January 27, 2020

*        *        *

First published 10 years ago

Today marks the 60th anniversary of the Soviet liberation of the Nazi death camp, Auschwitz.

Elderly Holocaust survivors, former soldiers and world leaders have gathered in Poland to mark the 60th anniversary: “I would like to say to all the people on the Earth: This should never be repeated, ever,” said Maj. Anatoly Shapiro, 92, who led the first Soviet troops to enter Auschwitz. 

Lest we forget an important corporate participant in the Holocaust was IG Farben- Bayer.

IG Farben was the most powerful German corporate cartel in the first half of the 20th century and the single largest profiteer from the Second World War. IG (Interessengemeinschaft) stands for “Association of Common Interests”: IG Farben included BASF, Bayer, Hoechst, and other German chemical and pharmaceutical companies.

As documents show, IG Farben was intimately involved with the human experimental atrocities committed by Mengele at Auschwitz.

A German watchdog organization, the GBG Network, maintains copious documents and tracks Bayer Pharmaceutical activities.

Below is an excerpt from a BBC documentary about an Auschwitz survivor who for years tried to get compensation from the pharmaceutical giant that carried out medical experiments on her.

Now living in Dundee, Scotland, she tells her story in a BBC documentary.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02qh7v5  (click here)

Listen now

Lost Children of the Holocaust

Following the end of the World War Two, the BBC began a series of special radio appeals on behalf of a group of children who had survived the Holocaust but were now stranded as orphans in post-war Europe. A recording of one of these moving broadcasts still exists in the BBC archives. Seventy years on, Alex Last set out to find out what had happened to the 12 children named in this recording. They had been in many camps, including Auschwitz, Muhldorf, Kauferng, Theresienstadt, Belsen, and Dachau, and the modern-day search took him to Germany, Israel and the United States.

Five of the Holocaust survivors are still alive today, and four of them were well enough to speak to Alex, who was able to piece together their stories of courage and humanity.

(Photo: A group of unidentified children photographed just after liberation by the Soviet Red Army from Oswiecim or Auschwitz Nazi concentration camp, 27 January, 1945. Credit: AP/CAF pap)

Another excerpt is from the website of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation. Dr. Matthias Rath heads a research development institute in nutritional and Cellular Medicine conducting basic research and clinical studies to scientifically document the health benefits of micronutrients in fighting a multitude of diseases. Dr. Rath was born in Stuttgart, Germany in 1955.

In the Auschwitz files, correspondence between the camp commander and Bayer Leverkusen was discovered. It dealt with the sale of 150 female prisoners for experimental purposes:

“With a view to the planned experiments with a new sleep-inducing drug we would appreciate it if you could place a number of prisoners at our disposal (…)” –

“We confirm your response, but consider the price of 200 RM per woman to be too high. We propose to pay no more than 170 RM per woman. If this is acceptable to you, the women will be placed in our possession. We need some 150 women (…)” –

“We confirm your approval of the agreement. Please prepare for us 150 women in the best health possible (…)” –

“Received the order for 150 women. Despite their macerated condition they were considered satisfactory. We will keep you informed of the developments regarding the experiments (…)” – “The experiments were performed. All test persons died. We will contact you shortly about a new shipment (…)”

See: http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/history_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm

Medical Experiments in Auschwitz Conducted by I.G. Farben (from the book “I.G. Farben – from Anilin to forced labor” by Jörg Hunger and Paul Sander)

About Bayer´s Nazi-past

IG Farben was the only German company in the Third Reich that ran its own concentration camp.

At least 30.000 slave workers died in this camp; a lot more were deported to the gas chambers. It was no coincidence that IG Farben built their giant new plant in Auschwitz, since the workforce they used (altogether about 300.000 people) was practically for free. The Zyklon B gas, which killed millions of Jews, Rom and other people was produced by IG Farben´s subsidiary company Degesch.

In Germany a growing number of people do not understand that IG Farben´s successors Bayer, BASF and Hoechst still refuse to apologize for their misdeeds.

It is hard to accept that after the war the companies were allowed to keep IG Farben´s entire property, whereas the surviving slave workers received nothing. Until today Bayer, BASF and Hoechst did not pay any wages to their former workers.

In 1995 the coalition “Never again!” was created by the German Auschwitz Committee, Critical Shareholders and several organizations of former slave workers. In a joint appeal the coalition demands that there has to be an appropriate compensation by the companies for slave-workers and their descendants. Also the maintenance of the memorial at Auschwitz, which reminds the public of IG Farben´s victims, should be paid by the corporations. “Never again!” states that without verification of the past we always have to be present so that these crimes might never happen again. More than 1,500 individuals and about 100 German groups have signed this platform. The activities were organized by the Coalition against Bayer-dangers, a group that has monitored Bayer for 25 years.

Life as a human guinea pig

For years an Auschwitz survivor has tried to win compensation from the pharmaceutical giant that carried out medical experiments on her. Now living in Dundee, she tells her story in a BBC documentary.

 

Zoe Polanska Palmer never imagined she would survive Dr Mengele’s experiments in Auschwitz.

Nor did her German doctors. Like thousands of other children, she was destined to be gassed once her usefulness to Nazi science had ceased.

During her two years at the camp, 13-year-old Zoe was forced to take tablets and pills as part of a series of pharmacological experiments, believed to be part of early birth control tests.

But Zoe refused to die. Saved by a Russian doctor who evacuated her to Dachau, she recovered and eventually settled in Scotland.

Now in her early 70s, she has been fighting for compensation and an apology from the German drug manufacturer, Bayer.

“I still find it difficult to take aspirin,” she says. “I remember one of the SS doctors holding my jaw open and forcing pills down my throat. I’m still very wary of men wearing white coats.”

Eyewitness testimonies held in the Auschwitz camp archive claim the doctor who force-fed her pills worked for the pharmaceutical company Bayer when it was part of the IG Farben conglomerate.

His name was Dr Victor Capesius. It’s a name that Zoe can never forget.

He helped Dr Mengele to conduct genetic experiments, usually on children, and also selected thousands of prisoners at the huge death camp, choosing those who might be useful and sending the rest to an immediate death with a flick of his finger.

Dr Capesius was tried in Frankfurt for war crimes in 1963 and served time in prison.

Another longtime Bayer employee, Helmut Vetter, also worked as a SS doctor at Auschwitz. He was involved in the testing of experimental vaccines and medicines on inmates and after the war he was executed for administering fatal injections.

Denial of culpability

“The concentration camps were used as a huge laboratory for human experimentation,” says Wolfgang Eckhart, the Professor of Historical Medicine at Heidelberg University.

“We have to look upon the camps as outposts of pharmacological research. The Nazis wanted to sterilise the population of the east, especially Russian people, but enable them to continue to be useful as workers.”

The pain has yet to heal

Bayer says the company which exists today has nothing to do with its wartime counterpart. A spokesperson told the BBC: “Between 1925 and 1952, no company named Bayer existed, neither as a subsidiary of IG Farben nor as any other legal entity.

“Bayer has worked in good faith with the German government to establish a fund to help those who have suffered. The company’s contribution to this fund amounted to more than £40m.”

Damaged beyond repair

Although it is nearly 60 years since the end of World War II, for survivors like Zoe the consequences of the war are as alive today as they were in January 1945 when the Russian Army liberated Auschwitz.

After the war, Zoe married and settled in Scotland. There she underwent several painful operations to repair the damage done to her body. But she has never been able to have children. Now suffering from cancer, she is a remarkably cheerful woman whose home in a quiet suburb is punctuated with laughter from her jokes and tears from her memories.

When I first travelled to meet her in July 2002, she was angry that she had been ignored for so long by the authorities managing the compensation fund set up by German industry and the German government.

She had campaigned for 28 years but received nothing.

“They want us all to die so they won’t have to pay out so much money,” Zoe says.

Within weeks of the authorities being contacted by the BBC, Zoe received a cheque for a little over £2,000 from the German compensation fund.

“I want to make sure people remember what happened to people like me when I was a child at Auschwitz,” she says. “I was just one of thousands of children treated in this way. But I was one of the very few lucky ones who managed to survive.” (By Mark Handscomb, BBC Radio 4 reporter for It’s My Story )

BAYER “Aryanized” Jewish Cemetery

Documents show that in 1942 IG Farben´s branch office in Uerdingen, Germany got hold of the town’s Jewish cemetery.

The forced sale price was way below the actual market value: 100,000 square meter property for 3,000 Reichsmark. After the war the property was passed on to IG Farben´s successor BAYER AG.

The Nazis dissolved the Jewish Community of Uerdingen in 1942. Today all traces of the Jewish cemetery in Uerdingen have been completely obliterated. The city archive indicates that the cemetery was located approximately where the main gate to the BAYER factory currently stands.

The COALITION AGAINST BAYER-DANGERS demands that the company publicly apologize for the defilement of the Uerdingen cemetery and affix a memorial plaque to the main gate of the company´s Uerdingen works.

Hans Frankenthal, former slave worker in IG Farben´s plant in Auschwitz and board member of the Jewish Community:

“I was terrified when I learned from this offence against Jewish belief. According to our faith, taking possession of the cemetery without exhuming the bodies is tantamount to defiling the graves.”

BAYER today is living off the fruits of Nazi legalism. On paper everything was legally correct: Julius Israel Kohn from the “Association of Jews in the German Reich” and Bernhard Hoffmann, the representative of IG Farben, signed the sales agreement in a notary´s office, and the copy of this seemingly standard real estate transaction has a stamp from the Krefeld tax office.

At the same time the former culprits are publicly honored in Uerdingen. Fritz ter Meer served on the IG Farben board of directors from 1926 to 1945 and was the head officer directing the operations of the IG Farben factory at Auschwitz. The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal sentenced him to seven years in prison.

He was released after serving only four years. Not long after, in 1956, Ter Meer was elevated to the chairman of the supervisory board at BAYER, a position he held for seven years. His grave in Krefeld has a meter-high wreath on it – donated by BAYER in recognition of his services.

Coalition against BAYER-dangers (Germany) www.CBGnetwork.org

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Auschwitz: The Role of IG Farben-Bayer

On the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, he was asked if cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is on his agenda.

“At some point they will be,” he responded, adding: Cutting them is “the easiest of all things,” falsely claiming greater economic growth that doesn’t exist makes it possible.

His 2020 budget calls for large cuts in Medicare payments to hospitals.

Candidate Trump earlier said “(e)very Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security.”

“They want to do it on Medicare. They want to do it on Medicaid. (W)e can’t do that. (I)t’s not fair to the people that have been paying in for years and now all of the sudden they want to…cut.”

Time and again, Trump as president showed indifference to equity and justice for the vast majority of Americans he doesn’t give a damn about, ordinary people struggling to get by at a time the nation’s privileged class never had things better.

According to Protect Our Care head Leslie Dach, Trump “made it clear that he wants to make draconian cuts to both Medicare and Medicaid — something that the American people vehemently oppose — and (at the WEF) he said he’s going to try again” — wanting Social Security cut as well.

If Trump is reelected and Republicans control both houses, major cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other social programs are likely coming, a chilling prospect for the vast majority of Americans.

According to Politico on Thursday, the Trump regime is preparing an assault on Medicaid.

The scheme involves letting states convert federal Medicaid funding to block grants, enabling them to use funds for any purpose other than restricting them to providing healthcare for the poor.

Criticizing the scheme, former Reagan advisor/GHW Bush Treasury official Bruce Bartlett tweeted:

“(B)lock grants are just a Republican trick to slash spending without appearing to do so.”

“Money is fungible. Medicaid funding will be used to pay for other programs or even to finance tax cuts.”

Public health advocate Kim Nelson slammed the Trump regime’s proposal, stressing that Medicaid block grants to states “don’t work.”

“They (don’t) keep pace with rising costs of healthcare. (Over 40%) of Medicaid (recipients) are children. The Trump (regime) know(s) that,” but doesn’t care about the needs of ordinary Americans, especially the most disadvantaged.

Medicare and Social Security are not entitlements. Both programs are federal insurance, funded by worker/employer payroll deductions.

They’re contractual federal obligations to eligible recipients. That’s how both programs were structured.

On August 14, 1935, the Social Security Act became law, known as the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program (OASDI).

It provides retirement, disability, survivorship, and death benefits. It’s still America’s most effective poverty reduction program that’s worked from inception.

Though what was structured to provide inflation-adjusted retirement or disability income no longer works this way.

According to former Social Security Administration associate commissioner Jim Roosevelt, FDR’s grandson, the program today is “less progressive.”

In cahoots with Wall Street, the way Washington calculates inflation has been rigged since the 1990s, greatly understating reality.

In 2020, America’s 69 million Social Security recipients are getting a 1.6% so-called cost-of-living adjustment in 2020 — at a time of much higher inflation.

Reengineering it based on how calculated pre-1990, economist John Williams has it at 6%.

Social Security benefits are calculated on the rigged lowball figure, cheating recipients.

What’s going on is part of the scheme to transfer wealth from ordinary people to corporate predators and high-net-worth households through tax cuts for the rich and other methods.

On July 30, 1965, Lyndon Johnson signed the Social Security (Medicare) Act into law, enrolling Harry and Bess Truman as initial recipients.

Medicare.gov calls Medicare “the nation’s largest health insurance program,” covering 44 million Americans.

It’s a “Health Insurance program for people age 65 or older, some disabled people under age 65, and people of all ages with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure treated with dialysis or a transplant).”

Hardliners in Washington want funds used for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid transferred to corporate interests and the super-rich.

They want social justice in the US eliminated, a slow-motion process ongoing largely since the neoliberal 90s, especially post-9/11.

The plot against social justice in the US is bipartisan, Dems complicit with Republicans in destroying the social safety net for the nation’s least advantaged.

A Hillary presidency would have been as socially unjust as Trump.

Bipartisan hardliners long yearned to end progressive New Deal, Fair Deal, Great Society programs — especially Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security by privatizing them, handing them to Wall Street as lucrative investment opportunities, letting bankers profit at the expense of ordinary Americans.

Waging class warfare against the general welfare, dark forces in Washington and corporate boardrooms want the US returned to 19th century harshness.

Their scheme involves greatly eroding social justice, notably Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, and other social programs.

They aim to destroy the remnants of collective bargaining, wanting workplaces turned into sweatshops, paying workers poverty wages, abolishing benefits, allowing child labor, agricultural and other wage-slave labor more than already, along with other dystopian objectives — making the US entirely unfit to live in for ordinary people.

Bipartisan hardliners and dark forces backing them want maximum federal revenues freed up for militarism, warmaking, and tax cuts for the rich, the nation’s most vulnerable left increasingly on their own, middle America targeted for elimination, a nation of paupers replacing it.

Trump and hardliners surrounding him support this worldview, dystopian vision wrapped in the American flag — a road to hell paved with heart of darkness intentions.

*

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 New Politics

Gaza: The Auschwitz of our Time

January 26th, 2020 by Khalid Amayreh

International Holocaust Remembrance Day. In Commemoration of the Liberation of Auschwitz, January 27, 2020

***

First published in August 2007

In 1940, several months after invading Poland in September 1939, the Nazis forced about 500,000 Jews into the Warsaw Ghetto, surrounding it with a high wall. Tens of thousands died from hunger and disease. Eventually, 300,000 were sent to death camps, mainly Treblinka in eastern Poland.

Similarly, Israel is now incarcerating nearly a million and a half helpless Palestinians in the Gaza Strip into a hell similar in nature to the Warsaw Ghetto. The Gaza concentration camp is not only fitted with a wall, but also with every conceivable tool of repression, such as electric fences and watch towers manned by Gestapo-like trigger-happy Jewish soldiers who shoot first and ask questions later.

Moreover, thousands of Israeli soldiers, are surrounding Gaza in a hermetic manner, shooting and killing any Palestinian trying to escape, e.g. enter Israel to search for work or even food.

Palestinian kids survive on bread and tea

Even Palestinian kids playing soccer near the hateful fences, are routinely riddled with bullets or reduced  into pieces of human flesh by the “most moral army in the world.”

As a result of these genocidal designs, Gazans in the thousands are dying of malnutrition and illness resulting from anemia.  Moreover, Children in great numbers are surviving on a meager and totally inadequate diet consisting mainly of bread and tea.

This week, this writer contacted several Gaza families and asked to speak with the kids. The answers I received were truly horrifying.  I did speak with 10 kids and was shocked to find out that aseven of  the kids  told me their diet during the previous week consisted  mainly of bread and tea in addition to some tomatoes.

The grown-ups, especially the parents, wouldn’t reveal the extent of  the unfolding tragedy they are  facing.  They would only say  a terse  “al hamdulillah” (thank God). But the tone of their voices tells us that they are in real distress.

The Gaza Strip into the largest detention camp in the World

The harsh blockade of Gaza didn’t start  in mid June when Hamas took over  the small seaside region after defeating and ousting the American-backed Fatah forces led by Muhammed Dahlan and cohorts who had been planning, with American dollars and arms, to murder  the Hamas leadership in order to receive a certificate of good conduct from the Bush Administration and Israel.

In fact, Gaza has been effectively under siege since 2000 when the second Palestinian intifada or uprising broke out.  Since, then Gazans have been barred from exporting their products and produces.

Moreover, Israel, which has been telling the world that it had ended its occupation of Gaza, still retains full  control of the Rafah border crossing with Egypt,  thus reducing the Gaza Strip into the largest detention camp in the world.

To make a long story short, Gazans are being pushed into a situation very similar to that which prevailed at the Ghetto Warsaw. They are not allowed to work (unemployment in Gaza stands at more than 70%), they are not allowed to travel abroad, they are not allowed to enter Israel for work, they are not allowed even to go fishing offshore since Israeli gunboats would open fire at  any fishing-boat daring to go more than a mile off the shore.

The criminal and draconian measures are meant to further impoverish Gazans to the extent that they won’t be able to purchase food.

The declared Israeli goal behind starving and tormenting the people of Gaza is to force them to revolt against the democratically-elected government, led by the Hamas movement, and settle for a quisling-like government that would sell-out Palestinian national rights, including the paramount right of return for Palestinian refugees uprooted from their homes and villages by Jewish gangs in 1948, when Israel was created.

It is believed that up to two thirds of the inhabitants of Gaza are refugees. Hence, the intensive repression and coercion being meted out to these people in order to force them to give up their right to return to their homes and villages in what is now Israel.

It  is crystal clear that Israel  is  steadily but  certainly effecting a Nazi-like approach toward the people of the Gaza Strip.

The  PR-conscious Israeli government, however, is hoping that the world will not  take proactive measures  to expose the  creeping genocide in Gaza . This is why   Israel is allowing limited shipments of food products , such as flour and cooking oil, into Gaza , to avoid a possible international outcry.

However, the supplies are conspicuously meager and don’t meet the basic nutritional needs of the vast bulk of Gaza children.

Unfortunately, the United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA) seems to be conniving and colluding with Israel to keep the unfolding Gaza tragedy as silent as possible.

UNRWA officials do make idle statements from time to time, warning of an impending “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza. However, the UN agency often refrains from “saying it as it is,”  probably for fear of upsetting the Israelis and the Americans, who apparently don’t like  to hear words like “starvation, and concentration camps” with regard to the situation in Gaza find their way to the international media.

Israel is undoubtedly the central culprit in this man-made tragedy in Gaza, since it is up to her to allow Gazans to obtain food and export their products and especially their produces to the West Bank. Such a step, which would cost Israel nothing, would help Gazans obtain some meager income to feed their children.

However, Israel, as always, has apparently chosen to be faithful to long traditions of  callousness and moral depravity, not unlike the way the Nazis treated their victims.

US administration, Abbas as guilty as Israel

But Israel is not the only guilty party in this tragedy. The US is actually as criminal as Israel, since the Bush administration is urging Israel to keep up the pressure on Gaza.

In fact, American officials keep congratulating their Israeli colleagues on the “success” of  the blockade against Gaza. I wonder what kind of politicians are those who enjoy watching children starve to death?  Are they human beings or cannibalistic beasts?  This question ought to be directed to Condoleezza Rice whose behavior toward the Palestinian people is probably a thousand  times worse than the behavior of the  worst American  white slave masters toward here forefathers.

Maybe it is naive to appeal to Rice’s sense of justice and morality since her  manifestly criminal record with regard to the Palestinian cause  leaves no doubt as to the woman’s unethical and evil character.

But if the Bush administration, which has been carrying a holocaust in Iraq,  and Israel, which has been effecting ethnic cleansing in Palestine in  the name of Jewish nationalism,  can be “excused” on the ground that only evil can be expected from evil governments, the Palestinian regime  of Mahmoud Abbas has no excuse whatsoever  to collude and connive with Israel against the very people it is claiming  to serve.

Such behavior, including the tacit and implicit encouragement of Israel to tighten the blockade of Gaza, and keep hundreds of thousands of encircled Gazans hungry and thoroughly tormented, characterizes quislings and agents of a foreign occupation.

Clearly, Abbas  and his aides  have much to explain to the Palestinian people. They also have much to atone for. This is if they still possess any sense of shame

International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Commemorating the Liberation of Auschwitz (January 27th, 2020)

.

“The Friends of Zion Award’ in Jerusalem was presented to president Vladimir Putin on behalf of the Russian Federation, for the role played by the Soviet Union in the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenou concentration camp.

Nine world leaders have received the award including former president George W. Bush.

Bush Junior received the “Friends of Zion Award” in March 2015, in recognition for his “unflagging support for the Nation of Israel and the Jewish people.”  In a bitter irony, George W’s grandfather Prescott Bush was an active supporter of  Nazi Germany.

“The Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration did not seize Prescott Bush’s assets affiliated with Thyssen, the German industrial giant [and weapons producer], until 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act. This means that between 1939, when massive numbers of Jewish and Polish slave laborers were being rounded up, and 1942, when Bush had his German assets seized, Prescott Bush was fully involved in the German economy during the worst of the slave labor regime, and profiting by it.” (Ralph Lopez, text below)

International Holocaust Remembrance Day. In Commemoration of the Liberation of Auschwitz, January 27, 2020
.

Michel Chossudovsky  (GR Editor), January 25th, 2020

The following article was first published by Global Research in 2015.

 ***

As the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz comes and goes (25 January 2020) , the long-controversial links between American industrialists and the rise of the Nazi regime have become clearer, thanks to recently uncovered documents.  

The ties between Hitler’s Nazis and American businessmen such as Henry Ford, Averell Harriman, and Senator Prescott Bush, the father of George H. W Bush, have long been cited in lawsuits filed by Holocaust survivors seeking compensation for their suffering. The late Senator Prescott Bush’s German assets were seized in 1942 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt under the Trading with the Enemy Act, which also carried prison penalties which Bush escaped. Historical scholarship over the last decade shows that Bush was deeply enmeshed in business which was vital to the rise of Nazi Germany, and almost certainly knew that his profits were driven by slave labor.

The January 27th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by the Soviets was the last decade anniversary which most survivors expected to be able to attend.

In groundbreaking reporting, the New Hampshire Gazette said in 2003, in “Bush-Nazi Link Confirmed,” that:

“The documents from the [National] Archives … show that the Bushes and Harrimans shipped valuable U.S. assets, including  gold, coal, steel and U.S. Treasury and war bonds, to their foreign clients overseas as Hitler geared up for his 1939 invasion of Poland, the event that sparked World War II.”

Previously, the families of American industrialists such as Bush have maintained that their business ties with the Third Reich were at arm’s length, and that the companies were unaware of what Hitler was doing to Jews and other “displaced persons.” The American companies were heavily involved in German business during Hitler’s rise between 1933, when Adolf Hitler consolidated dictatorial powers after the “Reichstag Fire,” through the 1939 invasion of Poland, and even after the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war upon Germany by the United States. Many say that the German “economic miracle” in fact was built on the slave labor of Jews, Poles, and other “undesirables” under the Nazi regime.

But incredulous observers, such as individual Holocaust survivors who have filed many lawsuits against various American companies, one naming the Bush family in particular as a defendant, say that the very scale of the operations would preclude the American industrialists not knowing about it. The slave labor was not hidden away in furtive locations, but spread throughout all sectors of society, large and small.

Between 1939 and 1941, 1.2 million slave laborers were put into service in Germany and occupied territories. The German journal DW reported in 2005, in “Slave Laborers to Be Compensated by 2006,”

“In order to keep up production from 1939 to 1941, as more and more men were being called up for military service, German companies needed 1.2 million workers, and they came in the form of forced laborers. In all, there were about 12 million people taken from German occupied territory to serve as forced laborers during the World War II.”

The DW reports in “Final Compensation Pending for Former Nazi Forced Laborers”:

“During World War II, about 12 million people were kidnapped from their homes across Europe and beyond and forced to work for the Nazi regime in Germany. The slaves were not only put to work in camps, the most infamous of applications of forced labor, but in all areas of German industry.

Employment of foreign forced laborers was not only limited to large-scale enterprises,” said history professor Ulrich Herbert of the University of Freiburg. “It was applied throughout the whole economy; from the small farm and locksmith’s shop with just six workers, to the national railway system, the local authority districts, the big armament companies and also many private households.”

At one point fully 20% of the German workforce was slave labor from foreign countries, German Jews, and other “undesirables.” Often, the forced laborers were simply worked to death , to spare the expense of housing and feeding.

The Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration did not seize Prescott Bush’s assets affiliated with Thyssen, the German industrial giant, until 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act.  (see below) This means that between 1939, when massive numbers of Jewish and Polish slave laborers were being rounded up, and 1942, when Bush had his German assets seized, Prescott Bush was fully involved in the German economy during the worst of the slave labor regime, and profiting by it.

The UK Guardian reported in 2004 that Prescott Bush’s:

“…business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz…”

The Guardian article, “How Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power,” detailed newly uncovered documents from various national security archives which fills in many blanks about the Bush family relationship with the German companies, which were indispensable to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party from its inception in the early 1930s, to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and beyond. Thyssen used huge numbers of slave laborers in its steel and munitions factories, although the Bush family, and the corporate spokesmen of other companies, such as General Motors and Ford, have denied knowing about the slave labor.

Still devastated after World War I, Germany before the rise of Hitler lacked either the resources or the funds to build an automotive industry from scratch, especially the highly complex mass production of the engines, so both Ford and GM built and licensed factories in Germany which became the backbone of the mechanized war machine, based on tanks, troop transports, and aircraft.

The Washington Post in the 1998 article “Ford and GM Scrutinized for Alleged Nazi Collaboration” reported:

“When American GIs invaded Europe in June 1944, they did so in jeeps, trucks and tanks manufactured by the Big Three motor companies in one of the largest crash militarization programs ever undertaken. It came as an unpleasant surprise to discover that the enemy was also driving trucks manufactured by Ford and Opel — a 100 percent GM-owned subsidiary — and flying Opel-built warplanes… “

Bush family patriarch Prescott Bush realized a profit of $1.5 million for the sale of his share of UBC, which was fully owned by Thyssen, which is the equivalent of $25,000,000 in today’s dollars. Thyssen owned one-third of the German steel industry and one-half of the coal business. Only with slave labor, however, could the cash-starved war industries come anywhere close to meeting their production targets.

Hitler’s policy of Lebensraum, “Living Space,” was articulated long before the 1939 invasion of Poland, and even long before Hitler. Lebensraum contained an element which justified the use of slave labor from “inferior” races, and was spoken of by German intellectuals as early as Friedrich Ratzel in 1901. Lebensraum essentially said that the German people were destined to conquer and subjugate many neighboring countries.

Prescott Bush has been a controversial figure for many years. Some historians make, and congressional committee records support, the allegation that Bush played a leading role in a plot to overthrow the elected government of FDR in order to replace it with a fascist dictatorship, run by Wall Street bankers and other industrialists. The BBC in its documentary “The White House Coup” said:

“The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.”

According to historians, the coup was only foiled when the man approached to lead an army of 500,000 disgruntled WWI veterans, Marine Corp General and double Medal of Honor winner Smedley D. Butler, went to Congress and blew the whistle on the coup.

Marine General Smedley Butler

*

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: Senator Prescott Bush and son George HW Bush (Source: kushiteprince.wordpress.com)

At least four million people Thursday demanded the departure of U.S. troops from Iraq with a march in Baghdad, which was convened by cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr three weeks after the murder of Iran’s General Qasem Soleimani.

.

At the country’s capital, streets were filled with an endless column of people who paraded to express their repudiation of the U.S. military presence.

Banners showed slogans such as “No, No to the U.S. and Yes to Iraqi sovereignty,” “The willingness of free nations is stronger than the U.S. aggression,” and “Global terrorism is made in the U.S.”

While some protesters burned images of Donald Trump, others marched raising photos of the U.S. president’s face crossed out with a red “X”.

“We have not obtained anything from the U.S. except problems, wars, and sieges,” Ziyad Qasim Abdullah, a 39-year-old chauffeur, said.

The U.S. has “created sectarian conflicts in Iraq and divided people to plunder the wealth of our country,” he added and explained that he wants to “expel the occupation forces” from his country.​​​​​​​

Demonstration against the U.S. military presence in Iraqi territory, Baghdad, Iraq, Jan. 24, 2020.

Initially, the U.S. government justified the presence of its troops in Iraq by arguing the fight against the Islamic State, which managed to control large areas of Iraqi territory in 2014.

Since the defeat of this radical group in 2017, however, those troops have not been removed from this country.

As a result of the events unleashed by Jan. 3 bombings, in which Iran’s General Qassem Soleimani was killed, the Iraqi parliament approved a procedure for the departure of foreign troops​​​​​​​.

“If the U.S. meets these demands, then it is not an aggressor country,” Al-Sadr said and added that if the U.S. will become a “hostile country” if it violates the conditions specified for its departure.

The highest Shiite religious authority in Iraq, Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, also reaffirmed today “the need to respect the sovereignty of Iraq, the independence of its political decision, and its territorial unity.”

For his part, Iraq’s President Barham Salih posted a photo of Friday’s march on social media and wrote that Iraqis deserved a “fully sovereign state that serves its people.”

Initially, the U.S. government justified the presence of its troops in Iraq by arguing the fight against the Islamic State, which managed to control large areas of Iraqi territory in 2014.

Since the defeat of this radical group in 2017, however, those troops have not been removed from this country.

As a result of the events unleashed by Jan. 3 bombings, in which Iran’s General Qassem Soleimani was killed, the Iraqi parliament approved a procedure for the departure of foreign troops​​​​​​​.

“If the U.S. meets these demands, then it is not an aggressor country,” Al-Sadr said and added that if the U.S. will become a “hostile country” if it violates the conditions specified for its departure.

The highest Shiite religious authority in Iraq, Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, also reaffirmed today “the need to respect the sovereignty of Iraq, the independence of its political decision, and its territorial unity.”

For his part, Iraq’s President Barham Salih posted a photo of Friday’s march on social media and wrote that Iraqis deserved a “fully sovereign state that serves its people.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Over 4 Million People Join March Against US Presence in Iraq. 24 January 2020

Trump’s “No-Peace/Peace Plan” for Palestine. Netanyahu/Gantz Invited to White House to Discuss “Deal of the Century”

By Stephen Lendman, January 24, 2020

Leaked information shows Trump’s so-called deal of the century is a one-sided scam, favoring Israel at the expense of fundamental Palestinian rights.

The so-called peace process is the greatest hoax in modern times, along with the US war OF terror worldwide, not on it.

European Jewish Congress (EJC) Launches Campaign Against ‘Antisemitism’ (Aka Support for Palestinian Rights)

By Alison Weir, January 24, 2020

The EJC considers anti-Zionism to be a form of anti-Semitism and employs a newly created definitionof antisemitism in which certain types of statements about Israel are supposedly “antisemitic.” As a result, EJC’s opposition to “antisemitism” often consists of censoring information that exposes Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights.

Its new campaign, called “Stop This Story,” particularly focuses on Instagram, although it will also use YouTube and other platforms. According to the EJC, the campaign will be the “first global initiative of its kind that will leverage Instagram’s AR (Augmented Reality) effects to drive a global movement.” It claims to have recruited “some of the world’s leading AR effects’ creators.”

Fake News and “The Naked Government”: Jessica Lynch and the US Invasion of Iraq

By Larry Romanoff, January 24, 2020

Jessica Lynch was a 19-year-old US Army clerk who served in Iraq during the 2003 US invasion. Her military vehicle was hit by a grenade, and crashed. Lynch was seriously injured, with a broken leg and hip, and some of her comrades were killed. But Jessica, being a typical American hero, crawled out of her vehicle while fighting the intense pain from her broken bones and, with one automatic weapon in each hand, she stood erect with both guns blazing, mowing down enemy soldier after enemy soldier, until all her ammunition was exhausted and she surrendered to unconsciousness from the pain. Jessica was shot multiple times, captured and repeatedly stabbed, then was taken prisoner and carried off with all her broken bones and bullet holes to a dirty Iraqi hospital where she was chained to a bed and held for eight days by vicious Iraqi guards who slapped and abused her and raped her.

State Secrecy: UK Government Now Routinely Refusing Freedom of Information Requests

By True Publica, Peter Geoghegan, and Jenna Corderoy, January 24, 2020

Access to information is a right in British law. Want to know who Boris Johnson has been meeting and what they’ve talked about? All you have to do is put in a request, wait a few weeks and the information will be pinged straight to your inbox. But there’s a snag. A big one.

The government routinely ignores and undermines the law governing our access to information. According to the Institute for Government, its departments refuse to comply in full with more than half of the Freedom of Information requests that they receive.

“One World Digital Dictatorship” A Digital Nightmare

By Gideon Polya, January 24, 2020

Danish writer Soren Korsgaard (editor of Crime & Power) has written a very long and detailed account entitled “One World Digital Dictatorship” that describes the accelerating movement  by both Western-style democracies and one-party states (notably China) towards world-wide Digital Dictatorship (Digital Imprisonment) involving mass data collection on everyone, mass surveillance, facial recognition-based tracking, crypotocurrency-based cashless societies, and social credit-based disempowerment.

An Epic Act of Resistance and Trial of Our Times. “The Venezuela Embassy Protectors Collective”

By Lauren Smith, January 23, 2020

On February 11th, four American peace activists, known as the Embassy Protectors Collective, will be tried before the U.S. empire for “interfering with certain protective functions” of its Federal government for their occupation of the Venezuelan embassy in Washington, D.C. to prevent it from being handed over to coup leaders sponsored by the Trump administration. Their occupation ended on May 16, 2019, when federal agents broke into the sealed embassy, against international law, and arrested them in a swat style raid. The government’s accusation against them is merely a pretext used for their arrest and prosecution, since they haven’t broken any laws. Matter of fact, their true crime in the minds of the Trump administration is just the opposite – it’s their brilliant defense of international law, and Venezuela’s sovereign right to self-determination against Yankee imperialism.

The New Mind Control. “Subliminal Stimulation”, Controlling People without Their Knowledge

By Robert Epstein, January 22, 2020

Over the past century, more than a few great writers have expressed concern about humanity’s future. In The Iron Heel(1908), the American writer Jack London pictured a world in which a handful of wealthy corporate titans – the ‘oligarchs’ – kept the masses at bay with a brutal combination of rewards and punishments. Much of humanity lived in virtual slavery, while the fortunate ones were bought off with decent wages that allowed them to live comfortably – but without any real control over their lives.


Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.

We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.

If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Trump’s “No-Peace/Peace Plan” for Palestine

Krystle Cordingley mourns her son Corbyn who died 14 hours after a flu shot.

Krystle claims that the hospital tried to cover up what happened, and doctors said his death following vaccination was a coincidence.

Finally, she reports, one honest MD said, yes, it was the vaccine that caused the severe damage to Corbyn’s brain stem.

Could you image going home to find your baby murdered in his bed, out of nowhere.

You didn’t get to fight for him. You didn’t get to try and save him. Because all that you found was him dead.

And then you had people tell you, “No, it wasn’t the flu shot. There’s no way it could have been the flu shot that killed him. It was just a coincidence.”

It wasn’t a coincidence that he got it 14 hours prior.

Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.

In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.

One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.

*

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: Krystle Cordingley mourns her son Corbyn who died 14 hours after a flu shot. Image from YouTube.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: “He Was Murdered” – 13 Month Old Infant Dies 14 Hours after Receiving the Flu Shot
  • Tags:

Closer than Ever: It Is 100 Seconds to Midnight. The Dangers of Nuclear War

January 24th, 2020 by Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

To: Leaders and citizens of the world

Humanity continues to face two simultaneous existential dangers—nuclear war and climate change—that are compounded by a threat multiplier, cyber-enabled information warfare, that undercuts society’s ability to respond. The international security situation is dire, not just because these threats exist, but because world leaders have allowed the international political infrastructure for managing them to erode.

In the nuclear realm, national leaders have ended or undermined several major arms control treaties and negotiations during the last year, creating an environment conducive to a renewed nuclear arms race, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and to lowered barriers to nuclear war. Political conflicts regarding nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea remain unresolved and are, if anything, worsening. US-Russia cooperation on arms control and disarmament is all but nonexistent.

Public awareness of the climate crisis grew over the course of 2019, largely because of mass protests by young people around the world. Just the same, governmental action on climate change still falls far short of meeting the challenge at hand. At UN climate meetings last year, national delegates made fine speeches but put forward few concrete plans to further limit the carbon dioxide emissions that are disrupting Earth’s climate. This limited political response came during a year when the effects of manmade climate change were manifested by one of the warmest years on record, extensive wildfires, and quicker-than-expected melting of glacial ice.

Continued corruption of the information ecosphere on which democracy and public decision making depend has heightened the nuclear and climate threats. In the last year, many governments used cyber-enabled disinformation campaigns to sow distrust in institutions and among nations, undermining domestic and international efforts to foster peace and protect the planet.

This situation—two major threats to human civilization, amplified by sophisticated, technology-propelled propaganda—would be serious enough if leaders around the world were focused on managing the danger and reducing the risk of catastrophe. Instead, over the last two years, we have seen influential leaders denigrate and discard the most effective methods for addressing complex threats—international agreements with strong verification regimes—in favor of their own narrow interests and domestic political gain. By undermining cooperative, science- and law-based approaches to managing the most urgent threats to humanity, these leaders have helped to create a situation that will, if unaddressed, lead to catastrophe, sooner rather than later.

Faced with this daunting threat landscape and a new willingness of political leaders to reject the negotiations and institutions that can protect civilization over the long term, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board today moves the Doomsday Clock 20 seconds closer to midnight—closer to apocalypse than ever. In so doing, board members are explicitly warning leaders and citizens around the world that the international security situation is now more dangerous than it has ever been, even at the height of the Cold War.

Civilization-ending nuclear war—whether started by design, blunder, or simple miscommunication—is a genuine possibility. Climate change that could devastate the planet is undeniably happening. And for a variety of reasons that include a corrupted and manipulated media environment, democratic governments and other institutions that should be working to address these threats have failed to rise to the challenge.

The Bulletin believes that human beings can manage the dangers posed by the technology that humans create. Indeed, in the 1990s leaders in the United States and the Soviet Union took bold actions that made nuclear war markedly less likely—and as a result the Bulletin moved the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock the farthest it has been from midnight.

But given the inaction—and in too many cases counterproductive actions—of international leaders, the members of the Science and Security Board are compelled to declare a state of emergency that requires the immediate, focused, and unrelenting attention of the entire world. It is 100 seconds to midnight. The Clock continues to tick. Immediate action is required.

A retreat from arms control creates a dangerous nuclear reality

The world is sleepwalking its way through a newly unstable nuclear landscape. The arms control boundaries that have helped prevent nuclear catastrophe for the last half century are being steadily dismantled.

In several areas, a bad situation continues to worsen. Throughout 2019, Iran increased its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, increased its uranium enrichment levels, and added new and improved centrifuges—all to express its frustration that the United States had withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal (formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA), re-imposed economic sanctions on Iran, and pressured other parties to the Iran nuclear agreement to stop their compliance with the agreement. Early this year, amid high US-Iranian tensions, the US military conducted a drone air strike that killed a prominent Iranian general in Iraq. Iranian leaders vowed to exact “severe revenge” on US military forces, and the Iranian government announced it would no longer observe limits, imposed by the JCPOA, on the number of centrifuges that it uses to enrich uranium.

Although Iran has not formally exited the nuclear deal, its actions appear likely to reduce the “breakout time” it would need to build a nuclear weapon, to less than the 12 months envisioned by parties to the JCPOA. At that point, other parties to the nuclear agreement—including the European Union and possibly Russia and China—may be compelled to acknowledge that Iran is not complying. What little is left of the agreement could crumble, reducing constraints on the Iranian nuclear program and increasing the likelihood of military conflict with the United States.

The demise of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty became official in 2019, and, as predicted, the United States and Russia have begun a new competition to develop and deploy weapons the treaty had long banned. Meanwhile, the United States continues to suggest that it will not extend New START, the agreement that limits US and Russian deployed strategic nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and that it may withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty, which provides aerial overflights to build confidence and transparency around the world. Russia, meanwhile, continues to support an extension of New START.

The assault on arms control is exacerbated by the decay of great power relations. Despite declaring its intent to bring China into an arms control agreement, the United States has adopted a bullying and derisive tone toward its Chinese and Russian competitors. The three countries disagree on whether to pursue negotiations on outer space, missile defenses, and cyberwarfare. One of the few issues they do agree on: They all oppose the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which opened for signature in 2017. As an alternative, the United States has promoted, within the context of the review conference process of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), an initiative called “Creating the Environment for Nuclear Disarmament.” The success of this initiative may depend on its reception at the 2020 NPT Review Conference—a landmark 50th anniversary of the treaty.

US efforts to reach agreement with North Korea made little progress in 2019, despite an early summit in Hanoi and subsequent working-level meetings. After a North Korean deadline for end-of-year progress passed, Kim Jong Un announced he would demonstrate a new “strategic weapon” and indicated that North Korea would forge ahead without sanctions relief. Until now, the willingness of both sides to continue a dialogue was positive, but Chairman Kim seems to have lost faith in President Trump’s willingness to come to an agreement.

Without conscious efforts to reinvigorate arms control, the world is headed into an unregulated nuclear environment. Such an outcome could reproduce the intense arms race that was the hallmark of the early decades of the nuclear age. Both the United States and Russia have massive stockpiles of warheads and fissile material in reserve from which to draw, if they choose. Should China decide to build up to US and Russian arsenal levels—a development previously dismissed as unlikely but now being debated—deterrence calculations could become more complicated, making the situation more dangerous. An unconstrained North Korea, coupled with a more assertive China, could further destabilize Northeast Asian security.

As we wrote last year and re-emphasize now, any belief that the threat of nuclear war has been vanquished is a mirage.

An insufficient response to an increasingly threatened climate

In the past year, some countries have taken action to combat climate change, but others—including the United States, which formalized its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and Brazil, which dismantled policies that had protected the Amazon rainforest—have taken major steps backward. The highly anticipated UN Climate Action Summit in September fell far short of Secretary General António Guterres’ request that countries come not with “beautiful speeches, but with concrete plans.” The 60 or so countries that have committed (in more or less vague terms) to net zero emissions of carbon dioxide account for just 11 percent of global emissions. The UN climate conference in Madrid similarly disappointed. The countries involved in negotiations there barely reached an agreement, and the result was little more than a weak nudge, asking countries to consider further curbing their emissions. The agreement made no advances in providing further support to poorer countries to cut emissions and deal with increasingly damaging climate impacts.

Lip service continued, with some governments now echoing many scientists’ use of the term “climate emergency.” But the policies and actions that governments proposed were hardly commensurate to an emergency. Exploration and exploitation of fossil fuels continues to grow. A recent UN report finds that global governmental support and private sector investment have put fossil fuels on course to be over-produced at more than twice the level needed to meet the emissions-reduction goals set out in Paris.

Unsurprisingly, these continuing trends are reflected in our atmosphere and environment: Greenhouse gas emissions rose again over the past year, taking both annual emissions and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to record highs. The world is heading in the opposite direction from the clear demands of climate science and plain arithmetic: Net carbon dioxide emissions need to go down to zero if the world is to stop the continuing buildup of greenhouse gases. World emissions are going in the wrong direction.

The consequences of climate change in the lives of people around the world have been striking and tragic. India was ravaged in 2019 both by record-breaking heat waves and record-breaking floods, each taking a heavy toll on human lives. Wildfires from the Arctic to Australia, and many regions in between, have erupted with a frequency, intensity, extent, and duration that further degrade ecosystems and endanger people. It is not good news when wildfires spring up simultaneously in both the northern and southern hemispheres, making the notion of a limited “fire season” increasingly a thing of the past.

The dramatic effects of a changing climate, alongside the glacial progress of government responses, have unsurprisingly led to rising concern and anger among growing numbers of people. Climate change has catalyzed a wave of youth engagement, activism, and protest that seems akin to the mobilization triggered by nuclear disaster and nuclear weapons fears in the 1970s and 1980s. Politicians are taking notice, and, in some cases, starting to propose policies scaled to the urgency and magnitude of the climate problem. We hope that public support for strong climate policies will continue to spread, corporations will accelerate their investments in low-carbon technologies, the price of renewable energy will continue to decline, and politicians will take action. We also hope that these developments will happen rapidly enough to lead to the major transformation that is needed to check climate change.

But the actions of many world leaders continue to increase global risk, at a time when the opposite is urgently needed.

The increased threat of information warfare and other disruptive technologies

Nuclear war and climate change are major threats to the physical world. But information is an essential aspect of human interaction, and threats to the information ecosphere—especially when coupled with the emergence of new destabilizing technologies in artificial intelligence, space, hypersonics, and biology—portend a dangerous and multifaceted global instability.

In recent years, national leaders have increasingly dismissed information with which they do not agree as fake news, promulgating their own untruths, exaggerations, and misrepresentations in response. Unfortunately, this trend accelerated in 2019. Leaders claimed their lies to be truth, calling into question the integrity of, and creating public distrust in, national institutions that have historically provided societal stability and cohesion.

In the United States, there is active political antagonism toward science and a growing sense of government-sanctioned disdain for expert opinion, creating fear and doubt regarding well-established science about climate change and other urgent challenges. Countries have long attempted to employ propaganda in service of their political agendas. Now, however, the internet provides widespread, inexpensive access to worldwide audiences, facilitating the broadcast of false and manipulative messages to large populations and enabling millions of individuals to indulge in their prejudices, biases, and ideological differences.

The recent emergence of so-called “deepfakes”—audio and video recordings that are essentially undetectable as false—threatens to further undermine the ability of citizens and decision makers to separate truth from fiction. The resulting falsehoods hold the potential to create economic, social, and military chaos, increasing the possibility of misunderstandings or provocations that could lead to war, and fomenting public confusion that leads to inaction on serious issues facing the planet. Agreement on facts is essential to democracy and effective collective action.

Other new technologies, including developments in biological engineering, high-speed (hypersonic) weapons, and space weapons, present further opportunities for disruption.

Genetic engineering and synthetic biology technologies are now increasingly affordable, readily available, and spreading rapidly. Globally, governments and companies are collecting vast amounts of health-related data, including genomic data, ostensibly for the purpose of improving healthcare and increasing profits. But the same data could also be useful in developing highly effective biological weapons, and disagreements regarding verification of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention continue to place the world at risk.

Artificial intelligence is progressing at a frenzied pace. In addition to the concern about marginally controlled AI development and its incorporation into weaponry that would make kill decisions without human supervision, AI is now being used in military command and control systems. Research and experience have demonstrated the vulnerability of these systems to hacking and manipulation. Given AI’s known shortcomings, it is crucial that the nuclear command and control system remain firmly in the hands of human decision makers.

There is increasing investment in and deployment of hypersonic weapons that will severely limit response times available to targeted nations and create a dangerous degree of ambiguity and uncertainty, at least in part because of their likely ability to carry either nuclear or conventional warheads. This uncertainty could lead to rapid escalation of military conflicts. At a minimum, these weapons are highly destabilizing and presage a new arms race.

Meanwhile, space has become a new arena for weapons development, with multiple countries testing and deploying kinetic, laser, and radiofrequency anti-satellite capabilities, and the United States creating a new military service, the Space Force.

The overall global trend is toward complex, high-tech, highly automated, high-speed warfare. The computerized and increasingly AI-assisted nature of militaries, the sophistication of their weapons, and the new, more aggressive military doctrines asserted by the most heavily armed countries could result in global catastrophe.

How the world should respond

To say the world is nearer to doomsday today than during the Cold War—when the United States and Soviet Union had tens of thousands more nuclear weapons than they now possess—is to make a profound assertion that demands serious explanation. After much deliberation, the members of the Science and Security Board have concluded that the complex technological threats the world faces are at least as dangerous today as they were last year and the year before, when we set the Clock at two minutes to midnight (as close as it had ever been, and the same setting that was announced in 1953, after the United States and the Soviet Union tested their first thermonuclear weapons).

But this year, we move the Clock 20 seconds closer to midnight not just because trends in our major areas of concern—nuclear weapons and climate change—have failed to improve significantly over the last two years. We move the Clock toward midnight because the means by which political leaders had previously managed these potentially civilization-ending dangers are themselves being dismantled or undermined, without a realistic effort to replace them with new or better management regimes. In effect, the international political infrastructure for controlling existential risk is degrading, leaving the world in a situation of high and rising threat. Global leaders are not responding appropriately to reduce this threat level and counteract the hollowing-out of international political institutions, negotiations, and agreements that aim to contain it. The result is a heightened and growing risk of disaster.

To be sure, some of these negative trends have been long in development. That they could be seen coming miles in the distance but still were allowed to occur is not just disheartening but also a sign of fundamental dysfunction in the world’s efforts to manage and reduce existential risk.

Last year, we called the extremely troubling state of world security an untenable “new abnormal.”

“In this extraordinarily dangerous state of affairs, nuclear war and climate change pose severe threats to humanity, yet go largely unaddressed,” we wrote. “Meanwhile, the use of cyber-enabled information warfare by countries, leaders, and subnational groups of many stripes around the world exacerbates these enormous threats and endangers the information ecosystem that underpins democracy and civilization as we know it. At the same time, other disruptive technologies complicate and further darken the world security situation.”

This dangerous situation remains—and continues to deteriorate. Compounding the nuclear, climate, and information warfare threats, the world’s institutional and political capacity for dealing with these threats and reducing the possibility of civilization-scale catastrophe has been diminished. Because of the worldwide governmental trend toward dysfunction in dealing with global threats, we feel compelled to move the Doomsday Clock forward. The need for emergency action is urgent.

There are many practical, concrete steps that leaders could take—and citizens should demand—to improve the current, absolutely unacceptable state of world security affairs. Among them:

  • US and Russian leaders can return to the negotiating table to: reinstate the INF Treaty or take other action to restrain an unnecessary arms race in medium-range missiles; extend the limits of New START beyond 2021; seek further reductions in nuclear arms; discuss a lowering of the alert status of the nuclear arsenals of both countries; limit nuclear modernization programs that threaten to create a new nuclear arms race; and start talks on cyber warfare, missile defenses, the militarization of space, hypersonic technology, and the elimination of battlefield nuclear weapons.
  • The countries of the world should publicly rededicate themselves to the temperature goal of the Paris climate agreement, which is restricting warming “well below” 2 degrees Celsius higher than the preindustrial level. That goal is consistent with consensus views on climate science, and, notwithstanding the inadequate climate action to date, it may well remain within reach if major changes in the worldwide energy system and land use are undertaken promptly. If that goal is to be attained, industrialized countries will need to curb emissions rapidly, going beyond their initial, inadequate pledges and supporting developing countries so they can leapfrog the entrenched, fossil fuel-intensive patterns previously pursued by industrialized countries.
  • US citizens should demand climate action from their government. Climate change is a serious and worsening threat to humanity. Citizens should insist that their government acknowledge it and act accordingly. President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate change agreement was a dire mistake. Whoever wins the 2020 US presidential election should reverse that decision.
  • The United States and other signatories of the Iran nuclear deal can work together to restrain nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Iran is poised to violate key thresholds of the deal. Whoever wins the United States’ 2020 presidential election must prioritize dealing with this problem, whether through a return to the original nuclear agreement or via negotiation of a new and broader accord.
  • The international community should begin multilateral discussions aimed at establishing norms of behavior, both domestic and international, that discourage and penalize the misuse of science. Science provides the world’s searchlight in times of fog and confusion. Furthermore, focused attention is needed to prevent information technology from undermining public trust in political institutions, in the media, and in the existence of objective reality itself. Cyber-enabled information warfare is a threat to the common good. Deception campaigns—and leaders intent on blurring the line between fact and politically motivated fantasy—are a profound threat to effective democracies, reducing their ability to address nuclear weapons, climate change, and other existential dangers.

The global security situation is unsustainable and extremely dangerous, but that situation can be improved, if leaders seek change and citizens demand it. There is no reason the Doomsday Clock cannot move away from midnight. It has done so in the past when wise leaders acted, under pressure from informed and engaged citizens around the world. We believe that mass civic engagement will be necessary to compel the change the world needs.

Citizens around the world have the power to unmask social media disinformation and improve the long-term prospects of their children and grandchildren. They can insist on facts, and discount nonsense. They can demand—through public protest, at the ballot box, and in many other creative ways—that their leaders take immediate steps to reduce the existential threats of nuclear war and climate change. It is now 100 seconds to midnight, the most dangerous situation that humanity has ever faced. Now is the time to unite—and act.

*

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 teleSUR

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Closer than Ever: It Is 100 Seconds to Midnight. The Dangers of Nuclear War

Why does Switzerland, neutral by her Constitution, fund, support and reward the partial and I dare say, western-biased and corrupted Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and their fake reporting – with a donation of CHF 300,000 (US$ 300,000)? – It is a shame. It is one more of these situations when Switzerland has to show the great hegemon that they are on his side. It’s like with Swiss ‘sanctions’ on Venezuela, a country that has never done any harm to Switzerland, to the contrary. Just because the Exceptional Nation and its European poodles demand it?  What does Switzerland, and I repeat – constitutionally neutral Switzerland – expect in return for such “fine gestures” of propaganda? Perhaps a blind eye for untransparent fiscal and gold transactions?

Impartiality has been eviscerated from OPCW, as much as from the International Criminal Court (ICC), also located in The Hague. Remember, this is the Court, where President Trump just recently threatened its judges with “sanctions” – could be murder, from all we know of the American way of extra-judiciary proceeding – if ever they, the judges of ICC, dare accusing and prosecuting individuals from the US and Israel for Human Rights abuses. That’s the ICC.

The OPCW is not an iota better. They issue false reports that could endanger the lives of millions of people – Syrians as it were – just to prevent the threat of OPCW staff being sanctioned. Yes, friends, that’s the world we have become. A bunch of spineless, hapless sheep.

To put it all in context, Syria was one of those countries that according to US Foreign Policy had to be “regime-changed” (Syria’s strategic location, with President Assad’s vision of “connecting five seas” [Caspian, Black, Red, Mediterranean and the Gulf] with a transport and energy corridor – and to top it all off – a socialist leaning Ba’ath Government) – which was the reason for the CIA / NATO and other European US lackeys – and the Saudis, to initiate in March 2011 the so-called Syrian “Arab Spring”, or civil war, actually a mercenary war, funded by the usual villains, the US, Saudis and other Gulf States and the European stooges.

OPCW, based in The Hague, capital of the Netherlands, does the bidding of the west, in particular the United States.

OPCW has nothing to do anymore with their original mandate of inspecting, analyzing and reporting the use of chemical weapons in countries of conflict. OPCW has become a puppet, a mere tool of the west demonizing countries that refuse bending down on their knees in front of Washington, falsely accusing these countries – lately especially Syria – of using deadly chemical weapons against her own people.

On August 21, 2013 in the early morning hours, Ghouta a large suburban area of Damascus was struck by several rockets containing the toxic and deadly chemical agent sarin. The attack may have killed more than 1,000 people. The UN already in Syria with a mission investigating several sarin gas attacks on civilian populations and medical convoys carried out in 2012 and earlier in 2013, were granted permission by the Assad Government to also look into the Ghouta attacks. The UN mission also had an OPCW delegation on board. The mission concluded that the attack on Ghouta was a chemical weapons assault, using the deadly sarin gas.

That’s where the investigation stopped and the accusations started. Without a shred of evidence, aping the pre-emptive allegations by the US, UK and France, that the attacks were carried out by President Assad’s military, OPCW also accused the Syrian Government of these heinous crimes. A ludicrous allegation, because why would Mr. Assad kill his own people? Especially, since he had then and has still today, about 80 % of popular support. And this after 9 years of foreign induced, and maintained terror against the people of Syria.

In April 2014 the northern Syrian town of Kafr Zita, also suffered a chemical attack, where about 100 people were injured and three killed. “Toxic chlorine” was the chemical agent used – the trade mark of the White Helmets, also created by the west, as the heroes defending Syria’s civil population, when in fact they are closely associated with the terror group Al-Nusra.

The false charges were so loud and repetitive and propagated by the bought western media that people throughout the western admirers of the atrocious US empire believed such nonsense. And this, despite the fact that Russia, soon after the attack, said, this was very likely a ‘false flag’, meaning carried out by western-funded terrorists mercenaries, so as to justify western military intervention. Russia is an ally of Syria, with national interests in Syria – naval and air bases – hence, a close observer of events in Syria.

Before a massive western military intervention could begin, Russia brokered a “truce” by having Syria destroy all its chemical weapons under the supervision of OPCW, Russia and the US. This was faithfully carried out – leaving Syria clean of chemical weapons. And the world knows it. OPCW knows it, as both the US and Russia witnessed the destruction.

Nevertheless, in June 2018 the OPCW noted with concern that the Syrian Arab Republic had in reality neither declared nor destroyed all of its chemical weapons and chemical weapons production facilities. This, as a justification for yet another false accusation, namely the alleged chemical attack on 7 April 2018 on Douma, about 10 km northeast of Damascus, when according to “eye witnesses” some 40 to 50 people were killed and more than 100 people injured. Again, The US, French and Brits immediately attributed the assault to the Syrian Army.

Image on the right: Hürriyet Daily News

OPCW, readily on location, also concluded that the attack was carried out by President al-Assad’s troops. To make the point, a series of photos were circulated. They showed, among other ridiculously counterfeited pictures, a used yellow canister fallen from the sky and landing on a sofa in a shattered house. The Syrian Government and Russia immediately declared these pictures as fake and staged which later was proven right.

On 14 April 2018, a week after the alleged Assad regime attack on Douma, the US, Britain and France responded, launching more than 120 Tomahawk missiles against several Syrian targets, causing considerable infrastructure destruction and injuring about ten people. This was in full breach of international law, as the UN did not authorize this attack.

The OPCW mission knew, of course, immediately that the accusations were wrong, that this was a staged incident – most likely carried out by the White Helmets themselves, who later came to the rescue of the “insured people” and interviewed the “eye witnesses” – the basis for the false accusations. Hollywood later made “The White Helmets” into a documentary to re-establish the credibility of the “heroic Syrian civil defenders”. The film won the 2017 Oscar for Best Documentary. That’s how the West turns lies into truth. A Russian and Syrian Army investigation later concluded that there was no attack at all, that the chlorine was regular chlorine, not a weapon-grade chemical.

The US, French, Brits, who all have their intelligence in the region, knew, of course, that the accusations of the Douma attack and all the previous chemical attacks were lies. The Swiss knew it too, as the Swiss were member of OPCW’s Executive Council (2016-2018) and as of today maintain close relations with OPCW – like making a generous donation to this unethical organization.

OPCW has 193 member states. The organization was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013. This puts the organization at international center stage. For those who know, they know that this prize is absolutely political and meaningless. Remember, Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize (2009) before he effectively started his presidency, sort of “in anticipation” of the “good he would do” – and then he ended up with 7 wars on his conscience (which he doesn’t have) by the time he left office.

The former Swiss prosecutor and former member of the UN Commission of Inquiry, Carla Del Ponte, shocked western governments in May 2013 by declaring that the United Nations had “strong suspicions” of Syrian rebels using sarin gas. She later was forced to retrack her statement which is suspected to be the unspoken but real reason for her resignation in 2016 from the infamous UN Commission which was set up in 2011, shortly after the beginning of the US/ CIA / NATO initiated “civil war” in Syria.

The Commission was to investigate human rights abuse in Syria. In hindsight, the Commission was created as if in anticipation of the already planned gas attacks that needed an official UN agency to justify accusing the Assad Government of poisoning its own people – and therefore, ‘regime change’ was of the order.

*

Several OPCW whistleblowers and leaks challenge Western government claims

Quoting from The Grayzone of 22 January 2020 –

“In May 2019, an internal OPCW engineering assessment was leaked to the public. The document, authored by Ian Henderson, said the “dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders” in Douma “were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder having been delivered from an aircraft,” adding that there is “a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from an aircraft.”

“After reviewing the leaked report, MIT professor emeritus of Science, Technology and International Security, Theodore Postol, told The Grayzone, “The evidence is overwhelming that the gas attacks were staged.” Postol also accused OPCW leadership of overseeing “compromised reporting” and ignoring scientific evidence.”

In November 2019, a second OPCW whistleblower came forward and accused the organization’s leadership of “suppressing countervailing evidence” under pressure of US Government officials.

With evidence of internal suppression growing, the OPCW’s first director-general, José Bustani, decided to speak out. “The convincing evidence of irregular behavior in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had.” He added, “I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing.”

On 20 January 2020, Ian Henderson testified as a virtual person before the UN Security Council about the suppression of truth reporting by OPCW leadership. He spoke by pre-recorded video, since the Trump Administration refused granting him an entry visa to attend the UN Security Council Meeting. Trump is weaponizing visas against anyone who does not conform to the US narrative, no matter how deceptive it is.

Henderson said “My concern, which was shared by a number of other inspectors, relates to the subsequent management lockdown and the practices in the later analysis and compilation of a final report,”

*

On  22 January 2020 – OPCW declared at their headquarters in The Hague that the “Government of Switzerland will make two contributions totaling CHF 300,000 (US$ 300,000) to support a number of major projects and activities of the OPCW.”

“A contribution of CHF 200,000 will be made to the OPCW Trust Fund to support the project to upgrade the current OPCW Laboratory and Equipment Store through the construction of a new Centre for Chemistry and Technology (ChemTech Centre).”

Another contribution of approximately CHF 100,000 will support the activities of the Trust Fund for Syria Missions at the OPCW. The Trust Fund for Syria Missions supports the Organization’s missions and contingency operations related to the Syrian Arab Republic including the work of the Declaration Assessment Team, the Fact-Finding Mission, and the Investigation and Identification Team.”

These are the very teams that launched knowingly deceptive and fake reports that could have cost millions of Syrian lives, if Russian support of the Assad Government, Russian pressure on the west, and Russian overwhelming evidence of the fakeness of OPCW reporting, would not have been able to avert an all-out war of the west against Syria.

***

The Swiss Government is fully aware of the corrupt nature of OPCW reporting – and of the organizations caving in to US pressure, and that this situation will not change in the future, as Washington’s pressure, blackmail and threat of “sanctions” – meaning possible death by drones – will not seize. Is the US$ 300,000 donation maybe a gesture of empathy – an expression of sympathy from one spineless character to another?

*

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. The original source of this article is Global Research .

Featured image is from IPA

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Switzerland Funds Biased and Fake OPCW Chemical Weapons’ Reporting
  • Tags: ,

Intense clashes between the Syrian Army and Idlib militants resulted in large casualties among both sides, according to statements by the Syrian and Russian defense ministries.

On January 23, the Syrian military reported that its forces had repelled  a large-scale attack on its positions in southeastern Idlib. The report said that the attack, led by al-Qaeda-affiliated Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, targeted the towns of al-Tah, Abu Hurif and Samka. Suicide bombers were reportedly employed.

On the same day, the Russian Center for Reconciliation said in an official statement that over 600 miltiants supported by battle tanks and armoured vehicles, attacked army positions:

  • A group of up to 270 militants, supported by 38 armed pickups attacked Syrian Army positions near At-Tah, and Muaysirunah. A group of Wadi as-Saane in southeastern Idlib;
  • Up to 250 militants, supported by 2 BMP vehicles and 30 armed pickups attacked Syrian Army positions near Abu Dafn, Bars and Huan as-Shaf in southeastern Idlib;
  • Up to 50 militants, supported by 4 vehicles armed with weapons, attacked Syrian Army positions near Rashidin 4 and al-Jazirah near Aleppo city.

According to the Russian side, government forces eliminated up to 50 militants, and wounded up to 90 others. At the same time, nearly 40 Syrian troops were killed and up to 80 injured, the Center added.

On January 22, the Russian military reported that the Syrian Army had repelled an attack by militants near At Tah. According to the report, the attack involved at least 30 militants.

Earlier, the Russian side said that 46 Syrian service members have been killed and 77 were wounded in recent clashes with Idlib militants in the period from January 16 to January 19.

These reports look strange as no pro-government or pro-opposition sources reported any such casualties among pro-government forces or even clashes of the aforementioned scale. It seems that even the propaganda wing of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham does not know about such successes of the militants. HTS and its allies launched dozens of attacks from the region in the last few days. However, no large offensive operations were reported. One of the explanations is that they did not happen.

By releasing such reports, Damascus and Moscow may setting up a public opinion for a large-scale ground operation in Greater Idlib, that has been repeatedly forecasted by pro-government sources. On the other hand, these reports could be a part of the media operation designed to draw the audience’s attention from some other developments.

*

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

With Turkey failing to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power in their drive to forge a regional hegemonic order under their rulership, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has set his eyes on other Eastern Mediterranean issues, primarily aggression against Cyprus, Greece and Libya. With the Turkish military publishing maps that show Greece’s eastern Aegean islands belonging to Turkey and the Turkish Defense Minister demanding 16 of these islands be demobilized of the Greek military, the Turkish Defense Ministry publishing maps of Cyprus belonging to Turkey on their social media cover photos, and redrawing the maritime borders of the Eastern Mediterranean so that Turkey and Libya’s internationally recognized Muslim Brotherhood government in Tripoli can carve up some of Greece’s maritime space between themselves, there is little doubt that Erdoğan has embarked on a mission of recreating the Ottoman Empire.

It is not conspiratorial or sensationalism to claim that Erdoğan is attempting to create a neo-Ottoman Empire when we consider Turkey’s withdrawal from the “zero problems with neighbors” policy when Ankara immediately involved itself in the Syrian conflict in 2011 and sent tens of thousands of jihadists, that it armed, trained and funded, into the Arab country. The Syrian war provided an opportunity for Turkey to engage in power projections within a new regional order where Ankara would be the center of power.

The plan for a neo-Ottoman Empire was not initially based on territorial expansion but to create a network of Muslim Brotherhood governments loyal to Ankara. The failure to topple Assad was partially a reason for Turkey to invade large swathes of northern Syria, where now the Turkish flag is displayed instead of the Syrian one, a Turkification of the school curricula, and portraits of Erdoğan displayed. This suggests that Turkey is not planning to withdraw from northern Syria. This is so they can create an unresolved status quo just as it has with its illegal occupation of northern Cyprus that it doggedly refuses to resolve.

With Turkey firmly in control of these areas in northern Syria and unable to topple Assad, Erdoğan has now re-shifted his country’s focus by saying that Ankara’s foreign policy will prioritize other areas of the Eastern Mediterranean. This has meant the transfer of militants operating in Syria to Libya. Many of these terrorists have already been transferred there by Turkey, with many of them not even shooting a single bullet before fleeing to Italy. With 2,400 terrorists from Syria already in Libya and at least another 1,700 on their way, who openly say they are fighting for “the Ottoman Caliphate,” the European Union has not taken a strong interest despite these jihadists being on their doorstep or already infiltrating the EU.

Sunday’s Berlin Conference on Libya ended in disappointment for Erdoğan after he “freaked out and left the conference ahead of schedule” when he found no support in his plans to intervene directly in the North African country. However, the Berlin Conference also demonstrated that the EU adopts a very passive stance towards the Libyan crisis despite the latest flareup being partially heated up by Erdoğan’s deal with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood government in Tripoli to steal the maritime of fellow EU member Greece – which strangely enough was not invited to the conference by German leader Angela Merkel. This is an extremely dangerous move by the EU to have such a passive policy when terrorists loyal to Erdoğan are infiltrating Europe and can serve as a fifth column to enact Turkish interests.

A Turkish government official had the audacity to say days ago that the crisis in Libya was not an EU problem despite the Tripoli-Ankara deal against Greece, and the potentiality this conflict has in triggering a new refugee crisis. Former Turkish President Turgut Özal (1989-1993) even admitted that “We do not need to make war with Greece. We just need to send them a few millions illegal immigrants from Turkey and finish them.” Erdoğan certainly has adopted the “Özal doctrine,” as it has become known, and flooded Greece and the wider EU region with illegal immigrants and even continues to threaten to send more. With the initial refugee crisis triggered by the Syrian War, in which Turkey had a critical role in causing, it appears that the “Özal doctrine” will be expanded to not only flood Greece with more illegal immigrants, but also Malta and Italy via Libya.

Although Turkey is a NATO member, it has in recent years embraced the emerging Multipolar World Order. However, they have not embraced the emerging Multipolar system to create balance through their own sovereignty in foreign policy, but rather to pursue their own imperial ambitions. With Greece offering its military as a peacekeeping force in Libya and Turkey threatening to intervene on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood government, it could see a dangerous escalation between two so-called NATO allies.

Although the EU has adopted an appeasement policy with Turkey’s aggression despite their direct threat to EU members Greece and Cyprus, Erdoğan’s adventurism has actually left his country weaker and isolated as their sole regional ally is the besieged Tripoli government. Meanwhile a complex alliance, whether directly or indirectly with each other, consisting of Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, has emerged to support the Libyan National Army against Tripoli and to oppose Turkish expansionism. Therefore, although Turkey is threatening to directly intervene in Libya, has sent thousands of jihadists to fight in the North African country, and continues to blackmail the EU with the risk of sending hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to Europe, Erdoğan’s dreams of a neo-Ottoman Empire will not materialize.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkish Intervention in Libya: Another Erdogan Reckless Attempt to Revive Neo-Ottoman Empire
  • Tags: , ,

Leaked information shows Trump’s so-called deal of the century is a one-sided scam, favoring Israel at the expense of fundamental Palestinian rights.

The so-called peace process is the greatest hoax in modern times, along with the US war OF terror worldwide, not on it.

Israeli/Palestinian no-peace/peace plans have been around since the 1970s — a near-half century of failure to reach accommodation proof positive of US/Israeli unwillingness to respect Palestinian rights.

If both countries wanted conflict resolution resolution with Palestinians, it would have happened long ago.

Former Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir explained why not. He and his predecessors wanted forever talks accomplishing nothing – giving Israel time to steal all valued Palestinian land.

His successors to the present day followed the same strategy.

Since Israel seized control of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza in 1967, colonizing and developing the most valued Palestinian land for exclusive Jewish use became official state policy — explained by Yigal Allon’s regional scheme, its elements including:

  • permanent militarized occupation;
  • maximum land for Jews with minimum Arabs;
  • dispossessing Palestinians from areas Israel wants for exclusive Jewish development and use;
  • annexing all valued parts of Judea and Sumaria;
  • controlling Jerusalem as Israel’s exclusive capital;
  • establishing settlements, military bases, free-fire zones, commercial locations, tourist sites, nature reserves, no-go areas, Jews-only roads, checkpoints, other barriers, and other exclusive Jewish areas — non-Jews excluded from them;
  • stealing Palestinian resources; and
  • cracking down hard on resisters.

The above policies make peace, stability, equity and justice for Palestinians unattainable.

Achieving them defeats the US/Israeli agenda — dependent on endless regional conflicts and instability.

It’s why decades of peace plans when unveiled were dead on arrival, Trump’s let em eat cake deal of the century dead before arrival.

Partly introduced last June at a so-called “Peace to Prosperity Workshop” in Bahrain, the Trump regime’s dog and pony PR show was boycotted by Palestinians.

Deceptively billed as “a vision to empower the Palestinian people to build a prosperous and vibrant Palestinian society,” the economic plan has nothing to do with peace, equity and justice for long-suffering Palestinians — everything to do with one-sidedly serving US/Israeli interests.

Based on what’s known so far, subject to fine-tuning, Trump’s overall scheme ignores fundamental final status issues, especially real Palestinian self-determination free from Israeli occupation and control, Israeli land theft, air and water rights, other resources, the right of diaspora Palestinians to return to their homeland, and East Jerusalem as exclusive Palestinian capital.

He illegally recognized Jerusalem (a UN-established international city) as Israel’s exclusive capital, moved the US embassy there, abandoned a legitimate two-state solution, recognized Israel’s unlawful Golan annexation, and no longer considers illegal settlements occupied territory.

Trump and hardliners surrounding him are no friends of Palestinians or ordinary people anywhere, not at home or abroad.

Information leaked last month about his no-peace/peace plan revealed it excludes 70% or more of West Bank land controlled by Israel, including the Jordan Valley, closed military zones, exclusive Jewish commercial areas, tourist sites, no-go areas, and illegal settlements on stolen Palestinian land.

Jerusalem is to remain undivided, the city “shared between Israel and New Palestine” — Israel maintaining exclusive control, the way it’s been for over half a century.

On July 30, 1980, the Knesset Jerusalem Law officially annexed the city as Israel’s exclusive capital — breaching Security Council Res. 465 (March 1980).

It declared actions taken by Israel “to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity…”

In July 2004,  the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that “Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development (and) have been established in breach of international law.”

Time and again, the US and Israel breach Security Council resolutions and other international laws.

Trump’s no-peace/peace plan is all about serving US and Israeli interests at the expense of regional peace, stability, and fundamental Palestinian rights.

According to Mike Pence on Thursday, Netanyahu and his chief political rival Benny Gantz will meet with Trump in the White House next week to discuss regional issues and what PA official Saeb Erekat called Trump’s “deal of the next century,” a conspiracy against Palestinian rights.

Reuters reported that the Trump regime will release his no-peace/peace plan ahead of the January 28 meeting with Netanyahu and Gantz.

DJT calling it “a great plan” defies reality. PA spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh reaffirmed the Palestinian demand for an independent state within June 1967 borders — free from Israeli occupation and control.

On Thursday, Israel’s Channel 12, citing unnamed Netanyahu regime sources, said Trump’s plan includes exclusive Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, illegal settlements, and the Jordan Valley adding:

It supports the illusion of Palestinian self-determination, demanding a demilitarized Hamas, along with Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, Jerusalem its capital.

It also reportedly stipulates that if Palestinians reject the so-called plan, the Trump regime will support Israeli annexation of illegal settlements unilaterally.

According to the Wafa PA news site, Rudeineh said the following:

“If the announcement of this deal, with these unacceptable formulas, is made, the (PA) leadership will announce a series of measures to preserve our legitimate rights, and we will call on Israel to assume its responsibilities as an occupying power,” adding:

“We warn (the Netanyahu and Trump regimes) to not cross the red lines.”

Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassim said “any deal or project that does not contain our people’s full rights in our land and holy sites will not stand,” adding:

“All the attempts to make this deal come to pass will be squashed by our people’s resistance and steadfastness.”

“Our Palestinian people will determine its fate by way of its ongoing revolution, legitimate struggle and absolute belief in the justness of its cause.”

On Thursday, Trump tweeted:

“Reports about details and timing of our closely-held peace plan are purely speculative.”

If its provisions resemble what’s discussed above, it’ll clearly be rejected by the PA, Hamas, and the Palestinian street.

*

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.

Putin’s trip to “Israel” on Thursday to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was a defining moment of his 20-year-long presidency and will forever be remembered as an important part of his legacy due to the extremely emotional symbolism that was on display during that solemn day.

Very rarely does President Putin ever do anything without receiving unfair treatment from the Western Mainstream Media, but his trip to “Israel” on Thursday to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was an unforgettable exception. The Russian leader was invited by caretaker “Prime Minister” Netanyahu as the guest of honor among more than 40 other heads of state who arrived to participate in what was billed as the biggest diplomatic event in the self-professed “Jewish State’s” history. He earned this VIP treatment because it was the Soviet Union that stopped the Nazi’s genocidal machine, something that “Foreign Minister” Katz emotionally brought up in his exchange with President Putin when he personally thanked him for what the Russian Federation’s predecessor state did in saving his mother from the world’s most notorious death camp.

Before reporting on and then subsequently analyzing some of the other memorable moments from that solemn occasion, it’s important to share the highlights of President Putin’s visit from the Kremlin’s official website so that the reader can peruse it all if they’re interested:

As can be glimpsed by even just the headlines themselves, President Putin’s visit saw him participate in events that are very dear to his heart — strengthening Russian-“Israeli” relations, remembering the siege of Leningrad and the Holocaust, and fighting anti-Semitism.

Many in the Alt-Media Community have unfortunately been indoctrinated with the completely false narrative that President Putin is supposedly “against Israel” for whatever reason they imagine but which usually has something to do with their dogmatic belief that he’s secretly allied with the Iranian-led Mideast “Resistance” that’s dedicated to removing the Zionist occupation entity from Palestine. That’s not true whatsoever at all, and the author thoroughly debunked the delusions of such twisted minds in his extended piece for Global Research in September 2019 titled “Russia’s Middle East Strategy: ‘Balance’ vs. ‘Betrayal’?” where he argued that Russia is much closer to “Israel” than to Iran by a long shot, which is entirely the result of President Putin’s foreign policy decisions that are undertaken out of his belief that such a stance is best for his country’s strategic interests.

On the topic of his participation in the “Fighting Antisemitism” international forum, it deserves mentioning that the official Kremlin website quotes President Putin as having had the following exchange with present Oksana Boyko on 11 June, 2013:

“Vladimir Putin: A response to your question could take hours. It’s so complex. I will try to be as concise as possible. First, I have repeatedly voiced Russia’s official stance – Iran has the right for a peaceful nuclear program and it cannot be singled out for discrimination. Second, we need to be aware that Iran is located in a very challenging region. I have told our Iranian partners about that. That’s why Iranian threats made towards neighbouring countries, in particular Israel, threats that Israel can be destroyed, are absolutely unacceptable. This is counterproductive.

Oksana BOYKO: This is not a proper quote of the Iranian president.

Vladimir Putin: It doesn’t quite matter whether it’s a proper quote or not. It means it’s best to avoid a wording that could be improperly quoted or could be interpreted differently. That’s why the focus on Iran does have a reason behind it.”

Those powerful words and others aren’t only relevant to the larger observation that Russia is much more closely aligned with “Israel” than with Iran, but also to what President Putin himself said while speaking with “Israeli” “President” Rivlin. In response to his counterpart quipping that “we do not know where [anti-Semitism] ends”, the Russian leader said that “You have just said that it is unclear where anti-Semitism ends. Unfortunately, we know this: it ends in Auschwitz. Therefore, we need to be very attentive so as not to miss any similar developments in the future and to counter any manifestations of xenophobia and anti-Semitism, no matter where this may happen, and no matter from where this may come.” By strong innuendo, it can therefore be inferred that President Putin has zero tolerance for Iran’s repeated calls for “Israel’s” destruction.

This might even be more so the case after Netanyahu told the attendees at the forum that Iran is “the most anti-Semitic regime on the planet”, which isn’t the wording that the ever-diplomatic Russian President would publicly use but which might more or less sum up his stance towards the Islamic Republic given its anti-Zionist rhetoric, which some in “Israel” conflate with anti-Semitism and believe is simply a more “publicly plausible” cover for it in the modern day. After all, President Putin said during his keynote speech that “We mourn all the victims of the Nazis, including the six million Jews tortured in ghettos and death camps and killed cruelly during raids. Forty percent of them were citizens of the Soviet Union, so the Holocaust has always been a deep wound for us, a tragedy we will always remember.”

The author wrote on 1 January, 2019 that Russia and “Israel” are “two states, one nation” because of their shared historical experiences and the large-scale migration of Russian Jews to the self-professed “Jewish State”, a point that President Putin hammered home after telling the world that his countrymen “will always remember” the Holocaust. In a twist of fate, the date of Auschwitz’s liberation — 27 January, 1945 — was exactly one year after the end of the Nazi’s genocidal siege of Leningrad, which links the people of “Israel” and Russia even closer together on a higher spiritual level than few pairs of societies can ever understand, which is yet another reason why President Putin is so strongly against anti-Semitism and opposed to anyone ever threatening the “State of Israel” (ergo why Russia removed Iran from southwestern Syria in summer 2018).

Speaking of the siege of Leningrad, President Putin fittingly paid tribute to its survivors during his visit to “Israel”, and Foreign Minister Lavrov even broke down in tears while listening to his superior’s speech commemorating that solemn event under the monument that his hosts unveiled to its victims. There should thus be no doubt among anyone in the Alt-Media Community about the sincerity of President Putin’s feelings towards “Israel”, its people, and their shared history with Russia’s own (of which many of them are also a part). Very rarely do the Russian leader and his highest officials ever show their emotions in public, but President Putin’s latest trip to “Israel” was a notable exception because of the emotional symbolism involved, which deeply affected them on a personal level because Russia and “Israel” are indeed “two states, one nation”.

With such a spiritual basis for their bilateral relations (which also explains why “Israeli” “President” Rivlin said that “this battle [against anti-Semitism] cannot be fought without Russia taking an active part in it”), it’s little wonder then that they’re seeking to expand their economic ties even further than before after Sputnik reported that “Israel” might sign a free trade deal with the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union sometime next year. On the military front, “Foreign Minister” Katz saidthat “Russia plays an important role in the Middle East. Israel works on resolving regional issues in cooperation with Russia. Israel values President Putin’s understanding of the importance of ensuring security of the State of Israel.” As proven by Russia’s successful efforts to push Iran out of southwestern Syria, President Putin does indeed understand “Israel’s” security needs.

When considering the extremely emotional context of President Putin’s visit to “Israel” and the strong symbolism of his country standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the self-professed “Jewish State” in waging a global campaign against anti-Semitism as the spiritual allies that they are, it can be confidently asserted that this trip has become an unforgettable part of the Russian leader’s legacy, one that historians will be talking about for years to come the same as Russian schoolchildren will likely be learning about for generations. Everything that President Putin did was voluntary, not part of some “5D chess plot” to “destroy Israel” out of loyalty to his supposedly “secret alliance” with the “Resistance”, which the Alt-Media Community needs to finally accept. Russia will never support Iran against “Israel” in any shape or form, and saying otherwise is a lie.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Putin’s Trip to ‘Israel’ Will be Remembered as an Important Part of His Legacy
  • Tags: ,

The European Jewish Congress (EJC) has announced the launch of a worldwide, star studded social media campaign against what it calls “antisemitism,” but which is often advocacy for Palestinian human rights and opposition to Israeli apartheid. EJC is the regional affiliate of the World Jewish Congress, one of whose main missions is to advocate for Israel.

The EJC considers anti-Zionism to be a form of anti-Semitism and employs a newly created definition of antisemitism in which certain types of statements about Israel are supposedly “antisemitic.” As a result, EJC’s opposition to “antisemitism” often consists of censoring information that exposes Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights.

Its new campaign, called “Stop This Story,” particularly focuses on Instagram, although it will also use YouTube and other platforms. According to the EJC, the campaign will be the “first global initiative of its kind that will leverage Instagram’s AR (Augmented Reality) effects to drive a global movement.” It claims to have recruited “some of the world’s leading AR effects’ creators.”

The campaign says it has enrolled a number of “international stars” and “international influencers, each of them with millions followers.” Among these are supermodel Bar Refaeli, actress Vanessa Kirby (from ‘The Crown’), former NBA player Omri Casspi, and “many other international figures, actors, entertainers, and sportsmen and women.”

It has produced a highly dramatic, alarmist video to promote the program (see below),

The man behind the campaign

Image on the right: Russian-Israeli oligarch Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress and numerous other entities, is a billionaire accused of “unscrupulous business dealings” whose top priority is strengthening Israel.

Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor demonstrating Stop This Story campaign

The individual behind the new campaign is EJC President Moshe Kantor, also known as Viatcheslav Kantor, He explains the reasoning underlying the campaign:

“The best way to spread any message today is through social media because social networks and those who use them have the power to make the necessary changes in our societies.”

Kantor is a Russian-Israeli billionaire dedicated to Israel. He has stated that the creation of the State of Israel is the “biggest achievement” of Diaspora Jewry, and believes that all Jews must work to “strengthen our beloved state.”

In 2008 Kantor enunciated his core belief: “The reality of today requires that European Jews care not only about the preservation and security of Israel, but also the way it is treated by the rest of the world. This must be the leading priority of the European Diaspora.”

Kantor heads up and sometimes even originated, a network of pro-Israel international entities.

In addition to being president of the European Jewish Congress, he is founder and president of the World Holocaust Forum Foundation, founder and chairman of the European Jewish Fund, originator and president of the International Luxembourg Forum on Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe, co-founder and president of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation, vice president of the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress, a member of the International Board of Hillel, and the former president of the Russian Jewish Congress, to name just some of his affiliations.

His ability to accomplish all this stems from his enormous wealth. In addition to being an “international philanthropist,” as he identifies himself, Kantor is an international businessman with $4 billion at his disposal. He has been accused of unscrupulous business dealings and financial fraud.

Like other Russian oligarchs, Kantor made his fortune in the first years of Russia’s “new capitalism”– sometimes called “gangster capitalism” – when, under the guise of “privatization,” Russia’s economy was massively looted, causing ruin to many Russian citizens who saw their life savings vanish, sometimes in a matter of weeks. Kantor’s father, a former Red Army soldier, reportedly served prison time for “speculation and embezzlement of state property in a large scale, taking bribes and forgery.” Kantor was among the many individuals in the Russian Jewish community who flourished; many – perhaps most – of the Russian oligarchs have ties to Israel.

Kantor is known for a variety of international activities. Along with notorious oligarch Boris Berezovsky, Kantor is said to have been a “sponsor of the ‘Orange Revolution’ in Ukraine in 2005, which led to the cancellation of the initial results of the presidential election.” Berezovsky later bragged that he had funded the revolution.  In 2006 Kantor received an award from Ukraine’s new president for “distinguished services” to the country.

Stamping out ‘Antisemitism’ and ‘Intolerance’

Kantor has been involved in a global campaign to embed a new, Israel-centric definition of antisemitism in European governments and institutions. The EJC says that the definition of anti-Semitism must be “clarified” because “the new form of anti-Semitism” supposedly “emanates from pro-Palestinians.” Kantor says that BDS, the international boycott of Israel over its violent human rights abuses, is “antisemitic.” (BDS works to “uphold the simple principle that Palestinians are entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity.”)

Kantor advocates that governments punish antisemites as harshly as they punish terrorists. He has been working to convince European governments to adopt a bizarre 13-page program of “concrete and enforceable obligations that ensure tolerance and stamp out intolerance.”

The Orwellian program, entitled “National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance” (revised version here), would restrict freedom of expression, impose re-education programs, enact surveillance structures, and institute criminal penalties for “antisemitism” and other “intolerance.” Expressing views specified as impermissible would be “regarded as criminal offenses punishable as aggravated crimes.”

The document proposes a deeply authoritarian structure controlling multiple aspects of society to coerce “tolerance,” and anyone who doesn’t get with the program would be taken care of, e.g. “Juveniles convicted of committing crimes listed in paragraph (a) will be required to undergo a rehabilitation programme conducive to a culture of tolerance.” Big Brother in the form of a “National Tolerance Monitoring Commission” would ensure that no one says or does anything that the Commission determines is “intolerant.”

The program is being promoted by Kantor’s “European Center for Tolerance and Reconciliation” (ECTR), and may be on the way to becoming a reality. Kantor has secured former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair as the ECTR Chairman and French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy as a member.

According to its website ECTR has formed a joint task force with the European Council to work on implementing the program throughout Europe. The European Council, composed of the heads of state or government of the 28 EU member states, defines the EU’s overall political direction and priorities.

Moshe Kantor and Tony Blair present Prince Albert of Monaco the ECTR’s 2018 “Medal of Tolerance.” The former Norwegian Prime Minister, former Italian Foreign Minister (current EU Commissioner for Justice), and the former Serbian Foreign Minister (president of the 67th Session of the UN General Assembly) attended the event.

‘Global Pandemic’

Kantor recently said that antisemitism is now a “global pandemic” and that the “crisis of antisemitism is a slippery slope to global catastrophe.” He warns that Jews could “disappear completely as a people from Europe,” and raises the alarm about what he describes as “mass killing at synagogues.” The “Stop This Story” video

Media reports on the new EJC campaign similarly emphasize recent tragic attacks on Jews, and reference the assaults in the cities of Monsey, Jersey City, Halle, Poway, and Pittsburgh.

These terrifying attacks killed a combined total of 14 Jews.

News reports on the alleged perpetrators of the assaults, who were of diverse races, indicate a variety of motivations. One attacker said he had been inspired by a 2019 assault on two New Zealand mosques that had killed 51 Muslims.

Previous fatal shootings have also occurred at other religious sites. The largest number of fatalities in the US may have been at a Christian church, where 26 worshipers were killed in 2017.

While Kantor and the EJC claim the existence of massive antisemitism, Jewish Americans are reportedly the wealthiest group in the US, and this also appears to be the case for Jews worldwide.

Meanwhile, Israeli forces have killed almost 10,000 Palestinian men, women, and children since 2000 and injured tens of thousands; Palestinian resistance forces have killed approximately 1,200 Israelis (details here).

Such disproportion is not new.

Twenty-five years ago, an Israeli author wrote: “In the last 40 years the number of non-Jews killed by Jews is by far greater than the number of the Jews killed by non-Jews.”

Many Jews around the world, including in Israel itself, have long strenuously opposed Israeli violence. According to Kantor and his cohort, these individuals are also “antisemitic.”

Photo of 5 dead children from al-Sawarka family

The bodies of five children from the same family killed in an Israeli air strike on 14 November 2019 lie in a hospital ward in Gaza (information on Gaza is here)

Fifth World Holocaust Forum

The new campaign comes just before the Fifth World Holocaust Forum to be held in Israel tomorrow,  January 23rd, co-sponsored by the president of Israel. The forums are another one of Kantor’s many projects.

Over 45 heads of state and world leaders have said they plan to attend the event, including the presidents of France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Russia, the kings of Spain and Belgium, and Britain’s Prince Charles. Vice-president Mike Pence and Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, will also attend.

The event is being held at Yad Vashem, Israel’s holocaust complex, a vast, sprawling institution with dozens of Israeli flags and tree-studded walkways leading to exhibits, archives, monuments, sculptures, and memorials.

The event website proclaims that the Holocaust is “the most horrific tragedy in human history” and states that “a new wave of antisemitism unseen since World War II poses an existential threat to European Jewry.”

According to the Jerusalem Post, among the forum’s features will be speeches by select heads of state, a Holocaust survivor, video clips, and “musical interludes performed by an orchestra and an international choir.” The event will be live streamed and conclude with the Israeli national anthem.

Yad Vashem is in Jerusalem where there is evidence all around – for any with eyes to see – of another genocidal program, one that has been going on since the one commemorated by Yad Vashem ended. An historian calls this one the “Palestinian holocaust” and describes it: a land was “occupied, emptied of its people, its physical and cultural landmarks obliterated, its destruction hailed as a miraculous act of God, all done according to a premeditated plan, meticulously executed, internationally supported, and still maintained today…”

Yad Vashem overlooks one of the obliterated landmarks emptied of its people: an almost empty field where the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin once stood.

On April 9, 1948 Zionist forces systematically exterminated 110 men, women, and children as part of a plan to rid Palestine of its Muslim and Christian population in order to make way for the Jewish state. This was one of 16 such Zionist massacres that took place before the official start of Israel’s founding war of ethnic cleansing, and over a month before a single Arab Army joined the conflict. In contrast to Yad Vashem’s monuments and memorials, Deir Yassin has no marker.

More recent evidence of the ongoing oppression can be found in the Issawiya neighborhood of Jerusalem, where heavily armed Israeli police have raided over 500 Palestinian homes and arrested more than 700 residents since May, apprehending children as young as five. Israeli forces shot dead a 21-year-old at close range and have injured over 300 people of all ages. Soldiers beat and humiliate residents at will. One resident says the area “has turned into a ghetto.” (Another such ghetto is Gaza, where Israeli forces yesterday killed three young men who had reportedly temporarily escaped from their prison.)

Not far from Issawiyah is Israel’s mammoth apartheid wall, confiscating additional Palestinian land and helping to imprison over two million people. In 2002 Israeli media reported that Israeli generals were studying how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto for use in Israel’s next campaign against Palestinians.

The Holocaust Forum program states that the world leaders “will be invited to lay a wreath at the base of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising Monument created by world-renowned Jewish sculptor and artist Nathan Rappaport.”

Perhaps some of the world leaders could also visit the unmarked site of Deir Yassin, and lay a wreath on one of its crumbling graves. And then go to Israel’s wall and echo a famous demand from a previous head of state: “Tear down this wall.”

And maybe a future social media campaign could focus on ending all genocides, injustice, and oppression.

*

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

All images in this article are from IAKB

Attacks on Venezuelan TV station Telesur are an example of the “arrogance of the powerful” trying to stop people from hearing the truth, campaigners warned today.

Intellectuals and academics from across Latin America penned an open letter in support of the Caracas-based media organisation, which has been threatened with closure by hapless Venezuelan opposition figure Juan Guaido.

They branded him a “lackey of the empire” after he said that he planned to block Telesur’s TV signal, claiming without evidence that it supported terrorists.

Mr Guaido — who was recently deposed as speaker of the National Assembly — is planning to set up a parallel news outlet “following dictates from Washington,” the signatories warned.

As exposed in a freedom-of-information request by the Morning Star last year, the British government has been funnelling money into opposition media organisations and “yellow unions” in a bid to undermine the democratically elected government of President Nicolas Maduro.

It continues a tradition in the region, with declassified papers revealing that the Foreign Office had been paying Reuters for Latin American news reporting via a front company in the late 1960s.

The letter to Telesur president Patricia Villegas said that the latest attempt to silence it “only reaffirm the certainty of the value of this station in the battle of the peoples for their right to truth.”

“Only through Telesur have we been able to learn about the merciless and lethal action of capitalism, the strength of the resistance of leaders and popular movements and the events that have opened up real gaps in imperial domination that have marked the history of our peoples,” the letter stated.

But it warned that the “arrogance of the powerful” does not support transparency and the exposure of the “transnationals and their dirty dealings” along with the spotlight being shone on the manipulation of the media.

Because of this it is essential that the platform, one of the greatest achievements of former Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, is not silenced, the signatories said.

They recalled the December 2004 meeting which established the Network of Intellectuals, Artists and Social Movements in Defence of Humanity and issued the “Caracas call” to “support the establishment of a television station of the South and independent television and radio media at the service of the interests of our peoples.”

“Safeguarding Telesur, its philosophy, its ideals and its work is not just a position, it is also our obligation,” the letter said.

“Telesur is a child of the battle of ideas and of the fathers of this new continental era; commanders Fidel Castro Ruz and Hugo Chavez Frias. We will win, without a doubt.”

*

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 Sky News

Call it a colossal victory for a Pentagon that hasn’t won a war in this century, but not for the rest of us. Congress only recently passed and the president approved one of the largest Pentagon budgets ever. It will surpass spending at the peaks of both the Korean and Vietnam wars. As last year ended, as if to highlight the strangeness of all this, the Washington Post broke a story about a “confidential trove of government documents” — interviews with key figures involved in the Afghan War by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction — revealing the degree to which senior Pentagon leaders and military commanders understood that the war was failing. Yet, year after year, they provided “rosy pronouncements they knew to be false,” while “hiding unmistakable evidence that the war had become unwinnable.”

However, as the latest Pentagon budget shows, no matter the revelations, there will be no reckoning when it comes to this country’s endless wars or its military establishment — not at a moment when President Donald Trump is sending yet more U.S. military personnel into the Middle East and has picked a new fight with Iran. No less troubling: how few in either party in Congress are willing to hold the president and the Pentagon accountable for runaway defense spending or the poor performance that has gone with it.

Given the way the Pentagon has sunk taxpayer dollars into those endless wars, in a more reasonable world that institution would be overdue for a comprehensive audit of all its programs and a reevaluation of its expenditures. (It has, by the way, never actually passed an audit.) According to Brown University’s Costs of War Project, Washington has already spent at least $2 trillion on its war in Afghanistan alone and, as the Post made clear, the corruption, waste, and failure associated with those expenditures was (or at least should have been) mindboggling.

Of course, little of this was news to people who had read the damning reports released by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction in previous years. They included evidence, for instance, that somewhere between $10 million and $43 million had been spent constructing a single gas station in the middle of nowhere, that $150 million had gone into luxury private villas for Americans who were supposed to be helping strengthen Afghanistan’s economy, and that tens of millions more were wasted on failed programs to improve Afghan industries focused on extracting more of the country’s minerals, oil, and natural gas reserves.

In the face of all this, rather than curtailing Pentagon spending, Congress continued to increase its budget, while also supporting a Department of Defense slush fund for war spending to keep the efforts going. Still, the special inspector general’s reports did manage to rankle American military commanders (unable to find successful combat strategies in Afghanistan) enough to launch what, in effect, would be a public-relations war to try to undermine that watchdog’s findings.

All of this, in turn, reflected the “unwarranted influence” of the military-industrial complex that President (and former five-star General) Dwight Eisenhower warned Americans about in his memorable 1961 farewell address. That complex only continues to thrive and grow almost six decades later, as contractor profits are endlessly prioritized over what might be considered the national security interests of the citizenry.

The infamous “revolving door” that regularly ushers senior Pentagon officials into defense-industry posts and senior defense-industry figures into key positions at the Pentagon (and in the rest of the national security state) just adds to the endless public-relations offensives that accompany this country’s forever wars. After all, the retired generals and other officials the media regularly looks to for expertise are often essentially paid shills for the defense industry. The lack of public disclosure and media discussion about such obvious conflicts of interest only further corrupts public debate on both the wars and the funding of the military, while giving the arms industry the biggest seat at the table when decisions are made on how much to spend on war and preparations for the same.

Media Analysis Brought to You by the Arms Industry

That lack of disclosure regarding potential conflicts of interest recently came into fresh relief as industry boosters beat the media drums for war with Iran. Unfortunately, it’s a story we’ve seen many times before. Back in 2008, for instance, in a Pulitzer Prize-winning series, the New York Times revealed that the Pentagon had launched a program to cultivate a coterie of retired-military-officers-turned-pundits in support of its already disastrous war in Iraq. Seeing such figures on TV or reading their comments in the press, the public may have assumed that they were just speaking their minds. However, the Timesinvestigation showed that, while widely cited in the media and regularly featured on the TV news, they never disclosed that they received special Pentagon access and that, collectively, they had financial ties to more than 150 Pentagon contractors.

Given such financial interests, it was nearly impossible for them to be “objective” when it came to this country’s failing war in Iraq. After all, they needed to secure more contracts for their defense-industry employers. A subsequent analysis by the Government Accountability Office found that the Pentagon’s program raised “legitimate questions” about how its public propaganda efforts were tied to the weaponry it bought, highlighting “the possibility of compromised procurements resulting from potential competitive advantages” for those who helped them.

While the program was discontinued that same year, a similar effort was revealed in 2013 during a debate over whether the U.S. should attack Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime. You probably won’t be surprised to discover that most of the former military figures and officials used as analysts at the time supported action against Syria. A review of their commentary by the Public Accountability Initiative found a number of them also had undisclosed ties to the arms industry. In fact, of 111 appearances in major media outlets by 22 commentators, only 13 of them disclosed any aspect of their potential conflicts of interest that might lead them to promote war.

The same pattern is now being repeated in the debate over the Trump administration’s decision to assassinate by drone Iranian Major General Qassem Suleimani and other Iran-related issues. While Suleimani clearly opposed the United States and many of its national security interests, his killing risked pushing Washington into another endless war in the Middle East. And in a distinctly recognizable pattern, the Intercept has already found that the air waves were subsequently flooded by defense-industry pundits praising the strike. Unsurprisingly, news of a potential war also promptly boosted defense industry stocks. Northrop Grumman’s, Raytheon’s, and Lockheed Martin’s all started 2020 with an uptick.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) have offered legislation that could shut down that revolving door between the major weapons makers and Washington for good, but it has met concerted resistance from Pentagon officials and others still in Congress who stand to benefit from preserving the system as is. Even if that revolving door wasn’t shut down, transparency about just who was going through it would help the public better understand what former officials and military commanders are really advocating for when they speak positively of the necessity for yet another war in the Middle East.

Costly Weapons (and Well-Paid Lobbyists)

Here’s what we already know about how it all now works: weapon systems produced by the big defense firms with all those retired generals, former administration officials, and one-time congressional representatives on their boards (or lobbying for or consulting for them behind the scenes) regularly come in overpriced, are often delivered behind schedule, and repeatedly failto have the capabilities advertised. Take, for instance, the new Ford class aircraft carriers, produced by Huntington Ingalls Industries, the sort of ships that have traditionally been used to show strength globally. In this case, however, the program’s development has been stifled by problems with its weapons elevators and the systems used to launch and recover its aircraft. Those problems have been costly enough to send the price for the first of those carriers soaring to $13.1 billion. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 jet fighter, the most expensive weapons system in Pentagon history, has an abysmal rate of combat readiness and currently comes in at more than $100 million per aircraft.

And yet, somehow, no one ever seems to be responsible for such programmatic failures and prices — certainly not the companies that make them (or all those retired military commanders sitting on their boards or working for them). One crucial reason for this lack of accountability is that key members of Congress serving on committees that should be overseeing such spending are often the top recipients of campaign contributions from the big weapons makers and their allies. And just as at the Pentagon, members of those committees or their staff often later become lobbyists for those very federal contractors.

With this in mind, the big defense firms carefully spread their contracts for weapons production across as many congressional districts as possible. This practice of “political engineering,” a term promoted by former Department of Defense analyst and military reformer Chuck Spinney, helps those contractors and the Pentagon buy off members of Congress from both parties. Take, for example, the Littoral Combat Ship, a vessel meant to operate close to shore. Costs for the program tripled over initial estimates and, according to Defense News, the Navy is already considering decommissioning four of the new ships next year as a cost-saving measure. It’s not the first time that program has been threatened with the budget axe. In the past, however, pork-barrel politics spearheaded by Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Richard Shelby (R-AL), in whose states those boats were being built, kept the program afloat.

The Air Force’s new bomber, the B-21, being built by Northrup Grumman, has been on a similar trajectory. Despite significant pressure from then-Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the Air Force refused in 2017 to make public or agree upon a contract price for the program. (It was a “cost-plus,” not a “fixed price” contract, after all.) It did, however, release the names of the companies providing components to the program, ensuring that relevant congressional representatives would support it, no matter the predictably spiraling costs to come.

Recent polling indicates that such pork-barrel politics isn’t backed by the public, even when they might benefit from it. Asked whether congressional representatives should use the Pentagon’s budget to generate jobs in their districts, 77% of respondents rejected the notion. Two-thirds favored shifting such funds to sectors like healthcare, infrastructure, and clean energy that would, in fact, create significantly more jobs.

And keep in mind that, in this big-time system of profiteering, hardware costs, however staggering, are just a modest part of the equation. The Pentagon spends about as much on what it calls “services” as it does on the weaponry itself and those service contracts are another major source of profits. For example, it’s estimated that the F-35 program will cost $1.5 trillion over the lifetime of the plane, but a trillion dollars of those costs will be for support and maintenance of the aircraft.

Increasingly, this means contractors are able to hold the Pentagon hostage over a weapon’s lifetime, which means overcharges of just about every imaginable sort, including for labor. The Project On Government Oversight (where I work) has, for instance, been uncovering overcharges in spare parts since our founding, including an infamous $435 hammer back in 1983. I’m sad to report that what, in the 1980s, was a seemingly outrageous $640 plastic toilet-seat cover for military airplanes now costs an eye-popping $10,000. A number of factors help explain such otherwise unimaginable prices, including the way contractors often retain intellectual property rights to many of the systems taxpayers funded to develop, legal loopholes that make it difficult for the government to challenge wild charges, and a system largely beholden to the interests of defense companies.

The most recent and notorious case may be TransDigm, a company that has purchased other companies with a monopoly on providing spare parts for a number of weapon systems. That, in turn, gave it power to increase the prices of parts with little fear of losing business — once, receiving 9,400% in excess profits for a single half-inch metal pin. An investigation by the House Oversight and Reform Committee found that TransDigm’s employees had been coached to resist providing cost or pricing information to the government, lest such overcharges be challenged.

In one case, for instance, a subsidiary of TransDigm resisted providing such information until the government, desperate for parts for weapons to be used in Iraq and Afghanistan, was forced to capitulate or risk putting troops’ lives on the line. TransDigm did later repay the government $16 million for certain overcharges, but only after the House Oversight and Reform Committee held a hearing on the subject that shamed the company. As it happens, TransDigm’s behavior isn’t an outlier. It’s typical of many defense-related companies doing business with the government — about 20 major industry players, according to a former Pentagon pricing czar.

A Recipe for Disaster

For too long Congress has largely abdicated its responsibilities when it comes to holding the Pentagon accountable. You won’t be surprised to learn that most of the “acquisition reforms” it’s passed in recent years, which affect how the Department of Defense buys goods and services, have placed just about all real negotiating power in the hands of the big defense contractors. To add insult to injury, both parties of Congress continue to vote in near unanimity for increases in the Pentagon budget, despite 18-plus years of losing wars, the never-ending gross mismanagement of weapons programs, and a continued failure to pass a basic audit. If any other federal agency (or the contractors it dealt with) had a similar track record, you can only begin to imagine the hubbub that would ensue. But not the Pentagon. Never the Pentagon.

A significantly reduced budget would undoubtedly increase that institution’s effectiveness by curbing its urge to throw ever more money at problems. Instead, an often bought-and-paid-for Congress continues to enable bad decision-making about what to buy and how to buy it. And let’s face it, a Congress that allows endless wars, terrible spending practices, and multiplying conflicts of interest is, as the history of the twenty-first century has shown us, a recipe for disaster.

*

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.

Mandy Smithberger, a TomDispatch regular, is the director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight.

At TruePublica we have constantly warned about the authoritarian traits and tendencies of this government. It started with terror laws designed to catch hardened criminals with the intent to kill that ended up being used on the public to catch non-payment of BBC licence fees. Now journalists and whistleblowers are being treated as foreign state spies, teenagers on peaceful protest go on ‘extremism’ watchlists and anyone with a view that the government does not like are surveilled 24/7 in illegal supervision operations.

The report below by openDemocracy highlights another blatant act of law-breaking by the government, their various departments and agencies. At least 50 per cent of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests are now denied and many actual responses provide no answer to the request itself. In little under a decade, the government has gone from David Cameron’s – “A new era of transparency” promise to completely covering its tracks in a shroud of secrecy.

Here is an excellent example that relates to the article below. The FoI request is perfectly reasonable (see live page HERE). Did our Prime Minister meet with the anyone involved in the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook/Brexit scandal? In the words of our government – “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be fearful of.” So what information is the FCO withholding to protect Boris Johnson from? In this case, the FCO did not even bother to write back with a reason (such as the usual ‘national security’ excuse). You can make your own mind up if that response to that particular request is questionable.

***

Access to information is a right in British law. Want to know who Boris Johnson has been meeting and what they’ve talked about? All you have to do is put in a request, wait a few weeks and the information will be pinged straight to your inbox. But there’s a snag. A big one.

The government routinely ignores and undermines the law governing our access to information. According to the Institute for Government, its departments refuse to comply in full with more than half of the Freedom of Information requests that they receive.

Whether you are an ordinary citizen or a journalist, if you want to hold our government to account you have to be prepared to wait a long time – and to fight, all the way to the courts. That’s exactly what we have been doing at openDemocracy.

Last month, the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) belatedly released documents from an influential lobbyist named Shanker Singham to Brexit ministers and senior civil servants after a judge ruled in our favour.

The ruling – made by a tribunal in London – came after we had fought a two-year battle for basic transparency. Our original request was made way back in October 2017.

Singham, who worked for the think tank Legatum and later joined the Institute of Economic Affairs, has been one of the key players in what the institute’s director once called “the Brexit-influencing game”. We wanted to know about meetings he was having with senior government figures.

DExEU said that telling the public about Singham’s access would “weaken and undermine the UK’s negotiating positions” on Brexit. We appealed to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The regulator sided with the government.

So we went to court, where a judge in an information tribunal ruled that there was a “clear and overwhelming public interest in the disclosure of the material which the Legatum Institute sent to the DExEU or material summarising the points put forward by Legatum”.

The tribunal noted: “Mr Singham, while operating at the Legatum Institute, had a greater degree of access than other interested bodies.” The “unstructured nature of the policy process appears to have enabled Legatum to have a greater degree of access to government than would normally be the case.”

“It had taken two years and countless hours of dedicated work to force the government to abide by its own laws”

This is not the first time we have had to do this. Last May, we were finally able to release taxpayer-funded briefings produced by the European Research Group of MPs after an information tribunal ruled in our favour. Although Parliament’s watchdog gave the ERG’s research a clean bill of health, trade experts found it “superficial and selective” and “highly partisan”.

These hard-won victories are vitally important. They have released new information into the public domain and have shown the government that it cannot blithely ignore the law.

But the dice are still loaded against transparency. Officials can obfuscate and run the clock down. The new information about Singham would have been far more useful two years ago, when we originally asked for it.

This is not just an isolated, Brexit-related occurrence. Government departments frequently fail to fulfil their obligations under the Freedom of Information Act. Requests are often denied on spurious grounds or just stonewalled.

And even when they are answered, FOI responses can be so heavily redacted that they look more like a painting from Mark Rothko’s black phase than a usable document.

Britain has a transparency crisis – and it’s getting worse. Ministerial meetings routinely go unminuted. Notes are not kept. Increasingly, there is no paper trail for crucial decisions.

Freedom of Information, the legislation that led to the MPs’ expenses scandal, “doesn’t work properly”, says Tamasin Cave, co-author of ‘A Quiet Word: Lobbying, Crony Capitalism and Broken Politics in Britain’. “In all the windows of government, the curtains have been closed.”

So what can be done to shine some light on Britain’s transparency darkness? Fighting is one strategy. We intend to keep putting in the time and energy to take Freedom of Information cases to the courts, if need be, to force the vindication of our rights.

But more needs to be done. That’s why openDemocracy is launching a two-year investigation into the state of Freedom of Information in the UK.

We will be talking to people who use the Freedom of Information Act up and down the country to find out about their experiences. We will be reporting and reflecting on how we can build greater transparency in British public life at this crucial moment – and, of course, continuing to fight for your right to information.

Please do consider supporting our work at openDemocracy. You can also subscribe to our regular newsletter to get updates about our investigation into Freedom of Information and much more besides. And, if you work in journalism or policy around access to information, we want to hear from you. Watch this space.

*

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

Featured image is from TP

“This all-out assault on basic safeguards will send our country back to the days when corporate polluters could dump whatever sludge or slime they wished into the streams and wetlands that often connect to the water we drink.”

***

The Trump administration is set to continue its corporate friendly assault on U.S. environmental regulations Thursday by finalizing a rule that will allow companies, landowners, and property developers—including golf course owners like the president—to dump pesticides and other pollutants directly into many of the nation’s streams and wetlands, potentially threatening the drinking water of millions of Americans.

“This will be the biggest loss of clean water protection the country has ever seen,” Blan Holman, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said in a statement.

The new measure will roll back Obama-era “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) regulations aimed at ensuring wetlands and streams are protected under the 1972 Clean Water Act, which the Trump Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly targeted despite the president’s professed desire for the U.S. to have the “cleanest water” in the world.

“This puts drinking water for millions of Americans at risk of contamination from unregulated pollution,” said Holman. “This is not just undoing the Obama rule. This is stripping away protections that were put in place in the ’70s and ’80s that Americans have relied on for their health.”

As the New York Times reported late Wednesday, the Trump rule “will remove federal protections from more than half the nation’s wetlands, and hundreds of thousands of small waterways.” The measure, which one environmental group dubbed President Donald Trump’s “Dirty Water Rule,” is expected to be fully implemented in the coming weeks.

“His administration had completed the first step of [the WOTUS regulation’s] demise in September with the rule’s repeal,” the Times noted. “His replacement on Thursday will complete the process, not only rolling back 2015 rules that guaranteed protections under the 1972 Clean Water Act to certain wetlands and streams that run intermittently or run temporarily underground, but also relieves landowners of the need to seek permits that the Environmental Protection Agency had considered on a case-by-case basis before the Obama rule.”

Trump and EPA chief Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist, touted the rule at the American Farm Bureau Federation’s annual convention in Texas on Sunday. But while the White House—and the Times—framed the measure as a “victory for farmers,” critics argued the rule will largely benefit big agribusiness and fossil fuel companies, which will soon have even more leeway to pollute U.S. waterways with impunity.

The American Gas Association, a trade group representing more than 200 natural gas companies, swiftly hailed the rule as an industry victory.

Janette Brimmer, an attorney in the Northwest regional office of climate group Earthjustice, said in a statement that the rule further shows “President Trump’s administration wants to make our waters burn again.”

“This all-out assault on basic safeguards,” warned Brimmer, “will send our country back to the days when corporate polluters could dump whatever sludge or slime they wished into the streams and wetlands that often connect to the water we drink.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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

Featured image is White House photo by Shealah Craighead

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘Biggest Loss of Clean Water Protection the Country Has Ever Seen’: Trump Guts Safeguards for US Streams and Wetlands
  • Tags: ,

Video: Turkey’s Military Industrial Complex

January 24th, 2020 by South Front

Turkey is working to develop its national industry and reequip its armed forces with modern military equipment. The worth of projects in this field is estimated to be around $77 billion. Ankara is paying special attention to the modernization and development of its tank fleet. Currently, Turkey has over 3,000 main battle tanks (MBTs), the most capable of which are the 339 Leopard-2A4 and 170 M60T Mk2 ‘Sabra’ MBTs. They are equipped with modern fire control systems and NATO standard 120mm guns.

The Sabra, known in Turkish service as the M60T, is the extremely modernized version of the American M60 Patton second-generation MBT. The upgraded package was developed by Israel’s IMI Systems for export to Turkey. The Mk2 variant, ordered under the 2020 contract ($688 million USD), includes improved armour, the specially developed MG253 120mm smoothbore gun, the M60 Patton style M19 cupola with the M85 12.7 mm machine gun, the Knight fire control system from Elbit Systems, and an MTU Friedrichshafen engine built under license in Turkey. The employed 60mm mortar system is supplied by Israeli Soltam Ltd. The Mk2 features provision for Explosive Reactive Armour. The MBTs were upgraded by the Turkish 2nd Main Maintenance Center in cooperation with Israel. All the systems, except for the armor package, were built under license with technology transfer in Turkey.

In February 2018, M60T and Leopard 2A4 MBTs started receiving the ‘Akkor Pulat’ Active Protection System, the export variant of the ‘Zaslon-L’ system developed in Ukraine, on the basis of the remaining Soviet technologies. During Operation Euphrates Shield in northern Syria (August 2016 – March 2017), the Turkish tank fleet suffered notable losses from ISIS terrorists employing various anti-tank weapons, including various second-generation anti-tank missiles. The Turkish Army actively employed its Leopard 2A4 MBTs during the battle for al-Bab. Up to 10 of them were lost. During the second military operation in northern Syria, Operation Olive Branch (January-March 2018), the Turkish Army was already using some MBTs equipped with ‘Akkor Pulat’ active protection systems. Its effectiveness in real combat conditions remains unclear to the public because Ankara adapted its approach and started relying on waves of proxy fighters supported by air power, artillery and special forces. Much fewer Turkish Army units equipped with MBTs were involved in a direct fighting.

As of January 2020, the Turkish M60T fleet had almost fully depleted its modernization potential and it’s unlikely that it will undergo any significant upgrades in the future. At the same time, the Leopard 2A4 modernization program agreed to with Germany was halted due to diplomatic contradictions between Ankara and Berlin during the operation against Kurdish armed groups in January 2018. Therefore, Turkey could opt the alternative modernization package proposed by the ASELSAN A.S. corporation – the Leopard-2NG (Next Generation). The key areas of improvement include new fire control and intelligence/battlefield management systems, upgraded optics, additional ballistic protection and mine protection modules. The L55 smoothbore gun proposed instead of the L44 employs horizontal and vertical electrical drives. Another important feature is the SARP (Stabilized Advanced Remote weapon Platform) remote-controlled weapon station with a machine gun or an automatic grenade launcher and the ATS-40 electro optic sensor system. The upgrade package would increase the MBT weight to 65t and allow it to carry additional ammunition. ASELSAN promo materials claim that the upgraded MBTs will be superior to the German Leopard 2A6 MBTs.

The Leopard-2NG program is also useful as the field test for technical solutions that could be used in the Turkish future MBT, Altay. For example, the Altay model showcased in 2018 was equipped with a turret similar to those of the Leopard-2NG. The main contractor for Altay is Otokar. However, other Turkish companies – ASELSAN (sub-systems and fire control system), MKEK (main gun system), Roketsan (armour package), Hyundai Rotem (technical support and assistance) – are also involved.

The Altay employs the MKEK-120 smoothbore gun, similar to the German Rh-120/L55. This gun is able to provide an initial velocity of the M829A2 armor-piercing tank round of approximately 1,750 m/s. This increases its armor penetration capability and firing accuracy. As a comparison, the initial velocity of the M829A2 with the L44 gun is 1,660 m/s.

In October 2019, the Altay producer company BMC announced that the Altay would enter service in 2021 and become completely indigenous by 2023. Several Altay development prototypes passed runoff and firing trials. Turkish sources claim that up to 250 Altay MBTs will enter service with the Turkish Army by 2025. The serial production of the Altay MBT will increase combat effectiveness of the Turkish Army and allow Ankara to rearm its ground forces with modern MBTs regardless of the position of its “Western allies” toward its foreign policy. This will be another demonstration of the high potential of the Turkish national defense industry which has achieved several important breakthroughs during the past decade.

*

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: Turkey’s Military Industrial Complex
  • Tags:

Disabled People Under Attack

January 24th, 2020 by John Clarke

In December, Ontario’s Auditor-General, Bonnie Lysyk, issued a report that offers the province’s right wing Tory government an opportunity to attack disabled people living in poverty. Her report paints a picture of an Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) that is handing out money hand over fist to the questionably disabled, without any realistic checks and balances. With this little effort, Lysyk has produced a masterpiece of selective reasoning. She simply assumes that an increase in ODSP caseloads in excess of population growth is an indication of something improper. Competent advocates immediately responded by pointing out the flaws in her logic. The growth of caseloads can be attributed to a range of legitimate factors, such as the driving of injured workers off of their benefit system, an ageing population and the considerable efforts that have been put into ensuring ODSP is more readily available to those with a very genuine need for it.

The AG’s report emerges just as the Ontario government is looking for a way forward with its project of right wing ‘welfare reform’ and an attack on disability benefits in particular. In 2018, the social services minister, Lisa MacLeod, seemed poised to proceed with a brutal and regressive redefinition of the concept of disability for those applying for social benefits. However, the crisis ridden and deeply unpopular Tories subsequently stalled on this initiative, unsure how to proceed. The political value of Lysyk’s ‘impartial’ hatchet job is, therefore, enormous. The attack on disabled people she is enabling, however, is very far from her personal initiative or even one confined to the present Tory regime. It has been brewing a long time in Ontario and is a key element of the international agenda of neoliberal austerity.

In 2012, the Liberal Ontario government of the day, received the Lankin Sheikh Report on social assistance. This, among other things, set out a series of ‘reform’ proposals for disability benefits that included the merging of ODSP with ‘short term’ Ontario Works (OW). The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) argued that this was a blueprint for trying to force disabled people to join the scramble for the lowest paying and most exploitative jobs, by rendering their benefits more precarious and inadequate than they already were. Playing with the title of the report, OCAP wrote an analysis of it called “Brighter Prospects for Cheap Labour.” Faced with community and union opposition on the report’s proposals, the Liberals chose not to proceed with the attack at that time.

In Ontario, a full blown assault on ODSP has been avoided or at least delayed but injured workers who are forced to rely on the benefits provided by the Workers Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) have faced an utterly brutal attack, with many denied income and ‘deemed’ capable of taking forms employment they can’t possible secure. The model provided by this attack will doubtless help guide a broader assault on disabled people. Many other jurisdictions in Canada and beyond have moved against disability benefits as part of a more general austerity attack. In the UK, the war on disabled people has reached such extreme levels that a UN inquiry has even been conducted into this systematic cruelty that resulted in the issuing of a most damning report.

Disabled People and Austerity

It has to be asked just why disabled people are under attack in this way and on such a broad front. What is driving political decision makers and the architects of austerity to place a premium on undermining sub-poverty disability benefits? As capitalist states, in keeping with the dictates of the neoliberal agenda, make ever more aggressive efforts to limit their role in the area of social provision, their reluctant commitment to benefit systems for disabled people becomes even more flimsy. However, the present round of social cutbacks, based as they so frequently are on limiting and redefining the concept of disability, is only the latest manifestation of capitalism’s ongoing project of socially excluding disabled people and regulating their lives.

Human societies have always dealt with members who had one form of impairment or another and there is evidence that the earliest human societies provided care for people with diseases and conditions that enabled them to live into adulthood. Still, the notion that such impairment could be considered ‘disability,’ as understood in present day society, lay many years in the future. In feudal societies, the family or community group had to provide the landowning class with a portion of that which their labour produced. However, the exploiters were not interested in micro managing the process as long as they could take their cut. This meant that the producers could organize their collective work, in order to include but accommodate those who might have limited physical mobility or dexterity. With the development of the capitalist job market and workplace, however, this all changed. The capitalist or his overseer hired workers to engage in a highly regulated labour process and had no interest in employing anyone who didn’t correspond to the newly emerging concept of the ‘able bodied’ worker. As this idea took root, it was entirely inevitable that the excluded and rejected should be awarded the socially constructed title of ‘disabled.’ This term has consistently been measured up against the narrow and pragmatic standards of the job market but it has been adjusted to meet the particular needs of the different phases of capitalism.

The present neoliberal phase is, at root, a project devoted to restoring the rate of profit by means of the intensification of the exploitation of the working class. In this context, disabled people are to be pressed into service as low paid, super exploited workers or else the small share of the social wealth they obtain in the form of disability benefits is to be eliminated or greatly reduced. The cutting edge austerity attack in the UK has been accompanied by a concerted effort by political leaders and the media to foster the myth of the disabled ‘benefit scrounger.’ This has been conducted on such a scale and with such ferocity that hate crimes against disabled people have spiked alarmingly. Truly, the neoliberal age has no patience for sentimental Elizabethan notions of the ‘deserving poor.’

Resistance and Solidarity

If we are to have any viable concept of a working class movement, it must surely be based on the famous and noble principle that an injury to one is an injury to all. A defence of trade union rights that doesn’t extend to resisting the abandonment of injured workers can only fall short. A struggle to defend public health care and education that is indifferent to the social abandonment of disabled people is fundamentally flawed. In the UK, where the attack on disability benefits has gone to such cruel lengths, organizations like Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) have taken up an inspiring and powerful collective resistance and given a vital lead in the broader struggle against austerity that we can all learn from.

As conditions of global economic downturn develop, we must expect governments to set an even more relentless pace in the imposition of austerity measures, with disability benefits as one major target. In this regard, Ontario’s Auditor-General points the way backwards toward a society that completely denies decent income and social inclusion to disabled people. This is a hateful vision we must reject and defeat. Disability benefits in Ontario, far from being overly generous, are grossly inadequate and too frequently denied to those who need them. Any attack on ODSP must be met with a strong and united social resistance.

*

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.

John Clarke is a writer and retired organizer for the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP). Follow his tweets at @JohnOCAP and blog at johnclarkeblog.com.

Featured image is from The Bullet

The US-China Trade Deal Is Mostly Symbolic

January 24th, 2020 by Kavaljit Singh

On January 15, the US President Donald Trump and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He signed a “phase one” trade agreement to de-escalate an 18-month trade war between the world’s two biggest economies. After months of tough negotiations and retaliatory trade actions, both countries agreed to proceed ahead with the “phase one” trade agreement. The core elements of the “phase one” trade agreement include intellectual property, technology transfer, agriculture, financial services, currency, and exchange rate policies. Besides, the deal establishes a bilateral dispute resolution arrangement to resolve any disputes on matters listed in the agreement. The full text of the agreement is available here.

In his opening remarks at the signing ceremony held at the East Room of the White House, President Trump stated:

“Today, we take a momentous step – one that has never been taken before with China – toward a future of fair and reciprocal trade, as we sign phase one of the historic trade deal between the United States and China. Together, we are righting the wrongs of the past and delivering a future of economic justice and security for American workers, farmers, and families.”

The Chinese leader Xi Jinping also welcomed the deal and described it as “good for China, the US and the whole world.”

A Symbolic Deal

President Trump is selling this deal as a “historic” and would use it to boost his re-election bid later this year. Trump hopes that this agreement will shore up his political base ahead of the 2020 elections as rural America (a large segment of his base) was severely hit by retaliatory tariffs imposed by China on soybeans and other agricultural products.

On the other hand, the deal brings welcome relief to China. It gives breathing space to Xi Jinping to deal with the daunting economic slowdown as well as Hong Kong protests. In 2019, China’s economy grew 6.1 percent — the lowest since 1990. One big challenge for China is to contain financial risks that are fast accumulating in its financial system while maintaining high-quality growth. The trade deal gives the Chinese government some space to redouble on its efforts to address current economic challenges.

The “phase one” agreement is not a free trade agreement by any means. Nor will it end the trade war between the US and China. Despite the agreement, both trading partners have decided to maintain the bulk of the tariffs that were imposed on each other’s products during the trade war. The agreement keeps in place $370 bn in tariffs on Chinese imports as well as Beijing’s retaliatory tariffs.

Of course, a lot would depend on the actual implementation of the agreement that will take some time, given the lack of mutual trust and intense geopolitical rivalry between the two giants.

Nothing Momentous

The “phase one” trade deal lacks much substance and leaves too many questions unanswered. It may be too early to make a final assessment of the 94-page agreement, but a cursory examination indicates that China has made no significant concessions to the US that would represent a “historic” deal for the Trump administration.

The deal is limited in scope as it proposes modest changes in the areas of intellectual property, technology transfer, and market access to the Chinese financial sector. Further, most commitments outlined in the agreement have already been made by China unilaterally or at international forums such as G20 and WTO. For instance, the deal requires China to fully comply with its WTO agriculture commitments and rulings on agriculture subsidies and quotas. China has already decided not to appeal the WTO panel’s decisions and agreed to abide by the rulings.

Broadly speaking, the deal is a repackaging of previously announced commitments by China to open up its domestic markets and in line with its move towards establishing a more market-based economy. In fact, the Chinese authorities view several concessions in the areas of intellectual property, financial services, and currency management as beneficial to the country’s economic development and its expanded presence in the global economy. Some analysts point out that far from bringing the Chinese to their knees, China could end up being a bigger surprise winner of the deal in the long-term.

The “phase one” trade deal falls far short of drastic policy changes and wide-ranging deep reforms sought by the Trump administration when it launched a trade war with China in 2018. For instance, the deal does not address issues such as dismantling of industrial subsidies and the reduced role of state-owned companies in the Chinese economy. Nor does it address cybersecurity issues what the US characterized as “Chinese government-conducted, sponsored and tolerated cyber theft” – a thorny issue that ostensibly triggered the trade war. After months of negotiations and imposition of tariffs on billions of dollars worth of Chinese imports, the US has not achieved several of its stated objectives.

The US intends to begin negotiations on such thorny structural issues in the next “phase two” of the deal, but it is yet unclear when these negotiations will start and whether China will fundamentally restructure its economic model to appease the US. China may likely wait until this year’s presidential elections in the US before joining negotiations on the “phase two” of the trade deal.

Below is a brief analysis of some of the key elements of the “phase one” trade agreement.

Intellectual Property

The Intellectual Property (IP) chapter covers several issues, including trade secrets, pharmaceutical-related intellectual property, patents, geographical indications, trademarks, and enforcement against pirated and counterfeit goods. The agreement proposes no substantive changes in China’s current IP regime except that China has agreed to establish a mechanism for the early resolution of drug-related patent disputes and to provide patent term extensions to compensate for unreasonable delays in the patent office or drug approval processes.

On its own, China was going to implement some of the commitments made under the IP chapter, but the trade war with the US delayed the process.

The agreement states:

“Within 30 working days after the date of entry into force of this Agreement, China will promulgate an Action Plan to strengthen intellectual property protection.”

Any observer of China’s IP regime would attest that over the past two decades, China has steadily strengthened the protection of IPRs in pursuit of its self-interest as well as to meet its international commitments under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Not only China has promulgated strict IPR laws in the last two years, but it has also strengthened the enforcement processes as the country is climbing up the technological ladder.

It is worth remembering that China wants to develop as a hub for high-tech manufacturing and advanced R&D. China sees its future in the innovation-led economy and creating new high-value-added products and services, supported by a strict IPR regime. That’s why China has been moving its IPR regime closer to other developed countries.

Technology Transfer

The Technology Transfer chapter deals with obligations to ban forced technology transfers in China. Although Beijing has denied carryout out such practices, the US and many developed countries often accuse China of putting pressure on foreign firms to transfer their technology to domestic firms as a condition for obtaining market access or administrative approvals.

The agreement states:

“Neither Party shall require or pressure persons of the other Party to transfer technology to its persons in relation to acquisitions, joint ventures, or other investment transactions…Any transfer or licensing of technology between persons of a Party and those of the other Party must be based on market terms that are voluntary and reflect mutual agreement.”

Much before this deal, China had already undertaken legal measures to ban forced technology transfers. In March 2019, China adopted a Foreign Investment Law (FIL) that replaces three existing laws governing foreign direct investment in the country. The unified FIL explicitly bans the forced transfer of technologies through administrative means. Came in effect from January 1, 2020, the FIL stipulates: “The conditions for technology cooperation shall be determined by all investment parties upon equal negotiations under the principle of fairness and no administrative department or its staff shall force any transfer of technology by administrative means.”

Further, the FIL also imposes penalties on Chinese officials if they force foreign firms to transfer their technology to domestic entities.

Expanding Trade

Perhaps the biggest surprise of the “phase one” agreement is China’s commitment to buy an additional $200 bn worth of US goods and services over a two-year period (January 2020-December 2021). It includes $77.7 bn of manufactured goods, $32 bn of agricultural products, $52.4 bn of energy, and $37.9 bn of services.

Even though this commitment is meant only for two years, it raises four key concerns. First, the numbers are highly ambitious, especially for agricultural products, and one wonders whether the US exporters can deliver without diverting exports from other countries.

Second, many of these US exports will still be subject to retaliatory tariffs imposed by China during the trade war and therefore, will be relatively more expensive.

Third, can China force its privately-owned domestic firms to buy products from the US instead of from other trading partners with whom it has signed free trade agreements?

Fourth, aren’t such managed trade practices a violation of the WTO rules?

Financial Services

Another core element of the trade agreement is the commitments made by China to open up its financial services sector to the US banks, insurance companies, asset management companies, credit rating agencies, and credit card companies and thereby allowing US financial institutions to establish wholly-owned entities in the country.

Following are some of the major commitments made by China with specific timelines under the agreement:

  • “China shall allow U.S. financial services suppliers to apply for asset management company licenses that would permit them to acquire non-performing loans directly from Chinese banks, beginning with provincial licenses. When additional national licenses are granted, China shall treat U.S. financial services suppliers on a non-discriminatory basis with Chinese suppliers, including with respect to the granting of such licenses.”
  • “No later than April 1, 2020, China shall remove the foreign equity cap in the life, pension, and health insurance sectors and allow wholly U.S.-owned insurance companies to participate in these sectors.”
  • “No later than April 1, 2020, China shall eliminate foreign equity limits and allow wholly U.S.-owned services suppliers to participate in the securities, fund management, and futures sectors.”
  • “China shall allow U.S. financial services suppliers to apply for asset management company licenses that would permit them to acquire non-performing loans directly from Chinese banks, beginning with provincial licenses.”

Although the Chinese authorities had already announced some of these commitments in 2019, the “phase one” trade agreement has brought forward the planned opening of the Chinese financial services sector from December 2020 to April 2020 for the US-based financial firms.

Unlike most other chapters, the agreement calls for a two-way opening of the financial service sector. In return, the US has also agreed to rapidly process applications by Chinese banks, insurance firms, and securities firms to enter and operate in the US markets.

However, there is a much broader policy issue involved here as financial liberalization can pose risks to financial system stability in China. The Chinese government’s intention to further open up the financial sector is to spur more innovation and greater competition, but a more cautious approach is warranted as financial risks are building up in China’s financial system. China’s non-financial corporate debt, government debt, non-performing loans, and opaque shadow banking sector pose potential risks to financial stability. The recent bailouts of three regional banks have exposed the vulnerabilities in the Chinese banking sector.

Therefore, it is in China’s interest to adopt a gradual liberalization approach on financial services to avoid the financial crises experienced by other emerging market economies that adopted rapid financial liberalization.

Exchange Rate Policy

In August 2019, the US treasury department labeled China a currency manipulator. But it formally removed China’s designation as a currency manipulator just two days before signing the trade deal.

The “phase one” trade agreement contains a two-page chapter on macroeconomic policies and exchange rate matters. This chapter includes several provisions reaffirming both countries existing G20 and IMF commitments to refrain from competitive devaluations and to avoid manipulating exchange rates.

In addition, the US and China countries have agreed to publicly disclose data on foreign exchange reserves and external balances. Nothing newsworthy as both countries regularly put such data in the public domain. The chapter also contains an enforcement mechanism if any country fails to adhere to the commitments on exchange rate policies or transparency.

By and large, the currency management provisions of the US-China deal are less substantive than the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). For instance, the USMCA requires member-countries to regularly disclose the monthly interventions in both the spot and forward foreign exchange markets. And in no way, the “phase one” deal resembles the 1985 Plaza Accord that radically weakened the US dollar and strengthened the Japanese yen.

To conclude, the “phase one” trade agreement between the US and China signals a pause in the ongoing trade war but not much 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.

Kavaljit Singh is Director, Madhyam, New Delhi.

Danish writer Soren Korsgaard (editor of Crime & Power) has written a very long and detailed account entitled “One World Digital Dictatorship” that describes the accelerating movement  by both Western-style democracies and one-party states (notably China) towards world-wide Digital Dictatorship (Digital Imprisonment) involving mass data collection on everyone, mass surveillance, facial recognition-based tracking, crypotocurrency-based cashless societies, and social credit-based disempowerment.

“One World Digital Dictatorship” by Soren Korsgaard is a vitally important, must-read  and indeed scary essay that details the ongoing digital disempowerment and digital imprisonment of Humanity that is pertinent to all societies from the US and UK to India and China. In systematically reviewing this important essay I have followed  the sub-headings of the author.

(1) Introduction

In the introduction to his extensive essay, Soren Korsgaard states the problem thus: “Rather than being dismantled, the establishment has openly added advanced surveillance technology to their arsenal in their cataclysmic War on Truth. The mainstream media now parallels Orwell’s Ministry of Truth that broadcasts official explanations, while it effectively neutralizes those who venture outside the parameters of government-approved thinking, which so often equates to threatening their interests. While the current Western population control via advanced surveillance technology and social engineering is unparalleled in history, China has nevertheless rolled out a system that sets new standards for government control, the so-called social credit system. In a few decades from now, if the Chinese government succeeds, those who are imprisoned by the social crediting system will have no reference point or conception of freedom; digital tyranny will have become the norm. To some extent, Western policymakers have been apprehensive of the Chinese program, but as we shall see, it is nevertheless evident that they themselves are working diligently behind the scenes to implement the same technology that makes the Chinese digital prison possible” [1].

Comments

It isn’t just China that is advancing in digital control of populations as illustrated by the major Anglosphere, Western, ostensible democracies, the US, UK, Canada and Australia.  In George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984” Big Brother asserted that war is peace, slavery is freedom, ignorance is strength and 2 plus 2 does not equal 4,  but these evident falsehoods are de rigeur in the Anglosphere democracies in relation to war, civil rights,  and climate change. Numerous examples can be given.  Thus Australia, one of the world’s oldest and most progressive parliamentary democracies, has been involved in all post-1950 US Asian wars, atrocities associated with 40 million Asian deaths. But US-dominated and Orwellian Australian Mainstream media   follow similarly mendacious  US,  UK and Canadian Mainstream media in asserting that the US Alliance “defence forces” have been invading all these  countries to bring “peace” by war , “freedom” by imposed occupation or hegemony, “strength” through mendaciously-imposed ignorance, and extraordinary, anti-science  denial of the massive and ever-increasing body count [2]. Similarly, Australian Western Mainstream media resolutely ignore the horrible reality that 32 million Muslims have died from violence, 5 million, or from imposed deprivation 27 million, in 20 countries  invaded by the US Alliance since the US Government’s 9-11 false flag atrocity that killed 3,000 people [3, 4].

Western Mainstream media resolutely accept as an article of  faith the “official US version of 9-11” proclaimed  by successive mendacious US Administrations, notwithstanding its rejection by numerous science, architecture, engineering,  aviation, military and intelligence experts [4]. Indeed the post-9-11 War on Terror  has been associated with huge violations of civil rights, notably  in the US via the Patriot Act [5],  in Australia by over 70 anti-terrorism laws that have finally elicited  Mainstream media opposition when applied to journalists [6-10], and in the UK  as exampled by the outrageous persecution of truth-telling journalist and world hero Julian Assange [11, 12].  Western citizens are increasingly being compulsorily scrutinized, licenced, identified,  digitalized, spied on, threatened  and constrained in relation to compulsory ID, credit worthiness, privacy and civil rights. Numerous examples can be given. Thus millions of African  Americans are excluded from voting by felony laws or inadequate  ID [14-16].   In Australia huge numbers of welfare recipients have been persecuted by robotized  debt collection (“robo-debt”) demands  based on “statistical likelihood” rather than actuality [17].  And as for “2 + 2 does not equal 4”, the Climate Emergency is remorselessly worsening in 2 dozen areas [18-32] while the governments of  corrupt, pro-One Percenter Western Corporatocracies  refuse to take  requisite action, and the king-making Murdoch Media Empire deceives half the population into actual  or  effective climate change  denialism [28, 31-33].

(2) The Social Credit System

Soren Korsgaard describes the scary, high technology, Chinese ”social credit system”: “The Chinese Communist Party implemented the world’s first social crediting system in 2014, a dystopian and Orwellian surveillance-based program that rates citizens according to a set of rules defined by the government; for example, one will be punished for playing too much video game, eating food in the metro, criticizing the government, failing to sort personal waste correctly, swearing in public, and other offenses. On the other hand, one will be rewarded for spying on one’s fellow citizens and reporting to the authorities if people use profane language. At this time, the system has been rolled out in selected cities and declared a success by the government. Before the end of 2020, the Chinese government intends to have assigned a credit score to all of China’s citizens and private businesses, and, at this time, there is, therefore, some variability in the imposed set of regulations and rewards. If you lose too many points, you become a “blacklisted” individual… Blacklisted individuals become personae non-gratae: they and their children are banned from a long list of services, like getting out of the country, from specific schools, have their banking accounts frozen, and other people will by force not associate with them as it causes their rating to drop” [1]. Soren Korsgaard then proceeds to describe in great detail this insidious system, its dependence on highly intrusive and digitized  mass surveillance including CCTV, face recognition and other monitoring,  and its draconian consequences for individuals and families. In addition he comments on the death penalty in China, the associated abuses of organ harvesting from executed prisoners, and the inevitable  execution of wrongly convicted people that also happens in the US.

Comments

Aspects of the Social Credit System are already evident in the West and other societies. Thus, for example, Australia has a sensible driving licence system involving periodic renewal, a demerit points system for offences such as speeding that can eventually result in licence  cancellation, licence removal for even more serious offences (dangerous driving, exceeding blood alcohol limits, a positive blood drug  test),  removal for  incapacity due to age or illness, and need of a driver’s licence for ID in banking, social welfare, legal and other transactions.  Australia has a very good universal healthcare system in which all citizens and authorized residents have a Medicare Card and which is complemented by private doctors, private specialists,   private  hospitals and private medical insurance accessed by an appropriate  Card. However refugees who have not applied for or obtained a permanent residency visa or a permanent protection visa are not eligible to apply for  Medicare Card. Boat-borne refugees  who are highly abusively and indefinitely imprisoned without charge or trial on remote concentrations camps on Nauru and on Manus Island (Papua New Guinea) [34-36] were in 2019 legislatively granted (by the Opposition and minor parties) life-saving  medical evacuation to Australian  hospitals  on the basis of the opinion 2 doctors – however the racist and human-right-abusing Coalition Government recently succeeded in abolishing this Medevac Law i.e. retaining the “right” to sentence refugees to slow death in the name of “Border Security” [38]. The same human rights-abusing Australian Coalition government has introduced a cashless welfare card for mainly Indigenous Australians  who can only use it for limited, government-permitted purchases, this being described as a discriminatory and social control measure by Indigenous experts [39].  The Hawke Australian Labor Government proposed an Australian ID card (Australia Card) but this was quickly rejected [40] . However Australia now has several government-provided ID card systems (GovPass and Digital iD) that are predicted to save the economy tens of billions of dollars each year. However the Australian Strategic Policy Institute warns: “Neither GovPass nor Digital iD is governed by dedicated legislation, beyond existing laws such as the inadequate Privacy Act 1988, leaving Australians vulnerable to having their data misused. The lack of clarity about how the private sector will and will not be able to use the schemes will turbocharge the ability to gather detailed profiles of individual Australians. Controls are needed to prevent a Western version of China’s ‘social credit’ scheme emerging” [41].

The French Vichy Government introduced  a compulsory national identity card in 1940 that was modified in 1942 to identify Jews, this enabling the rapid deportation of 76,000 French Jews to likely death in Nazi concentration camps [42]. This is the ultimate nightmare of information-rich ID and Social Credit systems. Thus it is estimated that 1 million Uyghurs (about 10% of the Xinjiang  Uyghur population)  are temporarily confined to re-education camps in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of Western China in a Chinese Government bid to pre-empt any expanded Uyghur separatist insurgency in a province re-conquered by China in the 18th century and that is about 46% Han or Hui Chinese and 46% Uyghur. About 2 million Uyghurs live outside China  [43, 44]. In contrast, of 14 million Indigenous Palestinians 7 million are Exiled Palestinians (forbidden to step foot in Palestine, the homeland continuously inhabited by their forebears to the very dawn of the Agrarian Revolution in 10,000 BCE), and 5 million Occupied Palestinians  with zero human rights and highly abusively confined under Israeli Apartheid to the Gaza Concentration Camp (2 million) or to ever-shrinking West Bank ghettoes (3 million) and nearly 2 million “lucky” Palestinian Israelis (allowed to vote but subject to over 60 Nazi-style discriminatory laws [45, 46]),  with all of this involving race-specifying ID analogous to the passes of Apartheid South Africa, numerous check-points and egregious and deadly Apartheid Israeli violence [47-56]. The Zionist-subverted,  pro-Zionist, pro-Apartheid Israel and hence pro-Apartheid Anglosphere nations of the US,  Australia, Canada and the UK rank number 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, in the world for support of Apartheid Israel, the ongoing Palestinian Genocide  and hence of the utter obscenity of race-based “zero social credit” . The “social credit” is zero (0) for Exiled Palestinians  and Occupied Palestinians in Palestine just as it is for 1 million Rohingyas driven from their homes in Myanmar, and indeed about 70 million refugees in the world today (many of them Muslims and driven from their homes in  the Zionist-backed  US War on Muslims and the ongoing  Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide  [57]). Indigenous Australians have had a sustainable, continent-wide culture for 65,000 years [58, 59] but have been singled out by the racist Australian Government for a “cashless welfare card” crucial for physical survival [39].

(3) Big Brother is Watching You

In this section Soren Korsgaard  outlines the technology behind the increasingly sophisticated “surveillance state” around the world from credit worthiness and trust worthiness to facial recognition and tracking: “The evidence is abundant that governments have systematically and deliberately undermined our liberties and secretly geared up their respective states for a tyrannical, digital prison… If governments are to create a “smart” or “digital” prison for all of us, it follows that as much as possible of human behaviour and interaction with physical devices must be readily quantifiable and internet accessible, preferably connected to large databases; this is often referred to as the Internet of Things (IoT). Government agencies that can process vast amounts of data, such as the National Security Agency (NSA), will then intercept the data to evaluate our interaction with the world… Surveillance is essential for the workings of a social credit system, in particular, facial recognition technology or biometric face scanners and similar technology… the same types of surveillance technology deployed in China are being set up by government agencies or in conjunction with private companies,  in numerous countries, such as USA, France, Australia, Germany, Canada, India, United Kingdom, Russia”. Soren Korsgaard  goes on to detail application of these technologies and concludes “In January 2009, India launched Aadhaar, which has become the world’s largest biometric ID system… India becoming a “total, permanent surveillance state”…   The [US] NSA is well known at this time due to the media-friendly whistleblower Edward Snowden who revealed that the US engages in the activities specified above. Specifically, the NSA is the American part of the Five Eyes Alliance, a conspiratorial network designed to intercept data, share it between them, and thus commit espionage on as many people and governments as possible” [1].

Comments

These developments were adumbrated not only in George Orwell’s 1949 novel “1984” but also in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s  “The First Circle” (a 1968 novel about a mathematician  developing voice-recognition for the Communist KGB state in Stalinist  Russia), “Blake’s 7” (a 1978-1991 UK TV science fiction series in which a totalitarian Terran Federation uses mass surveillance, brainwashing and drugs to control the Solar System)[60], “Enemy of the State”  (a 1998 movie thriller starring Will Smith and Gene Hackman premised on the US government seeking new anti-terrorism powers backed with pervasive  satellite surveillance technology) [61], and “Changing Lanes” (a 2002 movie in which a White lawyer (played by Ben Affleck) has a minor traffic accident with a Black insurance salesman (Samuel L. Jackson) and gets an IT whiz to access and then press the button to destroy the Black guy’s credit rating, finances, and mortgage) [62]. Indeed pervasive and pin-point state surveillance is now a routine key element in spy thrillers (e.g. the Jason Bourne series) [63].

While the pervasive surveillance powers of America, Russia, the UK and China are well known, less well known is the role of Australia as a US-linked surveillance state.US lackey  Australia through its joint Australia-US electronic spying base at Pine Gap in Central Australia is a key element in US nuclear terrorism and also targets illegal US  drone attacks in 7 countries (Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan)[64]. Indeed it is likely that Australia targeted the recent deadly American attack at Baghdad International Airport that killed   Iranian General Qassem Soleimani,  Shiite Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and 8 others [65]. Australia  legislated for mandatory acquisition of all electronic meta-data (who speaks to whom but with accessing  what they say requiring a judge’s permission).  However Australia has also passed a law making it punishable by up to 10 years in prison for anyone revealing any misconduct by Australian Intelligence i.e. giving the spooks carte blanche to do anything they like (see [65]). The US belongs to the 5-eyes intelligence-sharing Club (US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) but shares bulk intelligence on Australians with nuclear terrorist Apartheid Israel [67]. The incompetent, US lackey and terror hysteric Australian Coalition Government (with Labor support)  has ignored expert scientific and corporate advice by legislating to allow Australian intelligence agencies to access encrypted corporate and other sites, this imposing a security weakness and hence a serious threat to all  corporations operating in Australia and who will now be considering data storage elsewhere [68].

Soren Korsgaard  outlines the process whereby India (population 1.3 billion) is becoming a “total, permanent surveillance state”. This has serious implications for hundreds of millions of Indians who live in poverty, are Muslims  or are in disagreement with the neoliberal and Hindutva (fervently pro-Hindu) policies of the  BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) Government led by PM Narendra Modi. The demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes by the Modi government in 2017 disproportionately impacted the poor who are disproportionately  not part of  the digital economy. Presently 4 million Indians die avoidably from deprivation each year [2] and demonetisation would have made  this worse by increasing poverty, deprivation and disempowerment [69]. The Citizens Amendment Act (CAA) of the Modi Government excludes  Muslims from citizenship offered to those  who sought refuge in India before 2015. This a serious threat to the stability and inclusiveness of India , a country that has a secular Constitution,  and is particularly serious in light of India’s actions  to update citizenship records in Bangladesh-bordering Assam that may render 4 million people stateless [71] (millions of Bangladeshis fled to India during the Pakistan-imposed  Bengali Genocide and Bengali Gendercide in 1971) [2, 71].

(4) Collectivism and Censorship

Soren Korsgaard  argues that censorship and propaganda in both democratic and one-party systems promote an altruistic collectivism “for the greater good” needed for popular acceptance of a digital prison: “While the technology is already available or will soon be to most advanced countries, it can be argued that its availability does not necessitate a rollout of a digital prison. However, for years governments have preconditioned the masses with the ideological underpinnings paramount to a totalitarian digital prison, namely collectivism and the related idea of free-speech restraints via political correctness, brute force, and censorship. By preconditioning the masses, they will slowly be guided into acceptance or compliance with such a system as it is being gradually rolled out.  The Chinese social crediting system is rooted in collectivism” [1]. Soren Korsgaard  then proceeds give examples of altruistic collectivism e.g. [my view in square brackets] mass vaccination [good],  firearms control [good] , censorship [bad] and persecution of dissidents [bad] . Soren Korsgaard on censorship: “Silencing whistleblowers, government critics, and free thinkers is an essential component of any tyrannical regime in order to terrorize the public into compliance, and to keep them isolated from information that runs contrary to official dogmas; the greater the ignorance of human rights violations the lower is the chance of resistance and opposition. The digital revolution has equipped us with lightning speed communication, but ruling elites have weaponized the digitization to control, manipulate, and destroy information that is contrary to their interests” [1].

Comments

I must strongly disagree with Soren Korsgaard’s libertarian reservations about mass vaccination and gun control.  Mass vaccination has saved literally billions of people from suffering and death. Thus large-scale international vaccination programs  have completely  eliminated smallpox, almost eliminated polio, and saved billions of children from misery or  death from measles, diphtheria, whooping cough and influenza in particular. A sophisticated international program of vaccination  prevents deadly influenza pandemics of the kind that killed up to 100 million people  in 1918-1919. Ebola vaccines are saving  Africa and the world from a horrifying catastrophe. A papilloma virus vaccine developed in Australia prevents papilloma virus infection, genital warts and causally linked cervical cancer in women.  By way of a singular and personally connected example, in 1875 the important Fijian chief (ratu), Ratu Cakobau, returned from a trip to  Sydney with his entourage unwittingly carrying measles. Chiefs from all over Fiji came to see him and then returned infected to their villages – 40,000  Fijians died out of a population of 150,000.  Because of the consequent labour shortage in Fiji,  in the period 1879-1916  the British brought in over 60,000 Indian indentured labourers (5-year slaves) to work the British and Australian sugar plantations, this including all of the grandparents of my dear late wife, Zareena (née Zareena Lateef) [2, 72, 73]. In September 2019 a  measles outbreak  commenced in nearby Samoa  and by January 2020 there were 5,697 confirmed cases of measles and 83 deaths, out of a Samoan population of 200,874. Urgent emergency action was taken resulting in mass vaccination of 94% of the population by December 2019 (about 95% is required to acquire herd immunity for measles) [74]. Similarly in relation to gun control (sorely needed in gun-mad America where gun massacres occur on a weekly basis), in April 1996 in my island home state of Tasmania, 35 people were gunned down  and 23 wounded in the Port Arthur Massacre. This prompted rapid action with Federal gun control legislation that saw over 1 million guns collected and destroyed [75]. The similarly horrifying Christchurch Massacre in New Zealand  in March 2019 (51 killed, 49 wounded) prompted immediate  gun control legislation. We might not like dictatorship but conscious of potential emergencies and life-and-death  situations we defer to authorities e.g. the captain of the ship or aeroplane, emergency services (e.g. in evacuation orders in the recent catastrophic Australian bushfires), and in relation to penalties for people refusing vaccination for their children and thereby endangering other children (e.g. non-vaccinated children are excluded from child-care centres in Australia).

On the other hand, in 2018 the Australian Government introduced a system called My Health Record that centralized all the health records of all Australian citizens and all other residents eligible for the Australian universal health care system (Medicare).The introduction was controversial because of the following concerns: a similar system in the UK called care-data was discontinued because of privacy and other problems; potential access to de-identified data by researchers, including  researchers from pharmaceutical companies; financial incentives for General Practitioner (GP) doctors  setting up databases on their patients for the system; potential access to data by lawyers involved in litigation; inevitable system glitches; and real concerns about  cybersecurity, hacking, data security and privacy breaches leading to inappropriate  use,  malicious use, victimization, sacking or refusal of medical insurance. People were able to opt out  of the system but about 90% of the population couldn’t be bothered opting out or otherwise, like me,  stayed in because they could see the many advantages of the system (e.g. the GP, hospital doctor or medical specialist having instant and important access to the patient’s medical history, drug reactions, current drug prescriptions etc) [76, 77].  Nevertheless this is an example of “altruistic collectivism” that could and would be exploited not only by  a  digital dictatorship but also by security agencies in pre-police states like the US and Australia (indeed presently in pre-police state Australia  a journalist reporting such abuses of My Health Record  or other government data sets by Australian Intelligence could go to jail for 10 years).

Racism is evil because we cannot help to whom and where we were born and raised. However the non-fiction book “Black Like Me” (1961) by white American journalist John Howard Griffin describes how he deliberately took a drug to  become “Black” and then travelled through the Segregated, racist Deep South of America to see what life was like for African  Americans (a recurrent  problem was where to find a public toilet that  a Black person could go to). Conversely, the novel “The Human Stain” by anti-racist Jewish American writer Philip Roth is about an American  university professor who, as a young, relatively  light-coloured African  American man being conscripted into the US Navy, decides to tick the Navy entrance form box for “Jewish” rather than for “Black” and thus throughout his successful life avoids all the horrible discriminations suffered by Black Americans. Beautiful and exotic-looking movie actress Merle Oberon kept her Indian mother as a servant in the UK and the  US, used skin-whitening creams and hid her Anglo-Indian origin from racist Anglosphere societies by claiming that she came from remote Tasmania (as a child growing up in Tasmania I believed like everyone else that Merle Oberon was “our” Tasmanian Hollywood  movie star )[78]. However in an age of personal genome sequencing ($1,500 in 2015) [79] and worsening digital dictatorship, They (aka Big Brother) can  know everything about you from your lifetime medical record to your personal genome sequence.

Soren Korsgaard correctly slams censorship, propaganda and punishment of dissenters that pave the way for  a digital prison in both ostensibly democratic states and one party states. Google is banned in China but Soren Korsgaard gives a damning example of censorship by Google itself: “In addition to imposing restrictions via legislation, governments have also allied themselves with the corporate juggernaut of Facebook, Google, Twitter, and YouTube for the purpose of censorship and social engineering. YouTube’s CEO, Susan Wojcicki, admitted in 2019 that 10,000 Google employees and artificial intelligence had succeeded in reducing the “amount of time Americans watch controversial content by 70%” and that instead of referring users to “controversial content” they would be directed to government-approved sources, like CNN” [1].  There is a growing  and authoritative  literature  on Western Mainstream media censorship [80-91] and on censorship by Google in particular [87-90], noting that Alphabet, the owner of Google, is the biggest media company in the world [88] and 92% of Searches are on Google [92].  However  the Google Robot can effectively “hide” progressive articles, noting that 90% of Google Searches stop at page 1) [92]. In contrast, Bing Searches  can pick up progressive articles on page 1 of the results that are hidden by the censoring Google Robot – ergo, Bing it! [87].   

There is massive government propaganda, not just in one-party states but also in the ostensibly democratic Western parliamentary democracies that have become neoliberal kleptocracies, plutocracies, Murdochracies, corporatocracies, lobbyocracies and dollarocracies in which Big Money purchases people, parties, policies, public perception of reality, votes and hence more power and more profit.  As famed, anti-racist Jewish American  journalist.  I.F. Stone declared: “Governments lie” [93, 94].Great American writer and historian Gore Vidal stated more specifically: “Unlike most Americans who lie all the time, I hate lying. And here I am surrounded with these hills [in Hollywood] full of liars — some very talented” [95]. America has invaded 72 countries but always needs an “excuse”. Thus 9-11 was the US “excuse” for the US War on Terror in which 32 million Muslims have died from violence, 5 million, or from imposed deprivation 27 million, in 20 countries  invaded by the US Alliance since the US Government’s 9-11 false flag atrocity that killed 3,000 people [3, 4]. However numerous science, architecture, engineering, aviation, military and intelligence experts reject the “official US Government 9-11 version” and conclude that the US Government must have been involved in the atrocity with likely Apartheid Israeli and Saudi Arabian involvement [4]. Soren Korsgaard comments: “There has been a strong move toward punishing intellectuals and public figures for voicing dissent of official narratives and a variety of ideologies, such as questioning the official 9/11 dogma” [1]. The US Center for Public Integrity has determined that the Bush Administration told 935 lies about Iraq between 9-11 and the war criminal invasion of Iraq in March 2003 [96]. There is massive lying by omission and lying by commission by Mainstream journalist, editor, politician, academic and commentariat presstitutes, noting that lying by omission is far, far worse than repugnant lying by commission because the latter can at least admit public refutation and public debate [84-86]. Thus, for example, in 1942-1945 the British with Australian complicity deliberately starved 6-7 million Indians to death for strategic reasons in Bengal, Assam, Bihar and Orissa but this immense WW2 Bengali Holocaust atrocity has been almost completely  whitewashed from British history by successive generations of mendacious British historians [73, 97, 98].

While lying by omission and commission is rampant, the truth tellers are sidelined, exiled or victimized with,  as correctly observed by Soren Korsgaard,   the most celebrated examples being the American and world heroes  Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, and Australian and world hero Julian Assange, currently obscenely imprisoned by the UK and facing death or life imprisonment if he is handed over to  the war criminal  Americans  [99]. These three heroes follow in the footsteps of heroes like Daniel Ellsberg (who released the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam War) and have been persecuted by the Americans for the their truth telling. Remarkably absent from public discussion about the horrendous persecution of my hero Julian Assange is that it has been about the sheer  magnitude of the secrecy violation (involving millions of secret US documents)  and the violation of the integrity of the Secret State rather than the specific content. Thus for example, the most shocking revelation by Wikileaks was the video showing  US soldiers in an Apache helicopter massacring a dozen Iraqi civilians and some journalists yet there is a vast amount  of non-secret “video footage” about US atrocities from the napalming of villages, saturation bombing by B52s and the Mylai Massacre to the rare admission by US UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright that half a million Iraqi children had died under Sanctions  and that  “it was worth it”. Thus On May 12, 1996, Albright defended UN sanctions against Iraq on a “60 Minutes” segment in which anti-racist Jewish American journalist Lesley Stahl asked her “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” and Albright notoriously replied “we think the price is worth it.” [100]. However Lesley Stahl was not persecuted or imprisoned for eliciting this rare admission of American  mass murder – unlike Julian Assange she had merely asked a question on prime time TV and had not violated the sanctity of the American Secret State.

By way of personal example, in addition to science, art and humanitarian  advocacy I have spent the last  quarter of a century  researching, writing and publishing about  the magnitude of immense and variously ignored or forgotten atrocities, and notably  those involving  the British and the Americans with Australian complicity e.g. (with deaths from violence or war-imposed deprivation in brackets) the 1942-1945 WW2 Bengali Holocaust (WW2 Indian Holocaust, WW2 Bengal Famine; 6-7 million), the post-1950 Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust (1,500 million), post-1950 US Asian wars (40 million), the 1990-present  Iraqi Holocaust and Iraqi Genocide (5 million), the 2001 onwards Afghan Holocaust and Afghan Genocide (7 million) and the post-9-11 Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide (32 million). I was able to achieve limited visibility in Australia on these and many other important matters for a dozen years but had to self-publish my huge books on these matters and about 12 years ago finally became “invisible” in my own country (via Australian Intelligence,  Mainstream media gate-keepers, Zionists or all 3?) In the interests of humanity,  I continue  to carefully research, quantitatively analyse, write, and publish about 5,000 words  each week about serious matters from climate change to genocide in progressive web magazines overseas but now the Google Robot minimizes the visibility of progressive media. People like me in the lovely West don’t have to be victimized , imprisoned or tortured  like Julian Assange – they are simply rendered “invisible” and utterly sidelined from public life. Nevertheless I  (and many others)  continue in the Quixotic truth-telling quest to penetrate the Mainstream Wall of Silence . “Free speech” is a wonderful attribute  of the Western-style  democracies but “effective free speech” is largely absent in these pre-Digital Dictatorships.

As a scientist I am always optimistic about  finding solutions,  and thus despite the effective unavoidability of a catastrophic plus 2 degrees Centigrade  rise in global warming I believe we must do everything we can to make the future “less bad” for future generations. Despite a worsening Climate Emergency I take great heart from the accurate and forthright words of Greta Thunberg and the future generations she represents [101].  Further, there are limits to the  “invisibility” imposed on me  – thus, for example, a Google Search for the phrase “free university education” (presently  available in about 25 countries ) yields on page 2 of the Results (#20 out of 209,000 results) my detailed, 74-reference analysis entitled “50 reasons for Free University Education as we  bequeath the young a dying planet” [102].  However  coupling this same Google Search  with the word polya  (or countercurrents) yields this article as #3 (or #2) on page 1 – these magic words are like an “abracadabra” that can open a whole world of rational, science-based humanitarian analysis  otherwise well hidden in our pre-Digital Dictatorships Thus resolutely dishonest  and comprehensive public and private denial of “free university education”  in Australia has enabled a huge and corruptly-based “education export industry”  to Asia worth (in Australian dollars) about $32 billion ($22 billion for universities) in 2017-2018 [103], about the same as the annual national defence budget or the annual  subsidy given to child-brainwashing religious organizations in Australia (intellectual child abuse).

(5) Cognitive Spyware

Soren Korsgaard outlines the horrific Brave New World of  surveillance technology: “Today’s most advanced cameras can monitor physical activity, identify a person, and via advanced algorithms, cameras can outline general characteristics of a person’s appearance, detect if someone is in possession of a gun, and even “detect motions that are commonly used to commit a crime”” and speculates that “In the future, cognitive spyware will likely be able to decode intent before an action has been undertaken, and thus we could be punished for thought crimes and crimes without any physical component based on intent… The success in regards smartphones is unparalleled, and billions of people now have one. Surveillance cameras and other equipment are advertised as needed for capturing criminals, but regular people are treated as criminals, and the technology can be used for excessive mental and physical control. The efficiency of a social crediting system largely depends on advanced technology. It follows that advances in brain decoding technology and other types of spying equipment will be integrated into social crediting systems to monitor as much of physical and mental activity as possible.” Astonishingly, it is  now possible for neuroscientists  to decode an image that a person had been instructed to think  about [1].

Comments

Only this week, Kashmir Hill writing in the New York Times described how the US Clearview company is selling to police and security agencies the  Australian-invented latest in mass facial recognition technology that “might end privacy as we know it” (2020) :But without public scrutiny, more than 600 law enforcement agencies have started using Clearview in the past year, according to the company, which declined to provide a list. The computer code underlying its app, analyzed by The New York Times, includes programming language to pair it with augmented-reality glasses; users would potentially be able to identify every person they saw. The tool could identify activists at a protest or an attractive stranger on the subway, revealing not just their names but where they lived, what they did and whom they knew. And it’s not just law enforcement: Clearview has also licensed the app to at least a handful of companies for security purposes” [104].

The remarkably  perceptive Ancient Greeks had the story of  Pandora’s Box – when she opened the box all kinds of evils escaped into the world. The Enlightenment opened Pandora’s Box in bringing rationality and science to the world  but paradoxically also with unrestrained liberalism  the development  and use of horrendous war technologies, including weapons of mass destruction [105-112].   Neoliberal greed has succeeded for the One Percenters who now have more than twice as much  wealth as 6.9 billion other humans [113], a massive wealth inequality that is  associated with 15 million avoidable deaths from deprivation each year [2].  However that same neoliberal greed has now brought all of Humanity to the edge of the precipice – we are now existentially threatened by nuclear weapons and man-made climate change. Thus eminent physicist Stephen Hawking: “We see great peril if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change” [114, 115].

I have translated the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics, to whit, (1) conservation of energy, (2) entropy (chaos, disorder, lack of information) increases to a maximum, and (3) zero motion at Absolute Zero,  to Polya’s 3 Laws of Economics, to whit (1) Profit = Price minus Cost of Production, (2) Deceit about Cost of Production increases to a maximum, and (3) no life, work, price or profit on a dead Planet [116]. Just as the Second Law of Thermodynamics condemns the universe to thermal death in billions of years’ time, so Polya’s Second Law of Economics has brought Humanity and the Biosphere to  the edge of terracidal disaster. Unless extraordinary (and hence unlikely) steps are taken in the coming decade the world is set for a catastrophic plus 2C temperature rise disaster, a matter perceived by school children but not by the endlessly greedy One Percenters running the world [117]. If everyone in the world wants an American standard of living  we need 7 planets,  and 3 planets if we all want a European standard of living [118]. However there is no Planet B. Unless requisite action is taken there will be a worsening Climate Genocide en route to a sustainable human population of only 0.5-1.0 billion in 2100 [119]. Pope Francis has correctly declared that the environmental and social cost of pollution must be “fully borne” by the polluters [120, 121]. The IMF has declared that a Carbon Price is the best way out of the Climate Emergency and proposes rapid implementation of a $75 per tonne CO2-e Carbon Price, while  noting that the recent global average is a mere $2 per tonne CO2-e  [30, 31 ]. The best estimates of the damage-related Carbon Price is $200 per tonne CO2-e [25, 29]. For a sustainable future and to save the planet the world needs negative carbon emissions to get  back to the pre-Industrial  Revolution level of about 300 ppm CO2 from the present 412 ppm CO2, negative population growth to cut population by  50%, and a corresponding  negative economic growth to cut an unsustainable world economy  by 50% [122]. These science-demanded actions are unlikely to be implemented in a timely fashion or indeed ever, and  thus the adumbrated Digital Dictatorships will have a hollow victory indeed.  

(6) Blockchain Technology

Soren Korsgaard sees totalitarian exploitation in a future cashless society involving cryptocurrency blockchain  technology (a digital concatenated record of transactions), the Internet of Things (IoT) and social credit control:  “A growing list of countries, China, Russia, Venezuela, Estonia, Japan, and others, has announced their intention of launching a national cryptocurrency… Blockchain technology, if embraced by world governments, may become an integrated part of social crediting systems through tokenization and monetary control. For instance, the Chinese government may create a national, digital currency, and by means of facial recognition linked to one’s virtual cryptocurrency wallet, the need for physical cash is eliminated. Proponents of a cashless society could argue that it would eliminate a country’s shadow economy, and put an end to funding of illegal activities and terrorism as every record of every transaction is stored in the blockchain. A government-enabled blockchain-permeated society also fosters social engineering as dissenters, lawbreakers, and others could, in an instant, be cut off from services, if they venture outside the government established parameters… Token economies open up for a combination of blockchain technology, IoT [Internet of Things], and a social credit system. Modern blockchains are fast, efficient, and operating in real-time, and are considered superior to traditional methods of storage. Therefore, if blockchain technology is connected to IoT, the result could be a near-complete, digital record of one’s interaction with the world. In conclusion, blockchain technology may enable decentralized and autonomous totalitarianism” [1].

Comments

According to Deloitte: “The Internet of Things (IoT) connects people, places, and products, and in so doing, it offers opportunities for value creation and capture… blockchain or distributed ledger technology (DLT), has the potential to help address some of the IoT security and scalability challenges” [123]. Government policy in China, India and the Developed World is towards a cashless society but this discriminates against poor people who are unbanked and the elderly not involved in Internet banking. However banking system failures due to “glitches” can leave people dependent on ready cash, people are wary of government scrutiny of their finances (demonstrators  in Hong Kong could evade possible government scrutiny by purchasing train tickets with cash), and people are naturally concerned about “negative interest rates”(i.e.  compulsorily having to pay banks to look after their money). Australia has laws demanding  compulsory and timely reporting of bank transactions of  $10,000 or more for laudable policing or  security reasons connected with terrorism and other  criminality (notably illicit tobacco, drugs,  paedophile rings and money laundering) and there were recently huge scandals in Australia when several major banks  failed to report huge numbers of such transactions. Now the Coalition Australian Government has introduced legislation to make it illegal (with punishment by draconian   fines and imprisonment) to make purchases between businesses and individuals for $10,000 or more in cash [125]. Again this intrusion is justified on the basis of the “greater good” but comes from a human rights-abusing Coalition Government that was condemned by former Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Professor Gillian Triggs, thus (2017): “[Australia’s human rights are] regressing on almost every front… Whether it’s women, Indigenous, homeless and most of course asylum seekers and refugees … I think it’s partly because we have a [Coalition] government that is ideologically opposed to human rights” [125].

Why should people “trust” governments with all their personal, health and financial particulars? They simply should  not as well illustrated by rich, democratic Australia (the “Lucky Country”) that was one of the first countries to have (a) parliamentary democracy, (b) female suffrage, (c) free trade unions, (d) free,  secular and compulsory education, (e)  the 8 hour working day, (f) free expression, (g) the “living wage” and (h)  free university education. However lift the PR  veneer and you will find a moral morass  in so many areas. Thus (a) parliamentary democracy is a bad joke in US lackey Murdochracy, Corporatocracy, Plutocracy and  Lobbyocracy Australia with a grossly mal-informed electorate, the Senate being grossly undemocratic and Indigenous people only recognized as citizens since 1967; (b) female suffrage (1901) has not solved huge gender inequity and only 32% of Federal MPs are women (however about 50% of Labor MPs are women); (c) free trade unions are under sustained attack from the neo-fascist, neoliberal   Coalition and trade union membership of the workforce has dropped from 51% (1976) to 14% (2016);  (d) free,  secular and compulsory education is utilized by 2/3 of Australian children but it is grossly under-resourced in a system of Educational Apartheid and the 1/3 of children attending fee-paying but taxpayer-subsidized private, non-state religious schools are subject to outrageous intellectual child abuse; (e)  the 8 hour working day is a joke because of massive under-employment, and massive unpaid overtime for full-time workers; (f) free expression is increasingly constrained (and variously subject to custodial punishment of up to life imprisonment  under draconian anti-terrorism laws) and effective free speech is crippled in US lackey, anti-science  Murdochracy Australia dominated by mendacious, neoliberal, and oligopoly Mainstream media; (g) the “living wage” has long gone with the need for 2 paid workers per family, stagnant wages and mass importation of temporary cheap labour ; and (h)  free university education was abolished by the Hawke Labor Government in 1989 (for a comprehensive analysis of Australia’s shortcomings in all kinds of areas  see my detailed essay on the wonderful “Australian values” to which  patriotic, genuine (“fair dinkum”)  Aussies are meant to adhere see [126, 127]).

Australian Coalition Governments with support of the Labor Opposition have brought in over 70 laws that constrain civil rights and human rights and have turned Australia into a pre-police state [6-11].  Australian Governments keep their  Cabinet discussions secret for 30 years  and each year Australians are told what they should have known 30 years before.  The utterly mendacious British Government still refuses to release correspondence involving the Royal Family relating to the US- and UK-backed and CIA-complicit  Coup that removed progressive Labor PM Gough Whitlam from office in 1975 [128]. “Look-the-other-way Australians were effectively unmoved  over the prosecution of Witness K (a top intelligence officer who revealed Australian spying on the East Timor Government Cabinet meetings for the benefit of fossil fuel commercial interests) [129] but have now been told about Witness J (a top intelligence officer and distinguished veteran arrested, arraigned, remanded, tried, sentenced and imprisoned – and all of this in total secret [130]).  The biggest lie of all from the present mendacious, corrupt, war criminal, climate criminal and grossly human rights-abusing Australian Coalition Government is resolute denial of expert scientific opinion that man-made climate change is significantly  contributing to  Australia’s present horrendous affliction with horrendous storms, horrendous heat waves, horrendous drought, horrendous bushfires, and mass killing of over a billion native animals [131, 132].

Indeed all Australian Governments lie egregiously (indicative of egregious malfeasance) and one supposes that bigger “security states”, whether one-party states or ostensible  democracies, will lie even more egregiously. As famed US journalist I.F. Stone famously posited: “Governments lie”. In science there is zero tolerance for lying, and the same should apply to governments. No wonder little people are telling increasingly mendacious,  authoritarian and intrusive governments:  “Stop lying to us and hands off my privacy, my medical records and  my money!”

(7) Centralized Government

The  core of Soren Korsgaard’s  fear of the digital dictatorship, the surveillance state empowered by an all-pervasive social crediting system, is most succinctly expressed by Lord Acton’s aphorism “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” and Professor Rudolph Rummel’s paraphrasing: “Power kills, absolute power kills absolutely”.   Soren Korsgaard: “ In favor of a social crediting system, it can be argued that extensive surveillance may reduce violent crime and overall improve people’s moral character, and if the rules, regulations, and punishments are codified into law by a democratically elected government, then a social crediting system is sound. However, as we shall see in the following section, these arguments do not stand scrutiny or justify a totalitarian regime. Murders and other violent crimes committed outside the law are relatively rare phenomena compared to the violence meted out by governments. In fact, history profusely demonstrates a distinct correlation between the power of a government and atrocities. The more powerful a government is, the more capable it is, and more likely it is to kill its own citizens or foreigners”. Soren Korsgaard gives horrifying examples of mass deaths inflicted by both totalitarian and democratic governments. Soren Korsgaard concludes his essay thus:  “If populations started being personally responsible for the actions of state officials, such as spending time in prison for war crimes, then the institution of government would presumably be abandoned rapidly. Governments’ abysmal humanitarian track record should be ample evidence for us to conclude that a social crediting system will, with little doubt, lead to atrocities. If, on the other hand, we believe that our elected government can and will solve problems for the benefit of the masses, an absurd belief, then as Voltaire said, “we shall commit atrocities” [1].

Comments

Just as the Enlightenment was a poisoned chalice that brought  Humanity mass murder and prospective man-made extinction of Humanity together with reason, liberty and science, so Western democracy, for all its wonderful Domestic attributes (peace, freedom, health,  education and long lives in Western countries),  has brought horrendous  and genocidal mass killing of humans across the world through violence or deadly imposed deprivation [2].   War is the penultimate in murderous  racism and genocide the ultimate in racist violence. Noting that the UK, Australia, France , the US and Canada  achieved substantial parliamentary democracy by the 19th century, considered over the last millennium the  British have invaded 193 countries, Australia 85, France 82, the US 72 (52 after WW2), Germany 39, Japan 30, Russia 25, Canada 25,  Apartheid Israel 12,  China 2 , Korea (arguably zero) and Iran (zero since 700 CE at the time of the Sasanian  Empire) [2, 133-138].

People naturally enough have the greatest love and affection for their immediate family but the fervency of this altruistic sentiment progressively falls off as we go from family, to  suburb, to city, to nation and thence to Humanity as a whole. Occupation of foreign countries immediately results in increased disregard of the rulers for their subjects. Note that “occupation” includes  post-colonial neo-colonial hegemony, with African and Middle Eastern states being tragic examples (e.g. variously  British- and thence US-invaded Iraq since 1914). 1950-2005 avoidable deaths from deprivation in countries  variously occupied  by the following imperialist  nations as major occupiers are given in brackets: UK (727 million), France (142 million), US (82 million), and Apartheid Israel (24 million) (Chapter 3, pages 39- 42 [2]).

Here is an updated summary of genocidal atrocities deaths in holocausts, genocides and famines,  with major emphasis on the last few centuries  and deriving from actual violence or from imposed deprivation (estimated deaths given in brackets; various UK and/or US involvement is asterisked):

  • 1978-1997 Afghan Genocide and Afghan Holocaust (6 million),
  • 2001 onwards Afghan Genocide and Afghan Holocaust (7 million),
  • 15th – 19th century African Holocaust (slave trade; 6 million),
  • 16th century onwards Amerindian Genocide (90 million),
  • 19th century Argentinian Indian Genocide (1 million) (for beef to Britain),
  • 1915-1923 Armenian Genocide (1.5 million),
  • post-1950 Asian Holocaust due to Australia-complicit US Asian Wars (40 million),
  • 1914-1924 Assyrian Genocide (Syriac Genocide; 0.2-0.3 million),
  • 1788 onwards Australian Aboriginal Genocide and Aboriginal Ethnocide (2 million),
  • 1769-1770, Bengal Famine (10 million),
  • 1942-1945 WW2 Bengali Holocaust, WW2 Bengal Famine and WW2 Indian Holocaust (6-7 million),
  • 1971-1972 Bengali Holocaust and gendercide (3.0 million),
  • 1967-1970, Biafran Genocide (2 million),
  • 1990s Bosnian Genocide (circa 0.1 million),
  • 20th century Brazilian Indigenous Genocide (1 million),
  • 1969-1998 Cambodian Genocide (6.0 million),
  • 19th century Chinese Holocaust (Opium wars and Tai Ping rebellion; 20-100 million),
  • 1937-1945 WW2 Chinese Holocaust (35 million),
  • 1958-1961 Chinese Holocaust of the Great Leap Forward (20-30 million),
  • 19th -20th century Congo Genocide (Belgian Congo) (10 million),
  • 1960 onwards Congolese Genocide and Congolese Holocaust (20 million),
  • 1984-1985 Ethiopian famine (1 million),
  • 1939-1945 WW2 European Holocaust (30 million Slavs, Jews and Roma killed),
  • 1941-1950 German Genocide and German Holocaust (9 million),
  • Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust (1,500 million since 1950),
  • 960-1996, Guatemala Mayan Indian Genocide (1.9 million),
  • 1757-1947 Indian Holocaust from famine and deprivation (1,800 million),
  • 1947 Indian Holocaust due to Partition (1.0 million),
  • 1918-1920 Influenza epidemic (50-100 million),
  • 1917-1919 Iranian Famine (2 million),
  • 1978 onwards Iranian Holocaust and Iranian Genocide (3 million),
  • 2003-2011 21st century Iraqi Genocide and Iraqi Holocaust (2.7 million),
  • 1990-2011 Iraqi Genocide and Iraqi Holocaust (4.6 million),
  • 1914-2011 Iraqi Genocide and Iraqi Holocaust (9 million),
  • 1939-1945 WW2 Jewish Holocaust, Shoa (5-6 million),
  • 1950-1953 Korean Genocide and Korean Holocaust (5.2 million),
  • 1840s Irish Famine (2 million),
  • 1955-1975 Laotian Genocide (1.2 million),
  • 2011 Libyan Genocide (0.2 million),
  • 19th century Maori Genocide in New Zealand (0.2 million),
  • 2000 onwards 21st century Muslim Genocide and Muslim Holocaust (32 million),
  • 1900s Namibian Genocide (0.1 million),
  • 17th – 19th century North American Indian Genocide (up to 18 million),
  • 1916 onwards Palestinian Genocide and Palestinian Holocaust (2.2 million),
  • 1865-1870 Paraguay Genocide (1 million)
  • 1939-1945 WW2 Polish Genocide and Polish Holocaust (6 million),
  • 21st century Rohingya Genocide (circa 0.1 million),
  • 1921-1922 Russian famine, Povolzhye famine (5 million),
  • 1930-1953 Russian Holocaust under Stalin (20 million),
  • 1994 Rwandan Genocide (0.9 million),
  • 1992 onwards Somali Genocide and Somali Holocaust (2.2 million),
  • 19th century South Pacific Genocide via disease (0.1 million)
  • 1930-1953 Soviet Union Holocaust under Stalin (20 million),
  • 1955-2018 Sudan Genocide and Sudan Holocaust (13 million),
  • 2011 onwards Syrian Genocide (1.0 million),
  • 1990-2018 Tamil Genocide in Sri Lanka (0.2 million),
  • 1975-1999 East Timorese Genocide (0.3 million),
  • 1930s Ukrainian Famine, Holodomor (7 million),
  • 1945-1975 Vietnamese Genocide and Vietnamese Holocaust (15.3 million),
  • 2015 onwards Yemeni Genocide (circa 0.1 million) (my sincere apologies for any absences or underestimates) (updated from [2, 139, 140]).

As pointed out by Soren Korsgaard,  in rich countries of  the West large numbers of people die preventably each year from “lifestyle choice” and  “political choice” reasons from the major causal items such as adverse hospital events, smoking, obesity and  air pollution to drugs, vehicle accidents, suicide and murder. It is estimated that such annual preventable  deaths from such “life style choice”  and “political choice” causes  in the rich countries of New Zealand ,  Australia, Canada, the UK,   and the US   (the members of the Anglosphere 5-eyes intelligence club) total 16,000, 85,000, 101,000, 150,000, and  1.7 million, respectively, and total preventable deaths in these countries since 9-11 total 0.3 million, 1.5 million, 1.8 million, 2.7 million and 30.2 million, respectively [141-147]. Successive US Administrations have committed to a long-term accrual cost of $6 trillion for the War on Terror, a gross fiscal perversion involving killing 30 million Muslims abroad rather than trying to address  30 million preventable  American deaths at home.  Just to take 1 item from this list of preventable deaths, one can readily estimate that  1,400 Australian veterans and 130,000 US veterans have suicided since 9-11 (in which 3,000 civilians died) as compared  to about 41 Australian war deaths and  7,000 US war deaths since 9-11 [147, 148]. Yet for all the Mainstream terror hysteria, jingoism, faux patriotism,  and Anglosphere fraternity, this carnage is largely ignored by Mainstream journalist, editor, politician, academic and commentariat presstitutes.

Wall street

The 4 main power groups of the US economy  are set out thus by Professor Jeffrey Sachs (Director of The Earth Institute, Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University)(2017): “There are four great lobbies in Washington: big oil, Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, and big health care. These industries spend billions of dollars a year to control the levers of power in their narrow self-interest. Most of what they favour runs against the broad public interest. In total, the four sectors spent around $1.5 billion in lobbying and another $1.5 billion in campaign financing in 2016, according to OpenSecrets.org” [149]. Wasting $6 trillion on the War on Terror and killing 30 million Muslims instead of trying to save the lives of 30 million Americans at home would make absolutely  no sense to an ordinary American (were he actually informed  about it by mendacious Mainstream media), but it makes perfect sense  from the perspective of  these 4 major industries. Thus  endless wars for oil and fossil fuel resource hegemony are good for big oil, the military-industrial complex, and Wall Street, and generate millions of physically and mentally damaged veterans (plus collateral damage to families)  that,  together with government failure to take assertedly “nanny state” actions to deal with horrendous preventable morbidity and mortality, means boom time for big health care and Big Pharma.

Rulers are responsible for the ruled. In rich countries like those of the Anglosphere,  corrupt and mendacious governments that are increasingly violating civil rights and privacy rights in the name of “altruistic collectivism”, “national security”,   “law and order” and “the greater good” must wear significant responsibility for such huge preventable deaths occurring as a result of lack of humane policies, preventive medicine, public education and legislated prohibitions.

Final comments

Soren Korsgaard’s well-referenced essay  “One World Digital Dictatorship”, is a timely, must-read  warning to the world about massive loss of civil rights and human rights due to massive data collection on individuals, censorship and  mass surveillance by governments. The technological developments enabling the Digital Dictatorship  are variously being applied worldwide by governments  and involve facial recognition, reporting via the Internet of Things (IoT), compulsory and detailed ID, compulsory acquisition of health records, widespread CCTV, compulsory metadata collection, detailed electronic intelligence of the kind collected by the US NSA as revealed by Edward Snowden, social credit systems utterly disempowering individuals, and cashless societies involving government-backed compulsory cashless transactions, compulsory record to government of transactions, and cryptocurrencies based on blockchain  technology. The relevant technologies have already been developed and applied with inevitable improvements foreshadowed (notably in face recognition as exampled by the scary Clearview system). The elements of the Digital Dictatorship are already installed both in wealthy parliamentary democracies like the US, UK and Australia and in one-party states (most notably China and the Gulf States).

As Lord Acton famously averred: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. People in the West have passively surrendered to Big Government on the basis of an asserted “collective good” in providing  useful services (e.g. in health service provision) and in enabling the authorities to deal effectively with criminals and terrorists. However the “rule of law” in the West now means draconian laws in pre-police states  that can potentially be applied to ordinary citizens like  you and me. Like the frog being slowly brought to the boil,  rich Western citizens have progressively  surrendered their civil rights to mendacious and grossly human-rights violating governments – the people must be informed and call  a halt to this perversion before it is too late. In one-party China and multi-party India the “altruistic  collectivism” for the “common good” is more  serious because of the need for peace, security and a decent life for  billions of relatively poor people. One hopes that one-party but economically pluralist  China, having brought  800 million people out of poverty (zero annual avoidable  deaths from deprivation),  succeeds in finding  a way to guarantee human rights as well as peace, security and  public order. Conversely, multi-party, capitalist  India   still struggles to achieve the fundamental  human rights of the right to life and a decent life for everyone  (4 million avoidable deaths from deprivation  each year) [2].

The worsening Climate Emergency and Climate Genocide adds an acute urgency to this worsening human rights  dilemma. Indeed it has been cogently argued by Professor Jorgen Randers that only science-informed , top-down authoritarian action by China can save the world because the  political short-termism of Western-style democracies (most notably in Trump America) has meant failure to urgently and  requisitely  tackle climate change [150]. That failure is reflected in inexorably increasing carbon pollution and collateral environmental  damage in numerous areas [18-32], and a global average Carbon Price that is only $2 per tonne CO2-e as compared to the expertly determined damage-related Carbon Price of $200 per tonne CO2-e that needs to be applied around the world [29-31]. Professor Jeffrey Sachs has pin-pointed the problem thus: “The greatest problem in Washington is not polarization but lying. The legislative machinery has ground to a halt not because of the great divide between liberals and conservatives but because of the great divide between the lobbyists and the people” [149].

Science-based, rational risk management, that is crucial for societal safety and security, successively involves (a) accurate information, (b) scientific analysis (the Popperian critical testing of potentially falsifiable hypotheses), and (c) science-informed systemic change to minimize harm when accidents inevitably happen. Unfortunately governments,  lobbyists and presstitutes typically pervert this protocol by (a) lying, censorship and intimidation, (b) anti-science spin (involving the selective use of asserted facts to support a partisan position), and (c) counterproductive but “popular” blame and shame  that prevents crucial primary reportage and in the worst case scenarios lead to war [151]. Thus, as noted by Soren Korsgaard, the Bush Administration  told 935 lies about Iraq between 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq [152]. Leading US journalists Seymour Hersh and Dr Paul Craig Roberts have exposed the gross falsehoods of Obama’s “killing of Osama bin Laden” story [153, 154]. At the present Davos Summit anti-science buffoon Trump dismissed the serious concerns of nearly all scientists about the worsening Climate Emergency as “alarmism”. The governments seeking to impose total digital control over their subjects are pathologically dishonest, and utterly mendacious. We give our personal and financial data to our bank on the basis of trust, but we simply cannot trust  the governments who are seeking to know “everything” about “everyone”. Governments lie and indeed the whole capitalist system is based on lying as described by  Polya’s Second Law of Economics which states that Deception about the Cost of Production (COP) strives to a maximum [116].

Knowledge is power and Jewish Hungarian American investor George Soros has attributed his success to a Popperian scientific  approach and exploiting situations when there is a big gap between reality and general public perception. As the window for crucial global action is closing, there is a huge asymmetry between  the wealth and power of the pro-fossil fuels, neoliberal  One Percenters and that of the rest of Humanity who are becoming increasingly alarmed. The presently dominant but unsustainable neoliberal ideology that has brought us to the brink demands maximal freedom for the smart and advantaged to exploit the natural and human resources of the world for private profit. Conversely, social humanism (eco-socialism, socialism, democratic socialism, the welfare state, a universal basic income) seeks to sustainably maximize human happiness, opportunity and dignity by evolving and culturally-sensitive intra-national and international social contracts [105-112]. Indeed in addition to the (country-based) UN General Assembly and the (power-based) UN Security Council there urgently needs to be a new element of World Government that is elected on a one-person-one-vote basis  and is devoted to economic matters including the sustainable  sharing of increasingly limited global resources [106, 122].  Presently we need to reduce atmospheric  CO2 back to 300 ppm CO2, seek to halve the human population,  and halve economic output (with  the First World bearing most of the burden) [122]. An American life-style for all means we need 7 Planet Earths, and a European lifestyle for all  means we need 3 Planet Earths [118].

Crucially, just as biological evolution by Darwinian natural selection requires mutation and genetic diversity, so social evolution and adaptation requires selection from a variety of ideas (memes)  [155]. Ergo, at this critical time  dissident views should be encouraged and not suppressed. Yet mass personal data acquisition  and social credit systems in a Digital Dictatorship will not only violate human rights and civil rights but will suppress  the very diversity of ideas that is crucial for tackling the present existential crisis facing Humanity. French philosopher René Descartes famously stated “I think, therefore I am” but in a Digital Dictatorship (Digital Prison) mendacious government will determine what we are allowed to think. What must decent people do? Decent people must (a) inform everyone they can, (b) urge zero tolerance for lying (including lying by omission), (c) insist on transparency and application of   the Universal Declaration on Human Rights to everyone [56],  and (d) urge and apply Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against all people, politicians, parties, corporations and countries complicit in the worsening digital imprisonment of Humanity.

*

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 Countercurrents.

Dr Gideon Polya taught science students at a major Australian university for 4 decades. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London , 2003).

Notes

[1]. Soren Korsgaard , “One World Digital Dictatorship”, Crime & Power, 5 January 2020: https://www.crimeandpower.com/2020/01/05/one-world-digital-dictatorship/ .

[2]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, that includes a succinct history  of every country and is now available for free perusal on the web: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ .

[3]. Gideon Polya, “Paris atrocity context: 27 Million Muslim Avoidable  Deaths From Imposed Deprivation In 20 Countries Violated By US Alliance Since 9-11”, Countercurrents, 22 November, 2015: https://countercurrents.org/polya221115.htm .

[4]. “Experts: US did 9-11”: https://sites.google.com/site/expertsusdid911/ .

[5]. “Patriot Act”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act .

[6]. Gideon Polya, “Redaction: Mainstream media censorship & self-censorship in pre-police-state Australia”, Countercurrents, 24 October 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/10/redaction-mainstream-media-censorship-self-censorship-in-pre-police-state-australia .

[7]. George Williams, “Sacrificing Civil Liberties to Counter Terrorism: Where Will it End?”, 2018 John Marsden Lecture, NSW Council for Civil Liberties, 22 November 2018: http://www.nswccl.org.au/2018_john_marsden_lecture_sacrificing_civil_liberties_to_counter_terrorism_where_will_it_end.

[8]. Gideon Polya, “50 Ways Australian Intelligence Spies On Australia And The World For UK , Israeli And US State Terrorism”,  Countercurrents, 11 December, 2013: https://countercurrents.org/polya111213.htm .

[9]. Gideon Polya, “Terror Hysteria –  Draconian New Australian Anti-Terrorism Laws Target Journalists,  Muslims And Human Rights”,  Countercurrents, 8 October, 2014: https://countercurrents.org/polya0810114.htm .

[10]. Gideon Polya, “Media lying, media censorship & Australian Federal Police raids on media in pre-police state Australia”, Countercurrents, 15 June 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/06/media-lying-media-censorship-australian-federal-police-raids-on-media-in-pre-police-state-australia

[11]. Gideon Polya, “Craven US lackey Australia betrays Australian & world hero Julian Assange & free journalism”, Countercurrents, 13 April 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/04/craven-us-lackey-australia-betrays-australian-world-hero-julian-assange-free-journalism .

[12]. “Julian Assange”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange .

[13]. Gideon Polya, “Truth & Boycotts, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) Can Overcome Huge Inequities Suffered By African Americans Under American Apartheid”, Countercurrents, 29 September, 2014: https://countercurrents.org/polya290914.htm .

[14]. Saki Knafo, “Voting rights of Black Americans trampled by “New Jim Crow”, civil rights advocates say”, Huffington Post Black Voices, 21 September2014:   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/black-america-2013_n_3647789.html .

[15]. Michelle  Alexander, “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness”, The New Press, 2010.

[16]. Michelle  Alexander, “The war on drugs and the New Jim Crow”, Race, Poverty, Environment, Vol. 17, No. 1 | Spring 2010: http://reimaginerpe.org/20years/alexander .

[17]. Paul Farrell and Alex McDonald, “Centre Link robo-debt system is “extortion”, says  former tribunal member”, ABC News, 27 June 2019: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-27/centrelink-robo-debt-system-extortion-former-tribunal-member/11252306 .

[18]. Timothy Lenton, Johan Rockstrom, Owen Gaffney, Stefan Rahmsdorf, Katherine Richardson, Will Steffen and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber,  “Climate tipping points – too risky to bet against” , Nature 575, 592-595, 27 November 2019: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0 .

[19]. IPCC, “Global warming of 1.5 °C”, 8 October 2018: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/ .

[20]. IPCC, “Global warming of 1.5 °C. Summary for Policymakers”, 8 October 2018: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf .

[21]. William Ripple et al.., “World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency”, BioScience,  5 November 2019: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806 .

[22]. Gideon Polya, “Extrapolating 11,000 scientists’ climate emergency warning to 2030 climate catastrophe”, Countercurrents, 14 November 2019:  https://countercurrents.org/2019/11/extrapolating-11000-scientists-climate-emergency-warning-to-2030-catastrophe .

[23]. William J. Ripple et al., 15,364 signatories from 184 countries, “World scientists’ warning to Humanity: a second notice”, Bioscience, 13 November 2017: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix125/4605229 .

[24]. Gideon Polya, “Over 15,000 scientists issue dire warning to humanity on catastrophic climate change and biodiversity loss”, Countercurrents, 20 November 2017: https://countercurrents.org/2017/11/20/over-15000-scientists-issue-dire-warning-to-humanity-on-catastrophic-climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss/ .

[25]. James Hansen, “Climate change in a nutshell: the gathering storm”, Columbia University, 18 December 2018: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20181206_Nutshell.pdf  .

[26]. Gideon Polya, “IPCC +1.5C avoidance report – effectively too late,  but stop coal burning for “less bad”  catastrophes’, Countercurrents, 12 October 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/10/ipcc-1-5c-avoidance-report-effectively-too-late-but-stop-coal-burning-for-less-bad-catastrophes .

[27]. Andrew Glikson, “Inferno: from climate denial to planetary arson”, Countercurrents, 8 September 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/09/inferno-from-climate-denial-to-planetary-arson .

[28]. Gideon Polya, “Inescapable $200-$250 trillion global Carbon Debt increasing by $16 trillion annually”, Countercurrents, 27 April 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/04/inescapable-200-250-trillion-global-carbon-debt-increasing-by-16-trillion-annually-gideon-polya .

[29].  Chris Hope, “How high should climate change taxes be?”, Working Paper Series, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, 9.2011: http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/workingpapers/wp1109.pdf .

[30]. International Monetary Fund (IMF), “Fiscal Monitor: how to mitigate climate change”. Executive Summary”, September  2019: file:///C:/Users/Gideon/AppData/Local/Temp/execsum-6.pdf  .

[31]. Gideon Polya, “Australia rejects IMF Carbon Tax & preventing 4 million pollution deaths by 2030”, Countercurrents, 15 October 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/10/australia-rejects-imf-carbon-tax-preventing-4-million-pollution-deaths-by-2030 .

[32]. Gideon Polya, “War criminal & climate criminal Australian deception at UN General Assembly”, Countercurrents, 29 September 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/09/war-criminal-climate-criminal-australian-deception-at-un-general-assembly .

[33]. “Boycott Murdoch Media”: https://sites.google.com/site/boycottmurdochmedia/ .

[34]. Gideon Polya, “Review: “No Friend but the Mountains” – Australia’s Manus Island Concentration Camp exposed”, Countercurrents, 11 April 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/04/review-no-friend-but-the-mountains-australias-manus-island-concentration-camp-exposed .

[35]. Human Rights Commission, “Face the facts: asylum seekers and refugees”, 2014: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/face-facts-asylum-seekers-and-refugees .

[36]. Refugee Council of Australia, “Statistics on people in detention in Australia”, 15 February 2019: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/detention-australia-statistics/ .

[37]. Refugee Council of Australia, “Australia’s detention policies”, 17 May 2016: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/detention-policies/ .

[38]. Sarah Dehm, “The evidence is clear: the medevac law saves lives. But even this isn’t enough to alleviate refugee suffering” ”, The Conversation, 2 October 2019: https://theconversation.com/the-evidence-is-clear-the-medevac-law-saves-lives-but-even-this-isnt-enough-to-alleviate-refugee-suffering-125308 .

[39]. Melissa Davey, “Cashless welfare card treats Aboriginal people “as third-class citizens””, Guardian, 10 January 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jan/10/cashless-welfare-card-treats-aboriginal-people-third-class-citizens .

[40]. “Australia Card”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Card .

[41]. Fergus Hanson, “Preventing another Australia Card fail”, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, 18 October 2018: https://www.aspi.org.au/report/preventing-another-australia-card-fail .

[42]. “National identity card (France)”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_card_(France) .

[43]. “Xinjiang”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang.

[44]. “Uyghurs”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs  .

[45]. Susan Abulhawa, “Israel’s “nation-state law” parallels the Nazi Nuremburg Laws”, Al Jazeera, 27 July 2018: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/israel-nation-state-law-parallels-nazi-nuremberg-laws-180725084739536.html .

[46]. “Discriminatory laws in Israel:, Adalah, https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index?page=4 .

[47]. Gideon Polya, “70th anniversary of Apartheid Israel & commencement of large-scale Palestinian Genocide”, Countercurrents, 11 May 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/05/11/70th-anniversary-of-apartheid-israel-commencement-of-large-scale-palestinian-genocide/ .

[48]. Gideon Polya, “Israeli-Palestinian & Middle East conflict – from oil to climate genocide”, Countercurrents, 21 August 2017: https://countercurrents.org/2017/08/21/israeli-palestinian-middle-east-conflict-from-oil-to-climate-genocide/ .

[49]. Gideon Polya, “End 50 Years Of Genocidal Occupation & Human Rights Abuse By US-Backed Apartheid Israel”, Countercurrents,  9 June  2017: https://countercurrents.org/2017/06/09/end-50-years-of-genocidal-occupation-human-rights-abuse-by-us-backed-apartheid-israel/ .

[50]. Gideon Polya, “UK racist Zionists falsely defame UK Labour Party in defence of democracy-by-genocide Apartheid Israel”, Countercurrents,  10 August 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/08/uk-racist-zionists-falsely-defame-uk-labour-party-in-support-of-democracy-by-genocide-apartheid-israel .

[51]. Gideon Polya, “Refutation Of Mainstream-Accepted Racist Zionist Lies Behind  Israel ‘s Gaza Massacres And Palestinian Genocide”,  Countercurrents, 26 July, 2014: https://www.countercurrents.org/polya260714.htm .

[52]. Gideon Polya, “Israeli Jewish Nation-State Law enshrines Apartheid and genocidal racism”, Countercurrents, 24 July 2018:  https://countercurrents.org/2018/07/24/israeli-jewish-nation-state-law-enshrines-apartheid-and-genocidal-racism/ .

[53]. Gideon Polya, “Democratic one-state solution ( unitary state, bi-national state) for post-Apartheid Palestine”, Countercurrents, 22 December 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/12/22/democratic-one-state-solution-unitary-state-bi-national-state-for-post-apartheid-palestine/ .

[54]. “One-state solution, unitary state, bi-national state for a democratic, equal rights, post-apartheid Palestine”, : https://sites.google.com/site/boycottapartheidisrael/one-state-solution  .

[55]. Gideon Polya, “Apartheid Israel’s Palestinian Genocide & Australia’s Aboriginal  Genocide compared”, Countercurrents, 20 February 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/02/20/apartheid-israels-palestinian-genocide-australias-aboriginal-genocide-compared/  .

[56]. Gideon Polya, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights & Palestinians. Apartheid Israel violates ALL Palestinian Human Rights”, Palestine Genocide Essays, 24 January 2009: https://sites.google.com/site/palestinegenocideessays/universal-declaration-of-human-rights-palestinians .

[57]. “Muslim Holocaust Muslim Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/ .

[58]. “Aboriginal Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/aboriginalgenocide/ .

[59]. Bruce Pascoe,  “Dark Emu”, Magabala Books, 2014.

[60]. “Blake’s 7”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake%27s_7 .

[61]. “Enemy of the State (film)”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_State_(film) .

[62]. “Changing Lanes”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changing_Lanes .

[63]. “Bourne (film series)”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourne_(film_series) .

[64]. Philip Dorling, “Australian intelligence “feeding data” for deadly US drone strikes”, Sydney Morning Herald, 26 May 2014:http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australian-intelligence-feeding-data-used-for-deadly-us-drone-strikes-20140526-38ywk.html .

[65]. Gideon Polya, “US, UK,  Australia, Canada & Germany Reject Iraqi Parliament’s Quit Iraq Demand”, Countercurrents, 16 January 2020: https://countercurrents.org/2020/01/us-uk-australia-canada-germany-reject-iraqi-parliaments-quit-iraq-demand .

[66]. Brian Toohey, “Secret. The making of Australia’s security state”, University of Melbourne Press, 2019.

[67]. Philip Dorling, “ US share raw intelligence on Australia with Israel ”, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 September 2013:http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-shares-raw-intelligence-on-australians-with-israel-20130912-2tllm.html .

[68]. Henry Belot, “Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of storing data in Australia”, 28 March 2019: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-28/microsoft-says-companies-are-no-longer-comfortable-storing-data/10946494 .

[69]. Gideon Polya, “Demonetisation, WW2 Bengal Famine and horrendous Indian avoidable mortality then and now”, Countercurrents, 11 January 2017: https://countercurrents.org/2017/01/demonetisation-ww2-bengal-famine-and-horrendous-indian-avoidable-mortality-then-and-now .

[70]. “Citizen Amendment Act protests”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests .

[71]. Daniele Selby, “Why 4 million people in  India are now effectively stateless”, Global Citizen, 31 July 2018: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/india-assam-national-citizen-register-stateless/.

[72]. Gideon Polya , “Review: “Tears In Paradise. Suffering and Struggle Of Indians In Fiji 1879-2004” by Rajendra Prasad – Britain’s Indentured Indian “5 Year Slaves””, Countercurrents, 4 March, 2015: https://countercurrents.org/polya040315.htm .

[73]. Gideon Polya, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability”, now available  for free perusal on the web: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/2008/09/jane-austen-and-black-hole-of-british.html  . 

[74].”2019 Samoa measles outbreak”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Samoa_measles_outbreak .

[75]. “Gun law of Australia”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_of_Australia .

[76]. Julia Powles, “There is no social licence for My Health Record. Australians should reject it”, Guardian, 20 July 2018: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/there-is-no-social-license-for-my-health-record-australians-should-reject-it .

[77]. Christopher Knaus, “More than 2.5 million people have opted out of My Health Record”, Guardian, 20 February 2019: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/20/more-than-25-million-people-have-opted-out-of-my-health-record .

[78]. “Merle Oberon”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merle_Oberon .

[79]. “Personal genomics”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_genomics .

[80]. Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, “Manufacturing  Consent. The political economy of the mass media”, Pantheon, 1988, 2002.

[81]. “Censorship by the BBC”: https://sites.google.com/site/censorshipbythebbc/  .

[82]. Mainstream media censorship”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/home  .

[83]. “Mainstream media lying”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammedialying/  .

[84]. Gideon Polya, “Mainstream media fake news through lying by omission”, MWC News, 1 April 2017: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammedialying/2017-04-01 .

[85]. Gideon Polya,” Australian ABC & UK BBC fake news through lying by omission”, Countercurrents, 2 May 2017: https://countercurrents.org/2017/05/australian-abc-and-uk-bbc-fake-news-through-lying-by-omission .

[86]. “Lying by omission is worse than lying by commission because at least the latter permits refutation and public debate”, Mainstream media lying: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammedialying/lying-by-omission .

[87]. Gideon Polya, “Do Bing Searches to circumvent mendacious pro-Zionist Google Searches – Bing it!”, Countercurrents, 30 April 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/04/do-bing-searches-to-circumvent-mendacious-pro-zionist-google-censorship-bing-it .

[88]. Gideon Polya, “Zionist subversion, Mainstream media censorship”, Countercurrents, 9 March 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/03/09/zionist-subversion-mainstream-media-censorship-disproportionate-jewish-board-membership-of-us-media-companies/ .

[89]. WSWS, “Google’s new search protocol is restricting access to 13 leading socialist, progressive and anti-war sites”, WSWS, 2 August 2017: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/02/pers-a02.html .

[90]. Gideon Polya, “Google censorship & Zionist constraint on effective free speech threaten planet”, Countercurrents, 9 August 2017: https://countercurrents.org/2017/08/09/google-censorship-zionist-constraint-on-effective-free-speech-threaten-planet/ .

[91]. Gideon Polya, “Media Lying, Media Censorship & Australian Federal Police Raids On Media In Pre-Police State Australia”, Countercurrents, 15 June 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/06/media-lying-media-censorship-australian-federal-police-raids-on-media-in-pre-police-state-australia  .

[92]. Maryam Mohsin, “10 Google Search statistics you need to know in 2020, Oberlo, 17 November 2019: https://au.oberlo.com/blog/google-search-statistics .

[93]. I.F. Stone, quoted in “Two words – governments lie. Iraqi oil, climate change and Tony Blair”, Media Lens, 22 January 2003: http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=239:two-words-governments-lie-iraq-oil-climate-change-and-tony-blair&catid=17:alerts-2003&Itemid=42 .

[94]. I.F. Stone, quoted in Gideon Polya, “Iraqi Holocaust”, ConScience, Australasian Science, 2 June 2004: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/33427-iraqi-holocaust/ .

[95]. Gore Vidal interviewed by Melvyn Bragg on the South Bank Show”, 2008: http://warincontext.org/2012/08/01/remembering-gore-vidal-change-is-the-nature-of-life-and-its-hope/ .

[96]. “Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war”, CNN, 2004: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/ .

[97].  Gideon Polya, “Australia And Britain Killed 6-7 Million Indians In WW2 Bengal Famine”, Countercurrents, 29 September, 2011: https://countercurrents.org/polya290911.htm .

[98]. “Bengali Holocaust (WW2 Bengal Famine) writings of Gideon Polya”: https://sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/bengali-holocaust .

[99]. Gideon Polya, “Craven US lackey Australia betrays Australian & World hero Julian Assange & free journalism”,   Countercurrents, 13 April 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/04/craven-us-lackey-australia-betrays-australian-world-hero-julian-assange-free-journalism .

[100]. Lesley Stahl and Madeleine Albright quoted in “Madeleine Albright”, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright .

[101]. Greta Thunberg, “No one is too small to make a difference”, Penguin, 2019.

[102].  Gideon Polya, “50 reasons for Free University Education as we  bequeath the young a dying planet”, Countercurrents,  19 March 2017: https://countercurrents.org/2017/03/50-reasons-for-free-university-education-as-we-bequeath-the-young-a-dying-planet  .

[103]. Hazel Ferguson and Henry Sherrell,   “Overseas students in Australian higher education: a quick guide”, Australian Parliamentary Library, 20 June 2019: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1819/Quick_Guides/OverseasStudents.

[104]. Kashmir Hill, “The secretive company that might end privacy as we know it”, New York Times, 18 January 2020: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-privacy-facial-recognition.html?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=1d9918dc04-briefing-dy-20200120&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-1d9918dc04-44714333 .

[105]. Brian Ellis,   “The New Enlightenment. On Steven Pinker & beyond”,  Australian Scholarly Publishing , Melbourne, 2019.

[106]. Gideon Polya, “Review: “The New Enlightenment” by Brian Ellis  – World Government & Social Humanism to save Humanity, Countercurrents, 7 October 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/10/review-the-new-enlightenment-by-brian-ellis-world-government-social-humanism-to-save-humanity .

[107]. Brian Ellis, ”Social Humanism. A New Metaphysics”,  Routledge , UK , 2012.

[108]. Gideon Polya, “Book Review: “Social Humanism. A New Metaphysics” By Brian Ellis –  Last Chance To Save Planet?”, Countercurrents,  19 August, 2012: https://countercurrents.org/polya190812.htm .

[109]. Brian Ellis, “Rationalism. A critique of pure theory”, Australian Scholarly, Melbourne, 2017.

[110]. Gideon Polya, “Review: “Rationalism” by Brian Ellis, Countercurrents, 14 August 2017: https://countercurrents.org/2017/08/review-rationalism-by-brian-ellis .

[111]. Gideon Polya, “Enlightenment Now” by Steven Pinker – Climate Genocide & Avoidable Mortality Holocaust ignored”, Countercurrents, 7 Septmeber 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/09/review-enlightenment-now-by-steven-pinker-climate-genocide-avoidable-mortality-holocaust-ignored .

[112]. Gideon Polya, “Canadian academic: “F… neoliberalism”, MWC News, 14 May 2016: http://mwcnews.com/focus/analysis/58847-f-neoliberalism.html .

[113]. Kate Whiting, “5 shocking facts about inequality, according to Oxfam’s latest report”, World Economic Forum, 20 January 2020: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/5-shocking-facts-about-inequality-according-to-oxfam-s-latest-report/ .

[114]. Professor Stephen Hawking quoted in  Will Dunham, “Nuclear, climate perils push Doomsday Clock ahead”, Reuters, 22 January 2007: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN17314370 .

[115].  Stephen Hawking, “Brief Answers to the Big Questions”, John Murray, 2018, Chapter 7.

[116].  Gideon Polya, “Polya’s 3 Laws of Economics expose deadly, dishonest  and terminal neoliberal capitalism”, Countercurrents,  17 October, 2015: https://www.countercurrents.org/polya171015.htm .

[117]. Gideon Polya,  “Millions join Global School Climate Strike – we are running out of time ”, 22 September 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/09/millions-join-global-school-climate-strike-we-are-running-out-of-time .

[118]. Irene Banos Ruiz , “China’s new love affair with dogs – as pets, not food – presents environmental  problems”, DW, 21 June 2016:  https://www.dw.com/en/chinas-new-love-affair-with-dogs-as-pets-not-food-presents-environmental-problems/a-19197523 .

[119]. “Climate Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/home .

[120]. Gideon Polya,  “Green Left Pope Francis Demands Climate Action “Without Delay” To Prevent Climate “Catastrophe””, Countercurrents, 10 August, 2015: https://www.countercurrents.org/polya100815.htm .

[121]. Gideon Polya, “Pope decrees full Carbon Price”,  MWC News, 28 July 2015: http://www.mwcnews.com/focus/analysis/53226-pope-decree.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter .

[122]. Gideon Polya, “How much negative carbon emissions, negative population growth & negative economic growth is needed  to save planet?”, Countercurrents, 28 November 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/11/how-much-negative-carbon-emissions-negative-population-growth-negative-economic-growth-is-needed-to-save-planet .

[123]. Deloitte, “Can Bitcoin accelerate Internet of Things (IoT) adoption?”, https://www2.deloitte.com/ch/en/pages/innovation/articles/blockchain-accelerate-iot-adoption.html .

[124]. Jack Derwin, “Cash was predicted to be dead in Australia as early as 2020, but there are plenty of reasons for it to be king for a while yet”, Business Insider Australia, 10 October 2019: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/australia-cashless-society-cash-ban-card-payments-2019-10 .

[124]. Nassim Khadem, “Paying more than $10,000 in cash could make you a criminal under proposed law”, ABC News, 20 August 2019: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-20/transacting-$10,000-or-more-in-cash-could-make-you-a-criminal/11429230 .

[125]. Michael Slezak, “Gillian Triggs: Australian government “ideologically opposed to human rights””, Guardian, 26 July 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/26/gillian-triggs-australian-government-ideologically-opposed-to-human-rights

[126]. Gideon Polya, “Pro-Apartheid Australia’s New White Australia Policy & compulsory  Australian values statement”, Countercurrents, 12 May 2017: https://countercurrents.org/2017/05/pro-apartheid-australias-new-white-australia-policy-compulsory-australian-values-statement .

[127]. Gideon Polya, “”Advance Australia Fair” hides Australian racism, theft, genocide, ecocide, speciescide &  terracide”, Countercurrents, 1 July 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/07/advance-australia-fair-hides-australian-racism-theft-genocide-ecocide-speciescide-terracide .

[128]. John Pilger, “The forgotten coup – how America and Britain crushed the government of their “ally” Australia”, John Pilger, 23 October 2014: http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-forgotten-coup-how-america-and-britain-crushed-the-government-of-their-ally-australia .

[129]. Christopher Knaus, “Witness K and the “outrageous” spy scandal that failed to shame Australia”, Guardian, 10 August 2019:  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/10/witness-k-and-the-outrageous-spy-scandal-that-failed-to-shame-australia .

[130]. Andrew Probyn, “”The quiet person you pass in the street”: Secret prisoner Witness J revealed”, ABC News, 5 December 2019: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-05/witness-j-revealed-secret-trial/11764676 .

[131]. Gideon Polya, “Trumpist climate change denial, Australian bushfires,  fuel reduction, biochar & Carbon Debt”, Countercurrents, 10 January 2020: https://countercurrents.org/2020/01/trumpist-climate-change-denial-australian-bushfires-fuel-reduction-biochar-carbon-debt .

[132]. World Wildlife Fund, “Bushfire emergency”, 2020: https://www.wwf.org.au/get-involved/bushfire-emergency .

[133]. Gideon Polya, “British Have Invaded 193 Countries:  Make  26 January ( Australia Day, Invasion Day) British Invasion Day”, Countercurrents, 23 January, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya230115.htm .

[134]. Gideon Polya, “As UK Lackeys Or US Lackeys Australians Have Invaded 85 Countries (British 193, French 80, US 70)”, Countercurrents, 9 February, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya090215.htm .

[135]. Gideon Polya, “President Hollande And French Invasion Of Privacy Versus French Invasion Of 80 Countries Since 800 AD”, Countercurrents, 15 January, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya150114.htm  .

[136]. Gideon Polya, “The US Has Invaded 70 Nations Since 1776 – Make 4 July Independence From America Day”, Countercurrents, 5 July, 2013: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050713.htm .

[137]. “Stop state terrorism” : https://sites.google.com/site/stopstateterrorism/ .  

[138].”State crime and non-state terrorism”: https://sites.google.com/site/statecrimeandnonstateterrorism/  .

[139]. Gideon Polya, “Media Lying, Media Censorship & Australian Federal Police Raids On Media In Pre-Police State Australia”, Countercurrents, 15 June 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/06/media-lying-media-censorship-australian-federal-police-raids-on-media-in-pre-police-state-australia .

[140]. Gideon Polya, “Review “Enlightenment Now” by Steven Pinker – Climate Genocide & Avoidable Mortality Holocaust ignored ”, Countercurrents, 7 September 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/09/review-enlightenment-now-by-steven-pinker-climate-genocide-avoidable-mortality-holocaust-ignored .

[141]. Gideon Polya, “Australia Shocked By Cricket Ball Tampering But Ignores Horrendous Australian Crimes From Child Abuse To Genocide”, Countercurrents, 24 April 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/04/24/australia-shocked-by-cricket-ball-tampering-but-ignores-horrendous-australian-crimes-from-child-abuse-to-genocide/ .

[142]. Gideon Polya, “Australian State Terrorism –  Zero Australian Terrorism Deaths, 1 Million Preventable Australian Deaths & 10 Million Muslims Killed By US Alliance Since 9-11”,  Countercurrents, 23 September, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya230914.htm .

[143]. Gideon Polya, “Pro-Zionist, Pro-war, Pro-Opium, War Criminal  Canadian Government Defames Iran & Cuts Diplomatic Links”,  Countercurrents, 10 September, 2012: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya100912.htm .

[144]. Gideon Polya, “UK Terror Hysteria exposed – Empirical Annual Probability of UK Terrorism Death 1 in 16 million”,  Countercurrents, 16 September, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya160914.htm .

[145]. Gideon Polya, “West Ignores 11 Million Muslim War Deaths & 23 Million Preventable American Deaths Since US Government’s False-flag 9-11 Atrocity”, Countercurrents, 9 September, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya090915.htm

[146]. Gideon Polya, “Corporate terrorism is state sanctioned, kills  over 30 million people annually and dooms humanity by lying”, State crime and non-state terrorism: https://sites.google.com/site/statecrimeandnonstateterrorism/corporate-terrorism .

[147]. Gideon Polya, “Jingoistic, US Lackey Australia’s Deadly Betrayal Of Its Traumatized Veterans”, Countercurrents, 18 May 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/05/26768 .

[148]. I-casualties.org: http://icasualties.org/

[149]. Jeffrey Sachs, “Lies and the lying lobbyists who tell them”, Common Dreams, 20 July 2017: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/07/20/lies-and-lying-lobbyists-who-tell-them .

[150]. Jorgen Randers, “Systematic short-termism:  Climate, capitalism and democracy”, Climate Code red, 2012: http://www.climatecodered.org/2012/11/systematic-short-termism-climate.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateCodeRed+%28climate+code+red%29 .

[151]. “Gideon Polya”: https://sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/home .

[152].  Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war”, CNN, 2004:http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/ .

[153]. Lisa O’Carroll, “Seymour Hersh on the death of Osama bin Laden: “It’s one big lie, not a word of it is true’””, Guardian, 27 September 2013 via The Raw Story: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/27/seymour-hersh-on-death-of-osama-bin-laden-its-one-big-lie-not-one-word-of-it-is-true/ .

[154]. Paul Craig Roberts, “Seymour Hersh Succumbs To Disinformation”, Countercurrents, 11 May, 2015: https://countercurrents.org/roberts110515A.htm .

[155]. Richard Dawkins, “The Selfish Gene”, Oxford University Press, 1976.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

Impeach the Impeachers

January 23rd, 2020 by Dr. T. P. Wilkinson

Disclaimer: The author in no way implicitly or explicitly supports the pretensions of the US regime to commit overt or covert acts of aggression or interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign states by its constitutional or extra-legal institutions whether performed by executive, legislative or judicial institutions or their respective officers, agents or assigns. The accidents by which such violations of customary and explicit (treaty-based) international law are regularly committed by the regime are in the author’s view a matter of joint and several liability. No “branch” of the regime can transfer liability or culpability to another branch whether for convenience or to satisfy its own unique interpretation of international law or the scope of “national interest” under the colour of law.

***

Given the aforesaid, the articles of impeachment submitted to the US Senate, as the chamber charged historically with representing the wealthiest in the respective states, by the US House of Representatives, the chamber charged with representing the wealthiest individuals among the population, in the case of the servile president of the United States, charged with representing the combination of unelected covert and overt institutions of the US empire, is first of all proof that the United States of America is represented by some of the most poorly educated and simultaneously pretentiously arrogant people in recorded history.

The first impeachment trial in US history, against President Andrew Johnson, was politically justified by the fact that a congress dominated by a Republican party intent on enforcing the results of the recently ended US civil war could argue that the serving president failed to execute laws enacted by Congress that, as executive officer, it was his duty to enforce. Despite the prima facie case that President Johnson, undoubtedly sympathetic to the slaveholder regime that had prevailed until 1864, had failed to enforce the laws adopted by Congress at the time, the bill of impeachment failed in the Senate. (It should be noted however that even in Andrew Johnson’s impeachment the bill accused him of violating a law, which formally had little to do with the latent grounds for impeachment.)

The second impeachment, against President Richard Nixon, alleged after intensive investigation, that he had violated ordinary criminal laws and collaborated in such a way as to hinder prosecutions which ultimately were successful– that is to say by virtue of convictions could be established as crimes in which Mr Nixon in his capacity as president was clearly complicit. Whether the Senate would have convicted him became a moot question since Mr Nixon resigned (and was subsequently pardoned by the Vice President appointed to replace one Mr Agnew who resigned because of crimes for which he was also later convicted. There were even proper allegations that Mr Nixon acted in pursuance of covert foreign policy objectives to which there was increasing popular political opposition and hence a need for individual sacrifice from among the ruling elite– to which Mr Nixon never actually belonged, and therefore could finally be deemed expendable. Some would say that Nixon was smart enough to know first hand that one could be removed from office by termination with extreme prejudice and therefore chose San Clemente retirement– with later rehabilitation.

The third impeachment, against President William J Clinton, alleged that he committed crimes in civil matters that had also not yet been conclusively adjudicated. No pretence was made that Mr Clinton committed any felonies that in any way impaired his capacity to conduct the usual vicious policies of US Empire. (He notoriously ordered the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Africa during the proceedings under the pretext that producing locally otherwise expensive drugs was a terrorist act to be punished by the US.) That impeachment failed in the Senate, not only because of the incompetence of those responsible for lodging the action but also because of implicit consensus that sexual offenses are not an exclusive domain of the Executive but constitute a sphere of activity among all branches of the constitutional government of the US.

The fourth impeachment, against President Donald Trump, alleges that he committed crimes that are essentially questions of “good taste” or “manners”. After a tortuous three quarters of Mr Trump’s term, the partisans of the Bush-Clinton enterprise– in which the Clintons have been the junior “white trash” partners, have been unable to find anything substantive with which to charge Mr Trump in which they are not themselves complicit. The bill is most curious because its central accusations are based upon principles, which are utterly inconsistent with more than two centuries of constitutional practice.

The core of the complaint– to the extent it is not simply sophomoric– is that President Donald Trump refused to execute the foreign policy of the United States. This is also called the “national interest” in the bill– a recognised euphemism for whatever corporate objectives can be imposed through the regime and what it expropriates from ordinary people both domestically and abroad. This is patently ridiculous.

It has become a matter of conventional if not explicit constitutional law that the foreign policy of the United States is the prerogative of the Executive, the President of the United States. While the Constitution states that treaties are to be ratified by the US Senate, there has never been either a constitutional or a statutory basis for the Congress to formulate, let alone execute foreign policy. At the most it can legislate to restrain or it can refuse funding or it can deny the confirmation of those ambassadors and other plenipotentiaries appointed by the POTUS to facilitate such policy.

One can therefore conclude that even if there were no Republican majority in the Senate– were that chamber to be composed of persons with some semblance of legal education and cognizance of constitutional law and national history– then this allegation in the articles of impeachment would fail on its own without further consideration of the facts. It is simply constitutional nonsense.

The next amusing point is the allegation that President Trump committed acts that were calculated to influence elections not yet held against candidates not yet extant. In contrast Mr Nixon was accused of acts during an election campaign when actual candidates could be deemed to have been harmed. Even if the acts alleged to have been taken by President Trump could have caused harm to another corrupt politician, the fact is that neither the campaign nor the election to which the articles refer have commenced. A potential candidate does not enjoy special protection from examination of his corrupt conduct simply because he might be the nominee of the party most likely to oppose the serving POTUS. One can only interfere in an election that is actually in process. It is ridiculous to assert interference in an election campaign that might not even occur.

Much is made of the special prerogative of the US House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings. The argument presented however is actually quite different. The bill of impeachment insists that- like the much criticized grand jury method in Anglo-American law- the House is entitled to deny due process and the rights of the accused. The US Constitution– unlike its progenitor the British Constitution– does not establish parliamentary supremacy. The Executive is constituted as independent and co-equal with the Legislative. Thus the only moderating power– that conceived by the slave-holding founding fathers– is the third estate, namely the judiciary.

Mr Nixon was charged with obstruction of justice not because he refused to cooperate with the Congress but because he refused the authority of the Judiciary. Then the Congress requested testimony and evidence and failing its delivery by the President or his officers, sought judicial relief. When this was granted Mr Nixon and/ or his officers frustrated judicial process. This constituted a valid charge since the Executive has never been held to be immune from judicial process per se.

Curiously the inquisitors in the House have never sought judicial relief through the courts. (The Justice Department, to which the FBI also belongs as a subordinate agency, is part of the Executive and not the Judiciary– a point easily missed by those whose legal system is based on the continental European inquisitorial model.) Is it because they knew that they could not satisfy even the most rudimentary evidentiary rules to establish the probity of their claims? We can only speculate. However reading the bill of impeachment itself shows that the drafters must have come from either the least literate of the legal staff or perhaps comprised attorneys whose only claim to membership in the profession are exams from some offshore diploma mill.

There are a few questions to ask those who demand the removal of Trump. One of them is whether they are essentially supporting the Vice President, Michael Pence? Strangely we hear nothing about presidential succession from those who claim that removing Mr Trump is the holy mission of all liberals. If the loud and visible Mr Trump were to leave or be removed, then the silent but no doubt equally deadly Mr Pence would assume office. What kind of improvement would that be? Perhaps this is what some less vocal advocates of impeachment really wish– having seen Pence as the man with real POTUS stature but — like a Bush practically unelectable– they would now like to remove the man who got the votes and replace him with their man who knows how to play the game. In such a case might it also make sense to keep Mr Trump in office just long enough to get past the elections and then fire him, so to speak? After all it is clear that there is no Democratic alternative capable of uniting the rich, the naive, and those who traditionally only want to vote for the winner. Who really benefits from a Trump conviction?

Of course there are reasons enough for impeaching any President of the United States and there always will be as long at the chief executive of the US is head of the largest military-industrial warmongering apparatus on the planet. However those are not the reasons for which any majority in the Congress would deign to impeach.

Impeachment, even under British law– from which the principle derives– has always been a political instrument for partisan purposes. One of the longest impeachment trials in recent British history was that of Warren Hastings who was accused by the Commons and tried before the House of Lords for abuse of power and enrichment as a servant of the British East India Company. Parliament assumed jurisdiction over his actions because the East India Company enjoyed a royal charter. The trial lasted for many years and ultimately Hastings was acquitted. He was acquitted not because he had not enriched himself or abused power in India but because sufficient numbers in the Lords understood that Hastings governance of India was profitable for enough of them too.

There is no judicial or quasi-judicial remedy for the abuse of power, corruption and viciousness of the US regime whether in Congress assembled, as President elected and inaugurated, or as court sitting. The illusion that a spectacle on the floor of the US Senate will change anything in the way the US regime acts at home or abroad is poor entertainment and degenerate politics.

The capacity of the US media– from “Left” to Right– to absorb the world with this spectacle in which no real crime will ever be mentioned let alone deliberated is obscene. It is difficult not to find US political culture the epitome of pornography but without the least erotic titillation. Or perhaps that is mistaken. In a country that is unable to transcend anything except gender, titillation is both primitive and presidential and the prurient interest extends to all branches of the government so constituted.

*

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 T.P. Wilkinson writes, teaches History and English, directs theatre and coaches cricket between the cradles of Heine and Saramago. He is also the author of Church Clothes, Land, Mission and the End of Apartheid in South Africa

Democratic presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard is suing two-time White House runner-up Hillary Clinton over her claim that Gabbard was a “Russian asset,” alleging that the lie hurt not just her campaign but the entire election.

Clinton “lied about her perceived rival Tulsi Gabbard… publicly, unambiguously, and with obvious malicious intent” when she claimed Gabbard was “the favorite of the Russians,” the campaign alleges in the suit, filed on Wednesday in the federal Southern District of New York. While Clinton isn’t technically running against Gabbard in the 2020 contest, the filing drily notes that the role of president is “a position Clinton has long coveted, but has not been able to attain.”

The filing alleges Clinton harmed not just Gabbard but also “American voters” and “American democracy” by pushing the baseless smear, citing “scientifically conducted opinion surveys” indicating that millions of potential voters believed Clinton’s claims due to her status as a political insider and authority figure with likely access to non-public information. Over 200 articles have been published amplifying the smear since Clinton first uttered it in an October episode of Democratic strategist David Plouffe’s ‘Campaign HQ’ podcast, and the campaign estimates the former secretary of state’s attacks cost Gabbard $50 million in lost donations, lost votes, and reputational damage.

To read article on RT click here

*

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

On February 11th, four American peace activists, known as the Embassy Protectors Collective, will be tried before the U.S. empire for “interfering with certain protective functions” of its Federal government for their occupation of the Venezuelan embassy in Washington, D.C. to prevent it from being handed over to coup leaders sponsored by the Trump administration. Their occupation ended on May 16, 2019, when federal agents broke into the sealed embassy, against international law, and arrested them in a swat style raid. The government’s accusation against them is merely a pretext used for their arrest and prosecution, since they haven’t broken any laws. Matter of fact, their true crime in the minds of the Trump administration is just the opposite – it’s their brilliant defense of international law, and Venezuela’s sovereign right to self-determination against Yankee imperialism.

Although the Trump administration didn’t want President Maduro to win a second term, 67 percent of Venezuelans did. This stands in stark contrast with President Donald Trump’s own experience, since he lost the popular vote in 2017 to Former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a candidate despised by her own democratic party’s base – who only managed to secure her place as a presidential nominee due to the fraud perpetrated by the party’s elite. Even the Republican party’s use of targeted racist and classist voter suppression and purge techniques could not secure Trump winning numbers at the polls. In the United States of America, as demonstrated by Trump, a loser can win the presidency. Compare this with Former President Jimmy Carter’s 2012 declaration that “the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.”

Nonetheless, the Trump administration set its heart on Juan Guaido, a man that was not even a candidate in the 2018 election. Yet, with the superpower’s backing, what would be a farce in any other context still remains a threat  – as Guaido, left to his own devise, is merely a self-appointed president as well as being a self-appointed leader of a self-appointed assembly.

What elevates this trial in our collective consciousness is the fact that these brave activists struck a successful blow against imperialist aggression from inside the belly of the beast – literally from within Washington, D.C.  For 37 days, the Trump administration was powerless against the guile & guts of pediatrician, Margaret Flowers; medical anthropologist, Adrienne Pine; attorney, Kevin Zeese; and activist, David Paul as they bravely upheld Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention. The four were aided by a strong coalition of activist groups. In solidarity, 70 members of the various groups, including journalists, took turns staying inside the embassy with them. As conditions worsened, or for personal reasons, they disbursed prior to the raid. However, many remained outside the embassy protesting the siege conditions faced by their comrades inside and delivered food despite facing assault and arrest. Even the aged civil rights defender, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, personally took part in a food delivery to the Embassy Protectors. Fortunately, unlike the 72-year-old president of Veterans for Peace, Gerry Cordon, he was not assaulted by police and arrested in this process.

It is this grassroots collective that protected the Venezuelan embassy from seizure by Trump’s federal agents, local police, and an Astroturf fascist, racist & sexist mob– making their united act of resistance epic and their prosecution a trial of our times.

Despite the best efforts of the biased judge who ruled on December 13thagainst their right to critical information needed for their defense, their acts of bravery cannot be silenced – as activists will ensure their story is told.  On January 29th, Judge Beryl Howell will hear pre-trial arguments concerninga recent motion filed by government lawyers that even more severely restricts what can be discussed during their February 11th trial. If Judge Howell grants the government’s motion, it will leave the Embassy Protectors virtually defenseless. The government wants the prosecution to be limited exclusively to three things (1) the four were in the embassy, (2) they were given a notice of eviction by the police, and (3) they refused to leave. Essentially, they want the jury that decides their fate to be blindfolded. This will ensure the Trump administration’s desired outcome – which is to convict the Embassy Protectors and make them a model for how it intends to deal with challenges to its illegal foreign and domestic policies.

The fact that Howell is assigned the case is no accident as she is the chief judge of the U.S. District Court and co-author of the unconstitutional Patriot Act. Under the Patriot Act, protections against unreasonable search & seizure are waived, and incarceration can be indeterminate and without charge. So, it’s no surprise, with her Intelligence Community background, that Judge Howell referred to the embassy protectors as a “gang”, stated facts in a way that supported their guilt, and made it clear that a trial will result in their conviction.

Among the issues the Trump administration is asking to not be discussed in the Embassy Protectors’ trial are the following:

  • That Nicolas Maduro is the democratically elected president of Venezuela. More than 300 election observers for the 2018 election agreed that the election met international standards. Additionally, more than 150 governments around the world recognize him as the President of Venezuela as does the United Nations.
  • That Juan Guaido has no legitimacy to represent the Venezuelan government. Also, he is under investigation for his role in the “humanitarian aid” corruption scandal.
  • That Carlos Vecchio, whose demand that the Embassy Protectors leave the embassy and was the basis of their eviction, is not an ambassador from Venezuela but part of Guaido’s failed coup. Additionally, Vecchio, a former Exxon oil executive, is charged with fraud, embezzlement and money laundering to the tune of US $70 million through CITGO, Venezuela’s US-based subsidiary of the state oil company PDVSA.
  • That they were in the embassy with the permission of the elected government of Venezuela.
  • That they received advice that they were in the embassy legally.
  • That negotiations were ongoing between the US and Venezuela for a mutual protecting power agreement which would have resulted in Switzerland protecting the US embassy in Caracas and Turkey protecting the Venezuelan embassy in DC. And that the Embassy Protectors had stated that they would leave voluntarily when that agreement was reached. Additionally, The day before the four were arrested, Samuel Moncada, the Venezuelan ambassador to the UN, held a press conference where he discussed the negotiation for a protecting power agreement and reconfirmed that the Embassy Protectors were in the embassy with Venezuela’s permission.
  • That they were surrounded by a coup mob that was blocking food from coming into the embassy.
  • That the electricity and water were turned off on them.
  • That the Vienna Convention was violated by federal agents, who had no legitimate right to enter the embassy to arrest them.
  • That the Embassy Protectors were acting within their First Amendment rights.

The Embassy Protectors face federal charges punishable by up to one year in prison, a $100,000 fine each, and restitution to the government for police time & damages, which is considerable given the duration of their occupation and the absurd amount of armed forces used in the embassy raid – as they remain 4 unarmed senior and middle-aged peace activists. Since their charges are unjust and anything can happen in prison, especially to dissidents, people of conscious must ensure all charges are dropped. So, let us stand on the right side of history with the Embassy Protectors and show solidarity by attending their trial in Washington, D.C., which begins on February 11th, donating to their legal fund, and spreading the truth of what’s really happening 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.

Lauren Smith is an independent journalist. Her work has been published by Counterpunch, Common Dreams, Telesur, Monthly Review, Alliance for Global Justice and Global Research, CA amongst others. She holds a BA in Politics, Economics and Society from SUNY at Old Westbury and an MPA in International Development Administration from New York University.  Her historical fiction novel based on Nicaragua’s 1979 revolution is due out this year.

Featured image is from Embassy Protection Collective

The existing system of international relations and arms control treaties is slowly, but steadily crumbling. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty is dead, with both Washington and Moscow publicly developing previously banned short-to-medium range missiles. The New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) is also moving towards its end in 2021, and it is likely that New START will not be renewed. The United States, China and Russia are developing hypersonic weapons, which are not limited by any existing arms control treaties. The major powers are preparing for a possible global conflict. The dismantlement of the system of international treaties is another factor increasing military tensions around the world.

Russia is actively working towards restoring lost Soviet capabilities and developing new strategic deterrence projects. One of them is the Dead Hand, also known as the Perimeter. This Cold War-era automatic nuclear weapons-control system is one of the most protected secrets and most important deterrence tools of the USSR and Russia.

The Dead Hand is the last line of deterrence in the event of a crippling nuclear strike. It entered into service in 1985, shortly after a major escalation in 1983, which had almost led to war between the US and the Soviet Union. It has been likened to a real-life doomsday machine. Upon activation and determination of an ongoing nuclear strike, the system sends out command missiles with special warheads that pass encrypted launch commands to all nuclear weapon carriers of the sea, air and ground components of the Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces.

In peacetime conditions, the system slumbers, waiting for a turn-on command or an alarm signal from the missile attack early-warning system. It has a human “firewall,” for example, an on-duty officer who would switch it into the fully automated mode. Therefore, there is no risk of an accidental or unauthorized missile launch. Having received a command or signal about missiles being launched from the territory of other countries, this Dead Hand goes into an automated combat mode. Through a wide-scale sensor network, it monitors signs of an incoming nuclear strike.

The decision to launch command missiles is made by an autonomous control and command system – a complex pseudo-artificial intelligence system. The system receives and analyzes a variety of information about seismic activity, radiation, atmospheric pressure, and the intensity of chatter on military radio frequencies. It monitors telemetry from the observation posts of the strategic missile force and data from early warning systems.

Before launching, the system reportedly checks for four conditions:

  1. Once the system is activated it first determines if a nuclear explosion has taken place on Russian territory;
  2. If this is determined, the system will then check the communication link with the General Staff operation center;
  3. If a connection is established the system will After some time – from 15 minutes to 1 hour – passing without any further signs of an attack, it will assume that a number of the officials with the authority to give the order to strike are still alive  and the system will shut down;
  4. If the General Staff operation center does not respond, the system sends a request to Kazbek, the automatic system for command and control of the Strategic Nuclear Forces. If there is no response there either, the system automatically transfers launch authority to the command bunker personnel and launches the retaliatory strike.

All of the channels through which the Dead Hand receives its information are backed up multiple times, to remove the possibility of false information being fed to it.

According to openly available data, the Dead Hand is an integral part of the “Zveno” system of air command posts, the development of which was carried out in the Soviet Union. The “Zveno” includes the airborne command and control post on the Il-86VKP aircraft, airborne radio relay on the Il-76RT aircraft, silo-based command missiles ‘Perimeter’ and mobile command missiles ‘Gorn’. In a period of threat, three Il-86VKPs would have the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the Defense Minister and the Chief of the General Staff respectively on board. The Il-86VKP is able to launch an 8 km long antenna, which not even impulses from nuclear explosions can affect. Using this antenna the aircraft can transmit commands to launch all the country’s intercontinental missiles even if all underground command posts are destroyed by the aggressor’s nuclear strike. The radio relay aircraft Il-76RT would transmit commands to launch missiles in distant regions, including those deployed on submarines. In this way, the Dead Hand guarantees a devastating retaliatory strike in the event of communications disruption and the destruction of command posts after the first-strike surprise nuclear attack by the enemy. Its command missiles launch their warheads into space, where no hostile satellite or nuclear explosions can reach them and from there “wake up” nuclear forces to strike the aggressor.

The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 led to a deep social and economic crisis on the territory of the former Soviet republics. The Russian Armed Forces also entered a period of crisis. In 1995, the Dead Hand was removed from combat duty. After the start of the ‘Putin era’ and the restoration of proper funding for the Russian Armed Forces in the 2000s,  national security once again became one of the key priorities of the Russian leadership. In 2011, it was officially confirmed that the Dead Hand had been put on combat duty. The successful test launch of the 15Yu75 missile took place in Plesetsk in 2016. Furthermore, the Dead Hand is also being modernized. In December 2019, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced plans to sign a contract for the new Sirena-M missile complex. The Sirena-M is the most modern variant of the “command missile system” and “command missile” for the Dead Hand. The tests of the Sirena-M missile, which is based on the first version of the Topol intercontinental ballistic missile, began in 1990. All of them were carried out successfully. The Sirena-M system will enter service in the period up to 2025.

*

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: Russia’s “Dead Hand” Command Missiles, Deterrent In The Event of a Crippling Nuclear Attack
  • Tags: ,

Selected Articles: The Davos World Economic Forum (2017-2020)

January 23rd, 2020 by Global Research News

Lying is a money making activity and lies are commodities. There is a profitable global market for media and public figures committed to spreading disinformation.

Needless to say, “Telling the Truth”, on the other hand, Is Not a Money-Making Proposition. The monthly deficit we have been faced with over the past year is proof of this concept.

With this in mind, can you spare a dollar a day to keep disinformation away? Your support could make the difference and ensure that GlobalResearch.ca is here for a long time to come!

Click to donate:

*     *     *

Trump Parties in Davos While Ordinary Americans Struggle to Make Ends Meet

By Stephen Lendman, January 23 2020

The annual Davos billionaire’s ball — aka World Economic Forum — continues until Friday. Countless millions of US households face unacceptable choices between paying rent or servicing mortgages, seeking high-cost medical care when needed, heating homes in winter, feeding family members, and juggling other expenses — a disturbing reality far removed from Trump’s luxury lifestyle. A massive disconnect exists between soaring equity prices and dismal economic conditions for most Americans.

The Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) Is at It Again – Celebrating 50th Anniversary

By Peter Koenig, January 22, 2020

This year some 130 high-ranking guests, protected by international law, are expected – whoever they may be – in addition, are also anticipated 5 Royals, 22 Presidents, and 23 Prime Ministers. They will be shielded by Swiss police and military, a total of about 5000. President Trump will get about 300 special Swiss security police, in addition to his own security contingent, plus a private helicopter, brought in by military cargo from the US. His two days in Switzerland will cost the US tax-payer more than US$ 3.4 million, not including security personnel; peanuts compared to the entire Chabang for some 3,000 “high-level” VIPs and celebrities, or simply “wanna-be-seens”, who are eager to rub their elbows sore with the ‘real important’ people. What a farce!

Iraqi President Denounced for Meeting with Trump in Davos

By Stephen Lendman, January 23 2020

On Wednesday, former Iraqi Kurdistan region prime minister/current Iraqi president Barham Salih met with Trump in Davos on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum. He ignored warnings from internal Shia militia groups that he’d be unwelcome back home if met with DJT.

Davos – A Family Reunion of People Who Broke the World

By True Publica, February 02, 2019

The global elite descended on Switzerland for the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos last week. Western Europe had the highest number of participants by region.

To get a badge for entry requires a membership to the World Economic Forum, which costs somewhere between $60,000 and $600,000, plus an additional fee of more than $27,000 per person to get into the conference itself. There are 3,000 attendees invited, about two-thirds attend the full conference.

Global Economy on the Brink as Davos Crowd Parties On

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, January 23, 2019

At Davos, Switzerland every year the global capitalist elite gather to party…and to prepare for the year ahead. This year more than 1500 private jets will reportedly fly in. Thousands more of their underling staff will travel via business class to handle their personal, and corporate, logistics. Shielded from the media and the pubic, the big capitalists share views in back rooms and listen to experts on finance, government policy, technology, and the economy. The experts are especially probed to identify and explain the next ‘black swan’ or ‘gray rhino’ event about to erupt. Wealthy celebrities are invited to entertain them as well after evening dinner and cocktails. But the real networking goes on privately afterwards, in small groups or one on one, among the big capitalists themselves or in private meetings with heads of state, finance ministers, and central bank chairmen.

World Economic Forum Meets in Davos Under Shadow of Crisis and War

By Bill Van Auken, January 24, 2018

The well-heeled crowd at Davos, paying $55,000 each to attend, is guarded by a small army of 4,000 Swiss troops and 1,000 police, with a no-fly zone imposed overhead. Protests have been banned in the village—on the pretext that there has been too much snow—but thousands of people demonstrated Tuesday in the Swiss financial capital of Zurich in opposition to the WEF and, in particular, to the attendance this year by US President Donald Trump. Marchers carried placards reading, “Trump – You’re not Welcome,” “You Are a Shit-Hole Person” and “Smash WEF.”

Davos: “Zombie” TPP Trade Deal Threatens Our Fractured World

By Friends of the Earth International, January 24, 2018

Friends of the Earth International, the world’s largest grassroots environmental network, has warned that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal could threaten people and planet if signed and ratified by national parliaments in March this year.

The remarks came as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the Australian Trade Minister and other leaders meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos (23-26 January) celebrated the conclusion of the deal between 11  countries in Asia-Pacific.

A Spectre Hovers over Davos World Economic Forum: Populism and the Trump Presidency

By Javier Tolcachier, January 22, 2017

From January 17th to 21st, the Swiss enclave of Davos-Klosters is the venue of the 47th World Economic Forum. This gathering constitutes one of the exclusive clubs where the principal corporations coordinate orientations and launch strategic alignments. Together with the Bilderberg Club — a less visible and more reduced space of similar characteristics — the Davos Forum aims to become a kind of parallel private global government, placing leadership, entrepreneurial spirit, technological innovation and vertical forms of direction over and above democratic national order and traditional forms of international interrelation such as the United Nations.

*

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

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Davos World Economic Forum (2017-2020)

The following article was first published in December 2018.

Update, January 23, 2020

5G is strategic.

The US is pressuring its allies including Canada to dump China’s Huawei. In turn the  extradition trial agains HuaWei Executive

In recent developments, the Trudeau cabinet met behind closed doors at a three day “cabinet retreat”. Canada’s Public Safety Minister Bill Blair intimated that geopolitical and strategic issues are being contemplated.

Careful timing: the weekend Winnipeg Trudeau cabinet meeting  gave the green light.

The Extradition Trial against Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou was launched in Vancouver on Monday, January 20 on trumped up charges of financial fraud.

The ultimate objective is to exclude China from obtaining 5G  contracts with Western telecom companies. 5G has also military and intelligence applications.

Consultations were also  held under the auspices of the so-called Five Eyes intelligence Group (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) which is largely dominated by US intelligence.

“The United States and Australia, allies of Canada in the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing group, have already barred Huawei … from supplying gear for their 5G networks.”

The Canadian government has previously said its 5G decision will hinge on security considerations and the advice of government experts.”  (Globe and Mail)

How will Beijing react?

NPR Scan

Michel Chossudovsky January 23, 2020

***

The unspoken US policy objective behind the arrest of  Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou on trumped up charges, consists in breaking China’s technological lead in wireless telecommunications. 

What is at stake is a coordinated US and allied intelligence initiative to ban China’s Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd from the “next generation” state of the art 5G global mobile phone network.

The intelligence operation is led by “Five Eyes”, a so-called “intelligence-sharing alliance to combat espionage” between the US and its four (junior) Anglo-Saxon partners: UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.  

Western media tabloids repeatedly refer to legitimate “national security concerns” as a justification for the banning of China’s telecom equipment.

What is at stake is a fierce battle in the global wireless telecom industry. 

Spy Chiefs Meet Behind Closed Doors in Nova Scotia 

On July 17, the spy chiefs from the “Five Eyes” nations travelled from Ottawa to Nova Scotia for a meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. (who was on a Nova Scotia tour including meetings with NS Premier Stephen McNeil)

The meeting with the “Five Eyes” spy chiefs hosted by Trudeau was held at an (unnamed) coastal resort in Nova Scotia. It was casually described by The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) as “an informal evening after intense talks in nearby Ottawa”. Nearby?

The encounter with Canada’s Prime Minister was neither informal nor spontaneous. His presence at that meeting served to provide a “political green-light” to the “Five Eyes”  “intelligence campaign” against China:

“Trudeau, …  dropped in on the gathering to share some thoughts about geopolitical threats [from China and Russia].

In the months that followed that July 17 dinner, an unprecedented campaign has been waged by those present – Australia, the US, Canada, New Zealand and the UK – to block Chinese tech giant Huawei from supplying equipment for their next-generation wireless networks.

This increasingly muscular posture towards Beijing culminated in last week’s arrest of Huawei’s chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, in Vancouver, over alleged breaches of US sanctions with Iran. (Sidney Morning Herald, December 13, 2018)

CIA Director Gina Haspel and Britain’s MI6 Chief Michael Younger were in attendance. The intent of this meeting was crystal clear. The arrest of Meng Wanzhou was part of a broader intelligence strategy directed against China which had been planned well in advance.

Trudeau’s July 16-17 tour in Nova Scotia was reported upon. Sofar, the Canadian media has failed to mention Trudeau’s July 17, 2018 meeting with the “Five Eyes” chiefs of intelligence.

.

Screen-scan  of Wall Street Journal, December 14, 2018

Failure of the US Telecom Industries

It’s what you call “Fair Competition”. Bring in the Spy Chiefs!

Let’s face it : The US based telecom conglomerates are up against the wall.  The industry is in a shambles.

Moreover, the US no longer produces smart phones. Its manufacturing base in Silicon Valley has been closed down. US smart phone companies increasingly rely on China not only for cellphone production but also for the development of intellectual property.

China is not only the largest producer of cellphones Worldwide, it is a leader in wireless technology. According to an August 2018 report by Deloitte Consulting:

China is winning the race against the United States to build a faster nationwide wireless network that uses 5G technology, billed as the mobile industry’s future. Unless the U.S. moves more quickly, it will be at a major disadvantage when it comes to creating dominant new companies in the emerging space….

Accordingly, countries that adopt 5G first are expected to experience disproportionate gains in macroeconomic impact compared to those that lag,” the report’s authors said.

U.S. companies have been sounding the alarm over a purported race against China over 5G, perhaps playing to the fears and strategic desires of the Trump White House. (Fortune, August 7, 2018)

Global Research is based in Montreal.

The complicity of the Canadian government in the arrest of  CFO Meng Wanzhou on behalf of the Trump White House is reprehensible. It puts in jeopardy Canada’s longstanding economic, social and cultural ties with the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

UPDATE

Did the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) play a role in the arrest of Ms. Meng Wanzhou on December 1, 2018?

The arrest of Meng Wanzhou on December 1 in Vancouver coincided with the evening dinner meeting between presidents Xi Jinping and Donald Trump in Buenos Aires on the sidelines of the G-20 summit.

Moreover, according to China’s news agency Xinhua Canada’s Prime Minister Trudeau had advanced knowledge of the arrest and did nothing to prevent it from happening:

“…He didn’t notify the Chinese side. Instead, he let this kind of nasty thing to happen and assisted the US side’s unilateral hegemonic behaviour – this has hurt the feeling of Chinese people.”

As outlined above, Prime Minister Trudeau had already granted the green-light to the “Five Eyes” intelligence chiefs at the July 17 secret meeting in Nova Scotia.

Huawei portrayed by CSIS as a threat to National Security

While news reports and official statements intimate that Huawei constitutes a potential cybersecurity risk, Ms. Meng Wanzhou was arrested on December 1, 2018 in Vancouver for allegedly having violated the US sponsored Iran sanctions regime.

What was the role of Canada’s Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) in the arrest of Meng Wanzhou?  CSIS Director David Vigneault hosted the “Five Eyes” meeting of spy chiefs in Ottawa and Nova Scotia on July 17. Prime Minister Trudeau was present at the Novo Scotia meeting.

December 4, 2018: Three days after the arrest of Meng Wenzhou, Canada’s spy chief David Vigneault addressed a luncheon meeting at the Economic Club (EC) of  Canada in Toronto, intimating that “hostile states [China] are targeting large [Canadian] companies and universities”.  According to Vigneault:

 “Many of these advanced technologies are dual-use in nature in that they could advance a country’s economic, security and military interests.”

In his address, Canada’s spy chief warned of the danger of “state-sponsored espionage through technology such as next-generation 5G mobile networks.” (Globe and Mail December 4, 2018)

“Canadian Security Intelligence Service director David Vigneault’s comments come as three of the country’s Five Eyes intelligence-sharing allies have barred wireless carriers from installing equipment made by China’s Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. in the 5G infrastructure they are building to provide an even-more-connected network for smartphone users.

On December 3, 2018, the head of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, known as MI6, publicly raised security concerns about Huawei telecommunications being involved in his country’s communications infrastructure.

Both Canada and Britain are conducting security reviews of the Chinese company’s 5G technology.

Mr. Vigneault said large corporations typically hold the most valuable information but they try to put in state-of-the-art cyberdefences, while Canadian universities are largely unaware how they are vulnerable to economic espionage and the threat of infiltration by unnamed state actors who would use their expertise to gain an edge in military technologies. Huawei has developed research and development partnerships with many of Canada’s leading academic institutions.” (Globe and Mail, December 4, 2018, emphasis added)

It should be noted that the meeting and the specific theme of David Vigneault’s presentation at the Economic Club on December 4, 2018 had been scheduled well in advance of the arrest of Ms. Meng Wanzhou on December 1.  (See Economic Club )
.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research,  Montreal, December 16, 2018, updated December 20, 2018

*     *     *

Selected Article

America’s “Cell Phone War” against China: HuaWei CFO Meng Wanzhou Held Hostage by Canada

By Christopher Black, December 14, 2018

It is clear the US is pushing the battle line to our door … We can completely regard the US arrest of Meng Wanzhou as a declaration of war against China.”

China’s Toughness v. Weak-Kneed Russia: Beijing’s Response to Arrest of Meng Wanzhou

By Stephen Lendman, December 14, 2018

In response to the lawless arrest, detention, and mistreatment of Huawei Technologies’ chief financial officer Sabrina Meng Wanzhou by Canadian authorities in Vancouver on December 1, acting as a Trump regime proxy, Beijing demanded her immediate release, warning of “grave consequences” otherwise.

“Five Eyes” Intelligence Agencies Behind Drive Against Chinese Telecom Giant Huawei.

By Nick Beams, December 14, 2018

Evidence has come to light that US operations against the Chinese telecommunications giant HuaWei (华为) and the arrest and detention of one of its top executives, Meng Wanzhou, to face criminal charges of fraud brought by the US Justice Department are the outcome of a coordinated campaign by the intelligence agencies of the so-called “Five Eyes” network.

Trump and China: Towards a Cold or Hot War?

By Marc Vandepitte, December 12, 2018

At first glance, the dispute between the US and China revolves around unfair competition and theft of intellectual property. On closer inspection it is about something much more fundamental, namely frantic attempts by Washington to preserve its hegemony over this planet. Are we heading for a clash between the two titans?

Video: Behind the US Attack on Chinese Smartphones

By Manlio Dinucci, December 12, 2018

After having imposed heavy taxes on Chinese merchandise – 250 billion dollars – President Trump, at the G-20, accepted a “truce” by postponing further measures, mainly because the US economy has been struck by Chinese retaliation.

On World Human Rights Day, the Inhumane Treatment of Huawei Meng Wanzhou by Canadian Authorities Becomes Clearer

By Adam Garrie, December 10, 2018

After summoning the Canadian Ambassador in Beijing, China has now summoned the American Ambassador to discuss the status of Meng Wanzhou – the Chinese political prisoner who remains behind bars in Canada in spite of having committed no wrongdoing.

Trump’s Trade War with China: Imagine What Would Happen if China Decided to Impose Economic Sanctions on the USA?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 29, 2018

What Trump does not realize is that the trade deficit with China contributes to sustaining America’s retail economy, it also contributes to the growth of America’s GDP.

***

For seventeen years, Global Research, together with partner independent media organizations, has sought Truth in Media with a view to eventually “disarming” the corporate media’s disinformation crusade.

To reverse the tide, we call upon our readers to participate in an important endeavor.

Global Research has over 50,000 subscribers to our Newsletter.

Our objective is to recruit one thousand committed “volunteers” among our 50,000 Newsletter subscribers to support the distribution of Global Research articles (email lists, social media, crossposts). 

Do not send us money. Under Plan A, we call upon our readers to donate 5 minutes a day to Global Research.

Global Research Volunteer Members can contact us at [email protected] for consultations and guidelines.

If, however, you are pressed for time in the course of a busy day, consider Plan B, Consider Making a Donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Next Generation 5G and the US-China “Cellphone War”: The Arrest and Trial of Meng Wanzhou

Katyushas are short-range, unguided artillery rockets typically fired in salvos from truck-mounted launch-tubes. Iraq’s insurgents deploy three types.     

The smallest is 107 millimetres in diameter and 1 metre long. Its 19 kilogram weight includes an 8 kg high-explosive, shrapnel-bearing warhead. The 107mm is often fired from a 12-tube launcher, however, infantry-portable single-tube tripods are common. An experienced crew with a standardised weapon can hit a 400 X 400 metre target from 8 kilometres away. During the Vietnam War the US Army considered the 107mm to be their adversaries’ most formidable weapon.

The 122mm ‘Grad’ Katyusha is 3 metres long and weighs 75 kg. Its warhead spans a third of its length and weighs 18 kg. It has a 20-kilometre range and a 30-metre lethal radius.

220mm Katyushas hurl 100 kg warheads 30 kilometres.

Katyushas have advantages over mortars. They deliver the same payload twice the distance and they fire multiple ordnance more rapidly. The globally ubiquitous BM-21 Grad fires forty 122mm rockets in three minutes. Reloading takes 10 minutes. Thus, Katyushas excel at “shoot-and-scoot” operations. As well, Katyushas’ flat trajectories permit line-of-sight attacks and their 700 metre-per-second velocities provide unique anti-building potential.

*

After [allegedly] helping suppress the ISIS-led insurgency (2014-17) US forces defaulted to their previous occupation plan. Central to this program are segregated compounds situated inside Iraqi Armed Forces bases. These installations, always near airstrips, contain mere hundreds (not thousands) of US and Coalition troops who ride herd over the Iraqi Army whilst grooming and directing Iraq’s 15,000-strong Special Forces.

Embassies and consulates are integral to the occupation. The sprawling US Embassy compound dominates Baghdad’s fortified “Green Zone” which also houses Coalition partners’ embassies, and the headquarters of the many NGOs insinuated throughout Iraqi society.

The occupation facilitates local activities of American and European businesses. These require office blocks, oil-field infrastructure; and, gated communities for imported talent.

Pre-2011 Americans relied on bases containing thousands of troops. These were remotely located and allocated substantial resources to thwart indirect (mortar and rocket) attacks through: counter-artillery, drone surveillance, and fighting patrols. Despite this, indirect fire inflicted 3,000 casualties (including 211 fatalities) on American forces; many occurring inside ‘secure’ bases.

The US-led Coalition’s current archipelago of military, diplomatic, intelligence, business and NGO installations are ill-equipped to defend themselves against indirect fire. Proximity to cities makes them sitting ducks.

*

In September 2018 persons unknown began targeting US installations with Katyushas. This list chronicles these attacks.* (A dozen mortar attacks are not listed; Katyushas being the weapon of choice.)

  1. September 8, 2018 – four rockets (three 107mms and one 122mm) fall near the Green Zone.
  2. September 8, 2018 – two salvos of 107mms land near the US Consulate beside Basra Airport.
  3. September 28, 2018 – three 107mms are fired at the Basra Consulate; two land on site.
  4. December 27, 2018 – two 107mms are fired at Al-Asad Airbase (160 kilometres west of Baghdad) during Trump’s visit.
  5. February 2, 2019 – an attack on Al-Asad Airbase is aborted. Three ready-to-launch 122mms are captured.
  6. February 12, 2019 – three 107mms hit Q-West Airfield (an off-the-books base south of Mosul).
  7. May 1, 2019 – two 107mms hit Camp Al-Taji: a ‘training’ institute, 40 kilometres north of Baghdad.
  8. May 19, 2019 – two rockets land near the US Embassy.
  9. June 10, 2019 – rocket attack on Camp Al-Taji.
  10. June 12, 2019 – rocket attack on a “northern air base” starts a fire.
  11. June 13, 2019 – rocket attack on Nineveh Command Headquarters (Mosul Presidential Palace).
  12. June 14, 2019 – a rocket lands near the US Embassy.
  13. June 17, 2019 – three rockets hit Camp Al-Taji.
  14. June 18, 2019 – Nineveh HQ is attacked by two 122mms; one hits, one misses.
  15. June 19, 2019 – rockets strike a gated community outside Basra (home to Exxon staff).
  16. September 23, 2019 – two rockets hit the Green Zone; one lands near the US Embassy.
  17. October 30, 2019 – two rockets hit the Green Zone, killing an Iraqi soldier.
  18. November 8, 2019 – seventeen rockets target Q-West Airfield.
  19. November 17, 2019 – rockets hit the Green Zone.
  20. November 29, 2019 – a rocket hits the Green Zone.
  21. December 3, 2019 – Al-Asad Airbase is “rocked” by five 122mms.
  22. December 5, 2019 – five 107mms hit Balad Airbase (80 kilometres north of Baghdad).
  23. December 6, 2019 – a 240mm rocket lands near Baghdad Airport (then housing a US base).
  24. December 9, 2019 – four 240mms strike Baghdad Airport killing 2, and wounding 5, Iraqi soldiers.
  25. December 11, 2019 – two 240mms land outside Baghdad Airport.
  26. December 27, 2019 – thirty-six 107mms hammer K1 Base (15 kilometres northwest of Kirkuk); killing an American translator and wounding several US troops.
  27. December 29, 2019 – four rockets hit Camp Al-Taji.
  28. December 29, 2019 – five rockets hit Al-Asad Airbase.
  29. January 4, 2020 – two rockets hit Balad Airbase.
  30. January 4, 2020 – several rockets hit the Green Zone. One lands near the US Embassy; another closes a major street.
  31. January 5, 2020 – six rockets are fired at the Green Zone; three hit the target.
  32. January 8, 2020 – two rockets hit the Green Zone.
  33. January 12, 2020 – eight rockets hit Balad Airbase, wounding several Iraqi soldiers.
  34. January 14, 2020 – a five-rocket attack on Camp Al-Taji.
  35. January 20, 2020 – three rockets hit Green Zone. They were fired from Al Zafraniya (15 kilometres away).

Attacks are becoming more frequent and are trending toward bigger rockets and higher volume salvos.

The insurgents’ strategy is working. Katyusha attacks shuttered the US Basra Consulate in September 2018. Attacks in May and June 2019 forced Exxon to evacuate much of its foreign staff. Throughout 2019 the US State Department extracted personnel and the Defense Department consolidated bases into more secure facilities. By late 2019 US authorities were begging Iraqis for help whilst threatening retaliation.

The last straw came December 27 when the barrage onto K1 Base killed an American translator. The US responded with airstrikes on five Kata’ib Hezbollah bases (90 casualties) and with the January 3 assassination of Iranian General Soleimani. (The decision to assassinate Soleimani – in the event of an American fatality – was made June 24, 2019 following a week of near daily Katyusha attacks.)

*

While Iran and Iran’s Iraqi allies are blamed for these attacks; this is dubious. Reportage following attacks invariably drops the phrase “no one claimed responsibility” – which is notable because perpetrators often boast of such achievements. Ten years ago, when Kata’ib Hezbollah targeted US facilities with “lob bombs” (improvised rockets), they posted videos of their handiwork. They deny involvement in these recent attacks as do other Iranian-linked militias.

The reportage often describes the attacks as “mysterious” or as a “whodunit.” Authors relay US intelligence theories of Iranian involvement …without evidence.

On several occasions insurgents abandoned launchers and/or launch vehicles after the attack, often with fail-to-launch rockets inside. Investigators also possess fragments of successfully fired rockets. Tellingly, US officials, renowned for straining at gnats for evidence of Iranian complicity, do not utilise this material to incriminate Tehran.

The launchers themselves are obviously manufactured by local artisans. Moreover, an article from Kurdistan24 describes the rockets as “locally made.” Even globalist-militarist instrumentalities like the Washington Institute, Long War Journal, and Center for Strategic and International Studies concede some Katyushas are manufactured in Iraq.

Iraq has a burgeoning steel industry and, due to the calamities of the past 20 years, an enormous scrap metal industry. Katyushas’ cardinal virtue is their simplicity.

*

Circa 2014 twelve countries hosted non-state armed groups that deployed Katyushas. (Post-2014 Yemen’s Houthis joined this list, then outdid the pack in innovation and output.)

During the 2003-11 era Iraqi insurgents looted Katyushas from local arsenals. Other Katyushas came from Iran (officially or via the black market) and possibly from any of 32 other countries manufacturing them. Experts bemoan the difficulty of determining a rocket’s origin.

Circa 2008 Iraqi artisans manufactured a variety of launchers. A 2009 raid in Maysan Governorate discovered 107mm, 122mm and 220mm rail launchers; and 1,700 carjacks. (Jacks were affixed to the bottoms of stationary tripods to permit changes in launch angle.) Insurgents developed creative mobile launch platforms i.e. inside ice cream trucks or towed behind motorcycles etc. They debuted remote control triggers and GPS reconnaissance.

Circa 2011 poor quality of locally acquired rockets compelled insurgents to continue to rely on imports. The insurgents were, however, manufacturing “lob bomb” rockets and anti-armour mines; although Iran stood accused of being their sole supplier.

Post-2011 insurgents honed their craft. Remember: Hamas, operating inside Gaza with a tiny fraction of the resources of Iraq’s insurgents, manufactures crude Katyushas.

*

Prime suspects in the Katyusha campaign are not pro-Iranian militias; but rather the milieu around Mahdi Army successor, the Promise Day Brigades (PDB). This political tendency, nominally led by Moqtada al-Sadr, is concentrated in Iraq’s densely populated central and southern regions, but boasts a militant contingent in Mosul. This milieu overlaps the Saairun Alliance which includes Iraq’s far left; who carry their own legacy of armed struggle.

The insurgency’s Von Braun might be Jawad al-Tulaybani. An Iran-Iraq War veteran, al-Tulaybani possesses 40 years of combat rocketry experience. A war wound left him partially disabled. He appeared on US radar in 2008 after masterminding a barrage that wounded 15 US soldiers.

The org-chart of the Saairun/PDB/al-Sadr movement remains obscured. Notably, on January 8, 2020 al-Sadr counselled refrain from military actions. Four Katyusha attacks happened since.

What is clear is that this general political tendency is not particularly beholden to Iran. They appear non-sectarian, if not secularist, and they advance a left-nationalist agenda. Prior to the 2018 election (wherein Saairun emerged as the most popular bloc) Iran’s Foreign Minister warned Iran would never tolerate an Iraq run by “liberals and communists” – meaning Saairun.

Then again, Trump’s thrill kill of Soleimani (and Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units’ Deputy Commander) completely reshuffled the deck, creating unprecedented unity amongst hitherto rivals.

*

As Katyushas veto pacification efforts, US forces return to square one. They must retreat to sprawling, remotely situated camps equipped to suppress indirect fire. This, however, means surrendering Iraq’s political theatre to adversaries who will marshal Iraqi Government resources against them.

Katyushas are driving the Trump Administration’s Iraq policy. Prisoners of groupthink they react by doubling-down on the Big Lie that Iraq’s national liberation movement consists only of “Iranian terrorists.” In reality, their most effective opponents are as indigenous and legitimate as the French Resistance.

*

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

Note on Sources

Data came from scanning 1,000 articles then parsing several dozen of them. Preference went to state media: i.e. Voice of America, Al Jazeera, Xinhua et al; although Military Times and Kurdistan-24 proved germane. Rogue Rocketeers: Artillery Rockets and Armed Groups (Small Arms Survey, Geneva Switzerland, 2014) is a must-read. Data on the first 7 Katyusha attacks was lifted without corroboration from Michael Knights’ Responding to Iranian Harassment of U.S. Facilities in Iraq (Washington Institute, May 21, 2019). As Knights is the only analyst to grasp the seriousness of the Katyusha attacks. His reports are a trove. Being intimately connected to US and Israeli intelligence, he slavishly relays the anti-Iran party line.

Major attacks generate scores of reports. Lesser attacks are mentioned only in passing. Some articles tally the attacks but the numbers do not jibe. Certain attacks go unreported. Probably, 50+ mortar and Katyusha attacks hit US facilities between September 8, 2018 and January 14, 2020.

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/F-Working-papers/SAS-WP19-Rogue-Rocketeers.pdf

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/responding-to-iranian-harassment-of-u.s.-facilities-in-iraq

Featured image: Katyusha launcher (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s Katyusha Conundrum: Unguided Artillery Deployed by Iraqi Insurgents against US Occupation Forces
  • Tags: , ,

The annual Davos billionaire’s ball — aka World Economic Forum — continues until Friday.

Once a year, prominent movers and shakers gather together in Switzerland to plot their next moves for greater self-enrichment at the expense of exploited masses.

They’ve never had things better, but it’s never enough, using money to make more of it, indifferent to the real world of ordinary people, uncaring about their daily struggle to get by.

On Tuesday, Trump addressed the forum, his usual display of bombast, bravado, Big Lies and deception featured, wrapped in the American flag — likely fooling his faithful back home, his public remarks and tweets intended for them.

The “great American comeback” he trumpeted about (pun intended) exists only for the privileged few, no others.

His claim about an “economic boom the likes of which the world has never seen before (sic)” fooled no one in Davos or anyone back home struggling daily to make ends meet, including millions of hungry/food insecure Americans, the unemployed and underemployed.

Inside his White House, Mar-a-Lago, and Davos bubbles, it’s paradise. Outside for most Americans, it’s dystopian hell or bordering it.

Countless millions of US households face unacceptable choices between paying rent or servicing mortgages, seeking high-cost medical care when needed, heating homes in winter, feeding family members, and juggling other expenses — a disturbing reality far removed from Trump’s luxury lifestyle.

A massive disconnect exists between soaring equity prices and dismal economic conditions for most Americans.

Economist David Rosenberg believes there’s an 80% chance for recession this year, largely because high household debt, adding:

The US has “the mother of all credit bubbles…on corporate balance sheets.”

“I thing people will be surprised at how weak the economy is” this year.

Economist John Williams said risks exist for a “major financial crisis.” His recession forecast is unchanged, saying:

His “broad outlook in the weeks and months ahead remains in place for: (1) a continued intensifying US economic downturn in meaningful underlying series such as production and retail sales, reflected in (2) mounting selling pressure on the US dollar, against currencies such as the Swiss Franc, (3) continued flight to safety in precious metals, with upside pressures on gold and silver prices, and (4) increasingly high risk of extraordinarily heavy stock-market selling.”

Trump’s highly touted “extraordinary trade deals” with China, Canada and Mexico were largely much ado about little — clearly nothing benefitting ordinary Americans.

According to the South China Morning Post, cracks already appeared in the Sino/US phase one deal, saying:

Based on domestic needs, it “may be doomed from the start,” one analyst saying the notion of China buying an additional $200 billion worth of US goods in the next two years is unrealistic.

Trump’s rosy scenario US economic picture defied the reality of protracted main street hard times, real unemployment about 20%, most working Americans way underemployed.

No US economic boom exists for ordinary Americans, chickens perhaps coming home to roost this year if Rosenberg and Williams are right.

The entire transcript of Trump’s address reads like grade B Hollywood fiction.

In her tour de force book titled Web of Debt, Ellen Brown quoted Hans Schicht’s commentary, headlined The Death of Banking and Macro Politics, saying:

“Through a network of anonymous financial spider webbing, only a handful of global King Bankers own and control it all.”

“Everybody, people, enterprise, State and foreign countries, all have become slaves chained to the Banker’s credit ropes.”

“Big Brother has come to us in the striped suit of the Banker,” robbing everyone through “legal tribute in the form of interest.”

“Modern fiat banking has developed into an instrument of usurpation and people control…a form of government, ‘bankdoms,’ (much like) kingdoms, republics, (or) dictatorships” but more subtle.

Today’s “New World Order wants open frontiers for international finance, but (that’s like) asking the house owner to leave the doors unlocked for the burglar to have easy access” and be able to strip it bare.

International bankers are looting world economies, transforming them into dystopian backwaters – ordinary people subjugated, unempowered, enslaved, and impoverished like in Orwell’s 1984, warning:

“Big Brother is watching you. If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

That’s today’s reality for most Americans and their counterparts in Western and most other societies, exploited by a government/big business partnership, bankers topping the pecking order.

The Wall Street owned and controlled Fed, along with other major central banks run world economies by controlling their money — the supreme power above all others.

It’s the lifeblood without which commerce can’t operate, nor can wars be waged.

Controlled by powerful interests, the rich amass greater wealth by exploiting ordinary people so they can benefit hugely.

That’s today’s disturbing reality that Trump, other world leaders, corporate America, and establishment media won’t ever explain.

*

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 Flickr

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Parties in Davos While Ordinary Americans Struggle to Make Ends Meet
  • Tags: , ,

The eventual completion of the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC) will either ease or exacerbate the Sino-Indo economic rivalry of the past few years depending on how New Delhi responds to Beijing’s latest trans-regional integration initiative, but whatever it decides to do, it’s clear that CMEC is destined to be a real game-changer one way or the other.

President Xi’s visit to Myanmar last weekend was marked by the clinching of 33 agreements that are in one way or another connected with the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC). This latest trans-regional integration project of China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) aims to pioneer a CPEC-like connectivity corridor to the Afro-Asian (“Indian”) Ocean that would complement its predecessor in the northwestern corner of this body of water by further strengthening Beijing’s economic influence in South Asia. Beijing’s intentions are benign because its grand strategic goal is simply to ensure its reliable non-Malacca access to the Afro-Asian Ocean through which a sizeable percentage of its foreign trade traverses, but its moves have been interpreted by New Delhi (with a wink and a nod from Washington) as part of a plot to “encircle” it.

This state of affairs lays the basis for their “strategic dilemma” with one another that has contributed to their economic rivalry over the past few years, which dramatically reached a new height after India refused to sign on to the Chinese-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) at the very last minute during last November’s summit in Bangkok. At the same time, however, India has been playing a double game that it deceptively describes as “multi-alignment” by attempting to re-enter into economic talks with the People’s Republic as part of its so-called “balancing” strategy of supposedly pursuing equidistant relations with the world’s premier Great Powers. The signing of “phase one” of a more comprehensive US-Chinese trade deal, however, put India in a tough spot entirely of its own making which will shape its reaction to CMEC.

Not only didIndia fail to take advantage of the so-called “trade war” to position itself as a leading destination for Western companies re-offshoring from China like Vietnam did, but it now has to contend with China’s gradual economic reforms which will by default make the People’s Republic even attractive to Western companies in the long run especially since many of them already have an impressive footprint in the country. India also didn’t agree to a free trade deal with the US after the RCEP fiasco since it considered America’s demanded terms to be lopsided (though a deal might nevertheless soon be signed), but after “phase one”, Washington has no reason to “compromise” all that much since it already reached an important deal with Beijing. At the same time, the expansion of Chinese economic influence into South Asia continues apace with CMEC.

India also has strategic economic interests in Myanmar as well, namely in the country functioning as a transit state for New Delhi’s overland trade with ASEAN through the Trilateral Highway that will connect it with Thailand. CMEC and the Trilateral Highway are perpendicular to one another and both intersect in the centrally positioned city of Mandalay, so these connectivity initiatives can either complement one another or compete depending on whatever New Delhi decides. On the one hand, India might use Myanmar as a backdoor to China via RCEP, but on the other, China doing the same to India via the latter’s free trade agreement with ASEAN might defeat the entire purpose of New Delhi declining to join RCEP in the first place. In other words, Mynamar’s “economic multi-alignment’ between China and India makes both scenarios possible.

This naturally leads to the conclusion that India’s trade ties with Myanmar and ASEAN more broadly after their incorporation into the Chinese-led RCEP is the main issue which will have to be settled by New Delhi sooner than later. India has made spent a lot of time promoting its so-called “Act East” policy of ASEAN engagement, but it can’t continue with it at the same scale as before because of RCEP and CMEC unless it either modifies its relations with the neighboring bloc or accepts that it and especially Myanmar will function as the bridge more closely connecting the Indian and Chinese economies. Therein lies the dilemma, however, since India wants to keep China at arm’s length out of fear that its “Make in India” program of domestic industrial development will be hamstrung by the predicted large-scale influx of cheap Chinese goods through RCEP and Myanmar.

There were serious protests in India in early November before it officially declined to join RCEP precisely over these fears, and considering the current political unrest that’s spread throughout the country in a more wider way than those previous purely economic protests, the ruling BJP might not want to risk further inciting the populace by being seen as supposedly “selling out” to China. Even so, the only way to avoid the eventuality of closer Sino-Indo trade ties via Myanmar is to publicly call for the reformatting of Indian-ASEAN relations, which would risk ruining the goodwill that it’s fostered with the bloc over the past decade and make it seem like the country is economically isolating itself. New Delhi’s development vision for its restive Northeastern States (“Indian Balkans“) also hinges on ASEAN connectivity, so a chain reaction of regional uncertainty might ensue.

As a result of these interconnected strategic calculations, it’s clear to see that CMEC will either ease or exacerbate the Sino-Indo economic rivalry. The consequences of New Delhi’s decision to follow the former scenario would be the country’s further integration into the Chinese-led economic order that’s emerging all throughout Asia whereas its choice to pursue the latter scenario would contribute to its growing isolation and potentially also spark further unrest in the “Indian Balkans” if the government fails to do good on its previous pledge of bringing development to this long-neglected region. Given the observable tendency of the Indian leadership to tacitly “contain” China in cooperation with the US, the odds are that it’ll opt for the second scenario unless something unexpectedly changes, which would only work out to America’s strategic benefit.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Impacts of the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC). Ease or Exacerbate China-India Rivalry?
  • Tags: , , ,

The Trump Coup to Come

January 23rd, 2020 by Paul Street

America’s political authoritarianism comes in different, yet combined, mutually reinforcing forms. We have the neofascist authoritarianism of the white nationalist Republican Party, its Great Dog-Wagging God in the White House and his cultish, white-Amerikaner base.

Donald Trump may well not leave the White House without a dangerous fight if he is bested in the Electoral College in November. In his book titled “A Warning,” the senior Trump administration official known only as “Anonymous” cites a “worry for our republic … if Trump is removed from office—by impeachment or a narrow defeat in the ballot box … Trump will not exit quietly—or easily.” The author continues: “It is why at many turns he suggests ‘coups’ are afoot and a ‘civil war’ is in the offing. He is already seeding the narrative for his followers – a narrative that could end tragically.”

Indeed. An angry old white male Trumpist outside one of the president’s recurrent hate rallies on Dec. 10 told a New York Times reporter that he’d respond to his hero’s removal with “my .357 Magnum.” One week later, another Caucasian in Arizona pointed to a pistol he was wearing and told the Times that he’d been “stockpiling weapons, in case Mr. Trump’s re-election is not successful” and said that Trump’s defeat would mean “a civil war.”

The Trumpenvolk can probably keep their weapons holstered. Removal through impeachment is unlikely, given the fact that the Senate is held down by a Republican majority whose leaders are mocking constitutional checks and balances by working hand in glove with the president to craft a Senate trial certain to exonerate the truth-trashing Trump for his Ukrainegate transgression. So what if he set the Founding Fathers’ wigs on fire and violated federal law (the Impoundment Control Act) by leveraging congressionally approved military funding to a U.S. ally in order to obtain dirt to use against a potential political rival? The game is rigged in the absurdly apportioned Senate, where superwhite and Republican Wyoming, home to 578,720 people, claims the same number of senators (two) as ethnically and racially diverse and Democratic California, home to 39 million.

Trump may win the 2020 election. If that happens, it would be due in no small part to another key form of American political authoritarianism—the centrist, corporate-financial and imperial neoliberalism fueling the Democratic Party and most of the corporate media. The “inauthentic opposition” Party of Fake Resistance’s (PFR’s) leading funders, operatives and media would rather lose to the evermore fascist, right-wing GOP than to the leftish Bernie Sanders wing of their own party. So what if only Sanders can mobilize the voters required to defeat Trump, the wannabe president for life?

Meanwhile, the media more closely aligned with Democrats does everything it can to ignore and demean the Sanders candidacy, failing to cover his rallies and dismissing his platform and “electability.” The Democratic establishment and loyal media outlets refuse to respectfully transmit and take seriously his strong critique of American class inequality and plutocracy. Nor does it highlight his urgent calls for action to confront capitalogenic climate change before the planet is cooked beyond repair. The elite Democrats and their many media allies also smear Sanders’ popular call for single-payer health insurance, declaring it “too radical,” “too expensive” and—to use the contemptuous language of Amy Klobuchar—a “pipe dream” hopelessly untethered from the real world here on earth.

In the distorting hall of mirrors that is the corporate-managed, Democratic, center-left media and politics culture, single-payer isn’t a great social-democratic victory that would embed health care as a human right while dramatically reducing health care costs, improving ordinary Americans’ health and instilling new democratic space in the United States. No, “Medicare for All” is absurdly portrayed by mainstream Democratic politics and media as an overly expensive assault on the population’s existing health insurance plans. Never mind the ridiculously inflated cost and woefully poor performance of the U.S. health care system under the rule of private, for-profit corporations, with their giant and parasitic administrative and marketing costs.

The neoliberal, centrist, media-political order harps on Sanders’ age, even as it promotes right-leaning, 77-year-old bumbler Joe “Corn Pop” Biden.

The supposedly liberal media recently has engaged in a vicious effort to smear Sanders as a sexist by spreading the story that he told Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren that her gender prevents her from winning the 2020 election. The claim came from Warren herself, via CNN, in a cold-blooded move to revive her flagging campaign by playing the sexism card.

The hit job was absurd on its face. Sanders deferred to Warren in 2015 and 2016, agreeing to run for president only after Warren declined to pursue the Democratic nomination. Sanders has long advocated for women’s rights and backed female candidates. He embraces the progressive Latina Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) as a prized ally and campaign surrogate. AOC and two other progressive and feminist congresswomen of color, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, are campaigning for Sanders.

“Liberal” CNN likely promoted Warren’s attack on Sanders with three purposes in mind: to drive viewer interest in the last televised and CNN-sponsored Democratic presidential debate before the Iowa caucus; to diminish Sanders’ appeal to female voters; and to widen divisions between and among progressive Democrats.

Just before the debate in Des Moines last week, CNN ran a story absurdly depicting Sanders as a misogynist. Then, during the debate, CNN moderator Abby Phillip threw this loaded question at him: “Sen. Sanders, CNN reported yesterday, and Sen. Warren confirmed in a statement [as if the episode wasn’t initiated by the Warren campaign] that in 2018 you told her that you did not believe a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?”

“Well, as a matter of fact, I didn’t say it,” Sanders said. “Anybody who knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States. Go to YouTube. … There’s a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States.”

Phillip then repeated the question. When Sanders denied that he’d ever said that a woman could not win the election, she turned to Warren. “Sen. Warren,” Phillip said, “what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”

“I disagreed,” Warren said.

Hello? Sanders had just denied the charge, but Phillip simply repeated Warren’s accusation as if it was a fully acknowledged and irrefutable fact. Phillip didn’t bother to ask Warren if Sanders was telling the truth. How absurdly authoritarian was that?

In the post-game discussion of the debate, a CNN pundit mocked Sanders for denying “a reported CNN story.” The talking head was really saying that CNN can construct candidate realities and then evaluate candidates in accord with whether they accept that reality as undisputed fact. More authoritarian absurdity.

In the Chicago Tribune the next day, the main takeaway from the debate was that Sanders and Warren tangled over gender. Sanders’ statements on and against extreme economic inequality, plutocracy, parasitic insurance and drug companies, and climate-/capital-led ecocide were sent down George Orwell’s memory hole in this coverage.

“Ordinary” Iowa voters could be heard on CNN, MSNBC and NPR talking about Sanders’ supposed gender and women problems. Establishment mission accomplished: Divide and rule in service to corporate power; provide distractions from the biggest issues of our (or any) time. As the leftist activist Mona Shaw of Iowa wrote me, “Medicare for All has been getting too much traction. The plutocrats have to change the subject.” Yes, and divide progressives.

One great unspoken irony is that the only leading Democratic presidential candidate with a troubling track record on gender is Joe “Phonographs for the Poor” Biden. If Warren and CNN wanted to play the divide-and-rule sexism card against any Democratic contender, the corporate imperialist Biden would have been the proper target, not Sanders. But, of course, Warren is not fighting to steal voters from Biden but rather from her “fellow progressive” Sanders—and CNN is in league with corporate centrists, not leftist radicals like Sanders.

Probably nobody enjoyed the episode more than the hapless Biden, who came off in the debate like an elderly retiree ready for a nap.

We can expect more vicious centrist smearing of Sanders by the Democratic establishment and its media in the next three weeks. Its elite operatives, backers and allies are horrified that Sanders might break through Biden’s black voter “firewall” in South Carolina if the Vermont senator can win Iowa and New Hampshire—a “nightmare scenario for Joe Biden and the rest of the Democratic presidential field.”

So what if Sanders is the Democrats’ best chance to energize disaffected and disadvantaged sectors of the electorate that need to be rallied to defeat Trump? The Democratic Party isn’t primarily about winning elections, much less social justice, democracy and environmental sanity. It’s mainly about serving corporate sponsors who don’t want even a mildly progressive populist like Sanders in the White House. Even Elizabeth “capitalist in my bones” Warren (who stood up and clapped when Trump ordered Congress to pledge that the U.S. would “never be a socialist country” during his last State of the Union address) is absurdly considered too left for many, if not most, Wall Street Democrats.

No less of a corporate-neoliberal Democratic icon than Barack Obama has made it clear that the Democrats’ most electable candidate must be stopped. As Politico’s Ryan Lizza reported in November, the officially neutral Obama indicated that he would speak up to block Sanders. “Back when Sanders seemed like more of a threat than he does now,” Lizza wrote, “Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would speak up to stop him.” A “close Obama friend” told Lizza that “Bernie’s not a Democrat.”

If Sanders somehow gets past all the slime and other centrist obstacles to secure the nomination, make no mistake: Many big, traditionally Democratic funders and operatives could sit out the general election and possibly even actively back Trump.

Meanwhile, the Democratic establishment—which opened the stable door to the tangerine hate “genius” and gets ironically whitewashed by his relentless awfulness—certainly loves it that the left-most presidential candidates, Sanders and Warren (polling No. 1 and 2 in Iowa, respectively) will be tied down in the futile, GOP-negated Senate impeachment process while the top two Wall Street darlings, right-wing Democrats Biden and Pete Buttigieg, are free to run around Iowa and New Hampshire in the final weeks leading up to the nation’s first presidential caucus (Iowa) and primary (New Hampshire).

If I were Sanders, I’d walk out of the impeachment trial and resume campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire if Republicans block witnesses and new evidence. If it means the loss of his Senate position, so be it. The notion of Sanders being put under impeachment house arrest and kept off the campaign trail to sit mute while the white nationalist party makes a mockery of the Constitution and the rule of law is truly nauseating.

I can hardly blame tens of millions of Americans for going into voting booths for their fleeting moment to mark ballots and try to evict the wannabe fascist strongman Trump. Still, bearing in mind the real possibility that Trump will refuse to honor an election that doesn’t go his way, my advice is that those tens of millions take to the streets to overthrow the Trump-Pence regime and then confront the deeper system of class rule that has spawned the white-nationalist Republican Party, the center-right PFR (the Democrats) and the sick synergistic game these “two wings of the same bird of prey” (Upton Sinclair, 1904) play on behalf of the nation’s unelected and overlapping dictatorships of money, empire, white supremacy, patriarchy and environmental ruin.

*

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.

Paul Street holds a doctorate in U.S. history from Binghamton University. He is former vice president for research and planning of the Chicago Urban League.

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore

Pity the nation oh pity the people
who allow their rights to erode
and their freedoms to be washed away…”
—Lawrence Ferlinghetti, poet

And so it continues.

This impeachment fiasco is merely the latest in a never-ending series of distractions, distortions, and political theater aimed at diverting the public’s attention from the sinister advances of the American Police State.

Don’t allow yourselves to be distracted, diverted or mesmerized by the cheap theater tricks.

This impeachment spectacle is Shakespearean in its scope: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Nothing is the key word here.

Despite the wall-to-wall media coverage, nothing will change.

Mark my words: the government will remain as corrupt and self-serving as ever, dominated by two political factions that pretend to be at odds with each other all the while moving in lockstep to maintain the status quo.

So President Trump’s legal team can grandstand all they want about the impeachment trial being “an affront to the Constitution” and “a dangerous perversion of the Constitution,” but that’s just smoke and mirrors.

You know what is really “an affront to the Constitution”? The U.S. government.

We’ve been losing our freedoms so incrementally for so long—sold to us in the name of national security and global peace, maintained by way of martial law disguised as law and order, and enforced by a standing army of militarized police and a political elite determined to maintain their powers at all costs—that it’s hard to pinpoint exactly when it all started going downhill, but we’re certainly on that downward trajectory now, and things are moving fast.

The republic has fallen.

The Deep State’s plot to take over America has succeeded.

The American system of representative government has been overthrown by a profit-driven, militaristic, corporate oligarchy bent on total control and global domination through the imposition of martial law here at home and by fomenting wars abroad.

Even now, we are being pushed and prodded towards a civil war, not because the American people are so divided but because that’s how corrupt governments control a populace (i.e., divide and conquer).

These are dangerous times.

These are indeed dangerous times but not because of violent crime, which remains at an all-time low, or because of terrorism, which is statistically rare, or because the borders are being invaded by foreign armies, which data reports from the Department of Homeland Security refute.

No, the real danger that we face comes from none other than the U.S. government and the powers it has granted to its standing armies to rob, steal, cheat, harass, detain, brutalize, terrorize, torture and kill American citizens with immunity.

The danger “we the people” face comes from masked invaders on the government payroll who crash through our doors in the dark of night, shoot our dogs, and terrorize our families.

This danger comes from militarized henchmen on the government payroll who demand absolute obedience, instill abject fear, and shoot first and ask questions later.

This danger comes from greedy, power-hungry bureaucrats on the government payroll who have little to no understanding of their constitutional limits.

This danger comes from greedy politicians and corporations for whom profit trumps principle.

You want to know about the state of our union? It’s downright scary.

Consider, if you will, all of the dastardly, devious, diabolical, dangerous, debilitating, deceitful, dehumanizing, demonic, depraved, dishonorable, disillusioning, discriminatory, dictatorial schemes inflicted on “we the people” by a bureaucratic, totalitarian regime that has long since ceased to be “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Americans have no protection against police abuse. It is no longer unusual to hear about incidents in which police shoot unarmed individuals first and ask questions later, such as the 16-year-old teenager who skipped school only to be shot by police after they mistook him for a fleeing burglar. Then there was the unarmed black man in Texas “who was pursued and shot in the back of the neck by Austin Police… after failing to properly identify himself and leaving the scene of an unrelated incident.” And who could forget the 19-year-old Seattle woman who was accidentally shot in the leg by police after she refused to show her hands? What is increasingly common, however, is the news that the officers involved in these incidents get off with little more than a slap on the hands.

Americans are little more than pocketbooks to fund the police state. If there is any absolute maxim by which the federal government seems to operate, it is that the American taxpayer always gets ripped off. This is true, whether you’re talking about taxpayers being forced to fund high-priced weaponry that will be used against us, endless wars that do little for our safety or our freedoms, or bloated government agencies such as the National Security Agency with its secret budgets, covert agendas and clandestine activities. Rubbing salt in the wound, even monetary awards in lawsuits against government officials who are found guilty of wrongdoing are paid by the taxpayer.

Americans are no longer innocent until proven guilty. We once operated under the assumption that you were innocent until proven guilty. Due in large part to rapid advances in technology and a heightened surveillance culture, the burden of proof has been shifted so that the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty has been usurped by a new norm in which all citizens are suspects. This is exemplified by police practices of stopping and frisking people who are merely walking down the street and where there is no evidence of wrongdoing. Likewise, by subjecting Americans to full-body scans and license-plate readers without their knowledge or compliance and then storing the scans for later use, the government—in cahoots with the corporate state—has erected the ultimate suspect society. In such an environment, we are all potentially guilty of some wrongdoing or other.

Americans no longer have a right to self-defense. In the wake of various shootings in recent years, “gun control” has become a resounding theme. Those advocating gun reform see the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms as applying only to government officials. As a result, even Americans who legally own firearms are being treated with suspicion and, in some cases, undue violence. In one case, a Texas man had his home subjected to a no-knock raid and was shot in his bed after police, attempting to deliver a routine search warrant, learned that he was in legal possession of a firearm. In another incident, a Florida man who was licensed to carry a concealed firearm found himself detained for two hours during a routine traffic stop in Maryland while the arresting officer searched his vehicle in vain for the man’s gun, which he had left at home. Incidentally, the Trump Administration has done more to crack down on Second Amendment rightsthan anything the Obama Administration ever managed.

Americans no longer have a right to private property. If government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family, your property is no longer private and secure—it belongs to the government. Likewise, if government officials can fine and arrest you for growing vegetables in your front yard, praying with friends in your living room, installing solar panels on your roof, and raising chickens in your backyard, you’re no longer the owner of your property.

Americans no longer have a say about what their children are exposed to in school. Incredibly, the government continues to insist that parents essentially forfeit their rights when they send their children to a public school. This growing tension over whether young people, especially those in the public schools, are essentially wards of the state, to do with as government officials deem appropriate, in defiance of the children’s constitutional rights and those of their parents, is reflected in the debate over sex education programs that expose young people to all manner of sexual practices and terminology, zero tolerance policies that strip students of any due process rights, let alone parental involvement in school discipline, and Common Core programs that teach students to be test-takers rather than critical thinkers.

Americans are powerless in the face of militarized police. In early America, citizens were considered equals with law enforcement officials. Authorities were rarely permitted to enter one’s home without permission or in a deceitful manner. And it was not uncommon for police officers to be held personally liable for trespass when they wrongfully invaded a citizen’s home. Unlike today, early Americans could resist arrest when a police officer tried to restrain them without proper justification or a warrant—which the police had to allow citizens to read before arresting them. (Daring to dispute a warrant with a police official today who is armed with high-tech military weapons and tasers would be nothing short of suicidal.) As police forces across the country continue to be transformed into outposts of the military, with police agencies acquiring military-grade hardware in droves, Americans are finding their once-peaceful communities transformed into military outposts, complete with tanks, weaponry, and other equipment designed for the battlefield.

Americans no longer have a right to bodily integrity. Court rulings undermining the Fourth Amendment and justifying invasive strip searches have left us powerless against police empowered to forcefully draw our blood, strip search us, and probe us intimately. Accounts are on the rise of individuals—men and women—being subjected to what is essentially government-sanctioned rape by police in the course of “routine” traffic stops. Remember the New Mexico man who was subjected to a 12-hour ordeal of anal probes, X-rays, enemas, and finally a colonoscopy—all because he allegedly rolled through a stop sign?

Americans no longer have a right to the expectation of privacy. Despite the staggering number of revelations about government spying on Americans’ phone calls, Facebook posts, Twitter tweets, Google searches, emails, bookstore and grocery purchases, bank statements, commuter toll records, etc., Congress, the president and the courts have done little to nothing to counteract these abuses. Instead, they seem determined to accustom us to life in this electronic concentration camp.

Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. The U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet through their deference to police power, preference for security over freedom, and evisceration of our most basic rights for the sake of order and expediency, the justices of the Supreme Court have become the architects of the American police state in which we now live, while the lower courts have appointed themselves courts of order, concerned primarily with advancing the government’s agenda, no matter how unjust or illegal.

Americans no longer have a representative government. We have moved beyond the era of representative government and entered a new age, let’s call it the age of authoritarianism. In fact, a study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University concluded that the U.S. government does not represent the majority of American citizens. Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups. It is not overstating matters to say that Congress, which has done its best to keep their unhappy constituents at a distance, may well be the most self-serving, semi-corrupt institution in America.

In other words, we are being ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism: a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled. Rest assured that when and if fascism finally takes hold in America, the basic forms of government will remain: Fascism will appear to be friendly. The legislators will be in session. There will be elections, and the news media will continue to cover the entertainment and political trivia. Consent of the governed, however, will no longer apply. Actual control will have finally passed to the oligarchic elite controlling the government behind the scenes. Sound familiar? Clearly, we are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests. We have moved into “corporatism” (favored by Benito Mussolini), which is a halfway point on the road to full-blown fascism. Corporatism is where the few moneyed interests—not elected by the citizenry—rule over the many.

History may show that from this point forward, we will have left behind any semblance of constitutional government and entered into a totalitarian state where all citizens are suspects and security trumps freedom. Even with its constantly shifting terrain, this topsy-turvy travesty of law and government has become America’s new normal. From Clinton to Bush, then Obama and now Trump, it’s as if we’ve been caught in a time loop, forced to re-live the same thing over and over again: the same assaults on our freedoms, the same disregard for the rule of law, the same subservience to the Deep State, and the same corrupt, self-serving government that exists only to amass power, enrich its shareholders and ensure its continued domination.

Elections will not save us.

I haven’t even touched on the corporate state, the military industrial complex, SWAT team raids, invasive surveillance technology, zero tolerance policies in the schools, overcriminalization, or privatized prisons, to name just a few, but what I have touched on should be enough to show that the landscape of our freedoms has already changed dramatically from what it once was and will no doubt continue to deteriorate unless Americans can find a way to wrest back control of their government and reclaim their freedoms.

There can be no denying that the world is indeed a dangerous place, but what the president and his cohorts fail to acknowledge is that it’s the government that poses the gravest threat to our freedoms and way of life, and no amount of politicking, parsing or pandering will change that.

It is easy to be diverted, distracted and amused by the antics of politicians, the pomp and circumstance of awards shows, athletic events, and entertainment news, and the feel-good, wrapped-in-the-flag evangelism that passes for religion today.

What is far more difficult to face up to is the reality of life in America, where unemployment, poverty, inequality, injustice and violence by government agents are increasingly norms, and where “we the people” are at a distinct disadvantage in the face of the government elite’s power grabs, greed and firepower.

The Constitution doesn’t stand a chance against a federalized, globalized standing army protected by legislative, judicial and executive branches that are all on the same side, no matter what political views they subscribe to: suffice it to say, they are not on our side or the side of freedom.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the powers-that-be want us to remain distracted, divided, alienated from each other based on our politics, our bank accounts, our religion, our race and our value systems. Yet as George Orwell observed, “The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.”

You either believe in freedom or you don’t. It’s that simple.

Everything else is just a deadly distraction. As Orwell observed in 1984:

“All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working hours or shorter rations. And even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because, being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. The larger evils invariably escaped their notice.”

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Featured image is from rouzer.house.gov

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Deadly Distractions: Laying the Groundwork for the Next Civil War. “Deep State’s Plot to Take Over America”
  • Tags: ,

The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) has diverted over $100 million from safety and maintenance programs to executive compensation at the same time it has caused an average of more than one fire a day for the past six years killing over 100 people.

PG&E is the largest privately held public utility in the United States. A new research report shows that 91% of PG&E stocks are held by huge international investment management firms, including BlackRock and Vanguard Group. PG&E is an ideal investment for global capital management firms with monopoly control over five million households paying $16 billion for gas and electric in California. The California Public Utility Commission (PUC) has allowed an annual return up to 11%.

Between 2006 and the end of 2017, PG&E made $13.5 billion in net profits. Over those years, they paid nearly $10 billion in dividends to shareholders, but found little money to maintain safety on their electricity lines. Drought turned PG&E’s service area into a tinderbox at the same time money was diverted from maintenance to investor profits.

A 2013 Liberty Consulting report showed that 60% of PG&E’s power lines were at risk of failure due to obsolete equipment and 75% of the lines lacked in-line grounding. Between 2008 and 2015, the CPUC found PG&E late on thousands of repair violations. A 2012 report further revealed that PG&E illegally diverted $100 million from safety to executive compensation and bonuses over a 15-year period.

PG&E has caused over 1,500 fires in the past six years. PG&E electrical equipment has sparked more than a fire a day on average since 2014—more than 400 in 2018—including wildfires that killed more than 100 people.

In October 2017, multiple PG&E linked fires (Tubbs, Nuns, Adobe fires and more) in Northern California scorched more than 245,000 acres, destroyed or damaged more than 8,900 homes, displaced 100,000 people and killed at least 44.

In November, 2018, the PG&E caused Camp fire burned 153,336 acres, killing 86 people, and destroying 18,804 homes, business, and structures. The towns of Paradise and Concow were mostly obliterated. Overall damage was estimated at $16.5 billion.

PG&E has caused some $50 billion in damages from massive fires started by their failed power lines. They filed bankruptcy in January 2019 to try to shelter their assets. PG&Es 529 million shares went from a high of $70 per share in in 2017 to a low of $3.55 in 2019. Shares are currently trading at $10.55 with zero returns.  At this point PG&E actually owes more in damages then the net worth of the company.

All but two members of the board of director resigned in early 2019, and the CEO was replaced. A new board of directors was elected by an annual stockholders meeting in June of 2019. PG&E now has a board of directors whose primary interest in 2020 is returning PG&E stock values to $50-70 range and returning to annual dividend payments in the 8-11% rate.

The new PG&E management took widespread aggressive action during the fire-season of 2019 shutting down electric power to over 2.5 million people statewide. Nonetheless, a high voltage power line malfunctioned in Sonoma county lead to the Kincade fire that burned 77,758 acres destroying 374 structures, and forced the evacuation 190,000 Sonoma county residents. Estimated damages from this fire are $10.6 billion.

The fourteen new PG&E directors were essentially hand-picked by PG&Es major stockholder firms like Vanguard Holdings 2019 (47.5 million shares 9.1%) and BlackRock (44.2 million shares 8.5%). A new PG&E Director, Meridee Moore, SF area founder & CEO of $2 billion Watershed Asset Management, is also a board member of BlackRock.

Only three of the new fourteen directors live in PG&Es service area (four if we count the newly appointed CEO from Tennessee). One board member lives the LA area. The remainder of the board live outside California, including three from Texas, two from the mid-west and the remaining four from New York or east coast states. Pending PG&E Bankruptcy court approval, new directors are slated to receive $400,000 each in annual compensation.

Ten of the new 2020 directors have direct current links with capital investment management firms. The remainder have shown proven loyalty experience on behalf of capital utility investors making the entire PG&E board a solid united group of capital investment protectors, whose primary objective is to return PG&E stock values to pre-2017 highs with a 11% return on investment. They claim that wide-spread blackouts will be needed for up to ten years.

All fourteen PG&E board members are in the upper levels of the 1% richest in the world. As millionaires with elite university educations, the PG&E board holds little empathy for the millions of Californians living paycheck to paycheck burdened with some of the highest utility bills in the country. PG&E shuts off gas and electric to over 250,000 families annually for late payments.

The PG&E 2020 board is in service to transnational investment capital. This creates a perfect storm for the continuing transfer of capital from the 99% to the richest 1% in the world, all with uncertain  blackouts, serious environmental damage, widespread fires, with multiple deaths and injuries.

We need to liquidate PG&E for the criminal damages it has afflicted on California. The “PG&E solution” is to manage PG&E democratically on the basis of human need, rather than private profit. It is time to take a stand for a publicly owned California Gas and Electric Company as the way to reverse the transfer of wealth to the global 1% and provide Californians with safe, low-cost and more renewable energy. All power to the 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.

Peter Phillips, Political Sociologist at Sonoma State University; author Giants: The Global Power Elite, (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2018); past director of Project Censored; co-author/editor of fourteen Censored yearbooks, 1997 to 2011; co-author of Impeach the President, (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2007); and winner of the Dallas Smythe Award from the Union for Democratic Communications. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Tim Ogburn, 20-year manager for the California EPA; founder and co-chair of the Environmental Industry Coalition of the United States in Washington, D.C.; published in numerous technical and trade journals regarding public/private partnerships; International Environmental Technology consultant in India, Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Egypt, and Israel; Consultant to USAID, US Department of Commerce, U.S. State Department; and has given Congressional Presentations on the environmental technology industry before Congress.

Featured image is from Project Censored

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E): Monopoly Power and Disasters by the Rich 1%
  • Tags: , ,

La Via Campesina is an international movement that brings together millions of peasants, landless workers, indigenous peoples and migrants – comprising women, men, youth and diverse identities – from all over the world. The movement brings them together under its banner of comprehensive and popular agrarian reform and food sovereignty. It is a collective expression of the struggle for recognition, legitimacy and dignity of peasant communities and rural people, in a neo- liberal world that is destroying them.

In recent years, globalization and the expansion of agribusiness and monocultural practices have destroyed tens of millions of small farms across the continents. Peasants and small scale food producers now have access to only 25% of the world’s agricultural land. Despite these odds, peasant and rural communities continue to be the world’s major food producers, providing for an estimated 80% of the food needs in non-industrialized countries.

Meanwhile, many governments are increasingly allowing the World Trade Organization (WTO ) and other free trade agreements (FTAs) to govern their national agricultural and food policies. As a result, peasant agriculture finds itself in competition with low-priced imported foodstuffs. The survival of the peasants, who represent almost half of the world’s population, is therefore threatened. The consequences for healthy food systems and for humanity itself are dire.

Peasant agriculture carries within itself the solutions that humanity needs to face the challenges of the future. Therefore its defense and the defense of the rights of peasants is essential.

This film chronicles how La Via Campesina was born more than 28 years ago, as an alternative that brings together struggles, dreams and challenges to build solidarity and secure our collective human future. Watch the film below.

L’Espérance Paysanne | Globalize Hope | La Esperanza Campesina from La Via Campesina on Vimeo.

*

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.

New Debt Crisis in the South

January 23rd, 2020 by Milan Rivié

Public external debt in countries of the South [1] is a source of concern, notably because of its dramatic increase within the last two decades and because of parallels with the pre-crisis debt situation of Third World countries in the 1980s. Beyond the similarities, the widespread use of bond issues poses a new challenge. With nearly ten over-indebted countries and seventeen in suspension of payments, the debt crisis has already begun. [2]

Recent evolution of the debt in countries of the South

In July 2019, according to the IMF, among low-income countries, 9 are over-indebted and 24 nearly are, which amounts to 39%. [3] As evidence of the inability (and unwillingness) of international financial institutions (IFIs) to respond effectively and sustainably to over-indebtedness, half of these 31 countries had strictly implemented the adjustment policies of the HIPC initiative [4] launched by the G7 in 1996. [5] And according to a German NGO, 122 countries are in fact in a critical debt situation. [6]

Since 2010, the share of public external debt repayments by countries of the South in their total revenues has increased by 85%, peaking at an average level of 12.2% of state public revenues, the highest level since 2004. [7] The majority of countries affected by this increase in debt service had contracted loans and/or obligations with the IMF. [8]

“Debt levels have reached new highs in advanced, emerging, and low-income countries […]global debt—both public and private — has reached an all-time high of $182 trillionalmost 60 percent higher than in 2007 […] Emerging and developing economies are already feeling the pinch as they adjust to monetary normalization in the advanced world.” – Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, IMF – October 1, 2018 [9]

Between 2000 and 2017, the public external debt in countries of the South more than doubled, from US$ 1,304 billion to US$ 2,936 billion (see Table 1). Several factors may explain this increase. Taking advantage of high commodity price levels until 2013, countries of the South generated significant revenues from their export products and the economic growth rates were high for a majority of them.

Table 1: Evolution of the public external debt in countries of the South by category of creditors (in millions of US dollars and as a percentage) [10]

At the same time, the 2007-2008 financial crisis had an impact on the economies of Western countries. In search of more profitable financing, banks and private investors invested their substantial cash in the sovereign debt of countries of the South. [11] Fuelled by the low level of key interest rates in the United States and Europe, this cycle is currently coming to an end and has caught countries of the South in a “debt trap”.

The end of the commodity supercycle

At the beginning of the 1980s, the fall in commodity prices was one of the elements that triggered the Third World debt crisis. History is repeating itself today for these vulnerable countries that are still dependent on their export revenues. [12] Mainly intended to provide the foreign currencies needed to repay external debt, raw materials have been exported since 2013 at prices well below those previously achieved (see figure 1). This reversal is causing significant financial difficulties for a number of countries dependent on oil, agricultural or mining revenues. [13] This factor is aggravated by the recent depreciation of Southern currencies against the US dollar. [14]

Figure 1: Monthly commodity prices indices, 1998-2018 (base year 2015 = 100) [15]

The boom in bond issuances

The boom in the use of bond issuances is the main originality and indeed concern of this new debt crisis. [16] As early as the mid-2000s, attracted by low interest rates (see figure 2) and the absence of conditionalities, many countries turned to private creditors. But unlike in the 1960s and 1980s, when governments borrowed directly from banks, they used bond issuances in the financial markets. In Western contexts of moderate or even negative growth, private creditors in search of profits, encouraged by the low level of interest rates, have taken advantage of this situation to reinvest their liquidity in the sovereign debt of countries of the South and thus improve their return rates. [17] At the same time, the IMF has encouraged low- and middle-income countries to use this type of instrument [18] to finance their infrastructure needs and repay their arrears. [19] Private creditors now hold more than 60% (see Table 1) of the public external debt of the countries of the South.

Rising interest rates

As the article was written in May 2019, this paragraph on interest rates should be qualified since in the summer of 2019, the FED announced a (temporary) reduction in its interest rates, and the ECB announced an extension of the Quantitative easing mechanism.

In response to the 2007-2008 financial crisis, central banks (US Federal Reserve – FED, European Central Bank – ECB, etc.) lowered their key interest rates. The measure was aimed at facilitating the financing of States and economic actors by promoting investment at a lower cost. However, central banks soon put an end to this policy of key rates close to zero or even zero (see figure 2). Mainly denominated in US dollars, [20] the external debt service of countries of the South consequently deteriorated while causing a decline in investment in these countries through a decline in investment because of private capital returning to more industrialized countries. [21] In 2017, more than 60% of the debt of the countries of the South consisted of variable-rate loans [22] and maturities of sovereign bonds will begin in 2021 (see figures 3 and 4). [23]

Figure 2: Changes in the key rates of the European Central Bank and the United States Federal Reserve since 2005 (in percentage terms) [24]

Blue line: ECB, Orange line: US Federal Reserve

Figure 3: Selected International Bond Redemptions in SSA (Billions of U.S dollars) [25]

Figure 4: Upcoming International Bond Redemptions of Frontier Market Sovereign Issuers (Billions of U.S dollars) [26]

The IMF’s comeback

As a sign of the times, the IMF has made a strong comeback in recent years. After being weakened in the early 2000s, [27] 35 countries are currently implementing the policies required by the IMF in return for financial assistance. [28] The populations of Argentina, [29] Egypt, [30]Greece, [31] Morocco, [32] Tunisia, [33] Ukraine [34] and Central African countries [35] are among the latest victims of this undemocratic neoliberal institution in the service of Western interests. [36] After the failure of the structural adjustment plans of the 1980s, the IMF still insists on demanding the implementation of anti-social policies, [37] leading to an increase in inequalities [38] and causing major popular revolts in its wake. [39]

Cancelling illegitimate debts

Donald Trump’s recent announcement to stop the rise in FED interest rates in response to the deteriorating economic situation in the United States [40] may delay the spread of the debt crisis, but vigilance is required. Faced with the debt trap, the climate emergency, the challenges of development and social justice, it is necessary to work towards the application of collective and solidarity-based alternatives. The establishment of a citizen audit [41] to identify and abolish odious and illegitimate debts resulting from creditor greed and corruption of local elites [42] is a first example, as is the effective creation of a Bank of the South to help countries escape the domination mechanisms inherent in the IFIs, the Paris Club and other major new creditors such as China.

*

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

Translated by Milan Rivié and Christine Pagnoulle

Notes

[1By ‘countries of the South’, we mean all low- and middle-income countries defined by the World Bank. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/income-level/low-and-middle-income?view=chart

[2UNCTAD, “Debt vulnerabilities a new debt trap”, October 2018. Available at: https://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=2259

[3List of the nine over-indebted countries on November 30, 2019: Congo (Republic of), Gambia, Grenada, Mozambique, São Tomé and Principe, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Zimbabwe. List of 24 countries in high risk of debt distress: Afghanistan, Burundi, Cameroon, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Djibouti, Dominica, Ethiopia, Ghana, Haiti, Kiribati, Lao P.D.R., Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Samoa, Sierra Leone, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Tajikistan, Tonga, Tuvalu and Zambia. See IMF, “List of LIC DSAs for PRGT-Eligible Countries. As of November 30, 2019”. Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/Pubs/ft/dsa/DSAlist.pdf

[4Ibid. Countries eligible to the HIPC initiative, currently in a situation of over-indebtedness: Gambia, Mozambique, São Tomé and Principe, South Sudan, Sudan ; currently in high risk of debt distress: Afghanistan, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Ethiopia, Ghana, Haiti, Sierra Leone, Zambia.

[5For a critical overview of the HIPC initiative, see Damien Millet, « Third World Debt », March 6, 2006, CADTM, Act 5 (in French). Available at: https://www.cadtm.org/La-dette-du-Tiers-Monde

[6Jürgen Kaiser, “Global sovereign debt monitor”, Erlassjahr & Misereor, 2019, p.4. Available at: https://erlassjahr.de/en/news/global-sovereign-debt-monitor-2019/

[7Jubilee Debt Campaign, “Crisis deepens as global South debt payments increase by 85%”, April 3, 2019. Available at: https://jubileedebt.org.uk/press-release/crisis-deepens-as-global-south-debt-payments-increase-by-85

[8Ibid.

[9Christine Lagarde, ‘Steer, Don’t Drift’: Managing Rising Risks to Keep the Global Economy on Course, speech at the seat of the IMF, October 1st, 2018. Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2018/09/27/sp100118-steer-dont-drift

[10According to World Bank datas available in the Global Development Finance reports, 2000 and 2009 editions and the World Bank’s International Debt Statistics Online.

[11Andrea F.Presbiteroa, Dhaneshwar Ghurab, Olumuyiwa S.Adedejib et Lamin Njie, “Sovereign bonds in developing countries: Drivers of issuance and spreads”, Review of Development Finance 6, no. 1, August 3, 2016, 1-15. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879933716300483

[12“State of commodity dependence 2019”, UNCTAD. Available at:
https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditccom2019d1_en.pdf

[13For instance, in 2017, fuels accounted for 50 to 97% of exports: Congo 50%, Gabon 70%, Chad 78% and Angola 97%; agricultural products accounted for 80% of Gambia’s exports and 57% of Grenada’s exports; mining products for 75% of Zambia’s exports and 92% of Botswana’s. Ibid. Note also the effects of speculation on commodities.

[14Bodo Ellmers, “The evolving nature of developing country debt and solutions for change”, Eurodad, July 2016, p.6. Available at: https://eurodad.org/files/pdf/1546625-the-evolving-nature-of-developing-country-debt-and-solutions-for-change-1474374793.pdf and Claude Quémar, « Nouvelle donne pour la dette en Afrique : alerte au Mozambique », April 2, 2016, CADTM. Available at: https://www.cadtm.org/Nouvelle-donne-pour-la-dette-en (in French).

[15“State of commodity dependence 2019”, UNCTAD. Available at:
https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditccom2019d1_en.pdf, p.8.

[16Bodo Ellmers, “The evolving nature of developing country debt and solutions for change”, Eurodad, July 2016, p.9. Available at: https://eurodad.org/files/pdf/1546625-the-evolving-nature-of-developing-country-debt-and-solutions-for-change-1474374793.pdf

[17Ibid., p.8

[18Andrea F.Presbiteroa, Dhaneshwar Ghurab, Olumuyiwa S.Adedejib and Lamin Njie, “Sovereign bonds in developing countries: Drivers of issuance and spreads”, Review of Development Finance 6, no. 1, August 3, 2016, 1-15. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879933716300483

[19Anastasia Guscina, Guilherme Pedras and Gabriel Presciuttini, “First-Time International Bond Issuance—New Opportunities and Emerging Risks”, IMF Working Paper, WP/14/127, July 2014, p.8. Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp14127.pdf

[21Bodo Ellmers, “The evolving nature of developing country debt and solutions for change”, Eurodad, July 2016, p. 8. Available at: https://eurodad.org/files/pdf/1546625-the-evolving-nature-of-developing-country-debt-and-solutions-for-change-1474374793.pdf

[22United Nations, Financing for Sustainable Development Report, 2019, p.119. Available at: https://developmentfinance.un.org/sites/developmentfinance.un.org/files/FSDR2019.pdf

[23For a State, the repayment of a loan is carried out in two main stages. During the entire repayment period defined with its creditor, the State reimburses only the interest on the amount borrowed. At the end of this period, he will pay the capital in a single instalment.

[24See https://global-rates.com/, accessed on 23 May 2019.

[25Bloomberg in “Africa’s Pulse, An analysis of issues shaping Africa’s economic future”, World Bank, vol. 18, October 2018, p.21. Available at:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/881211538485130572/pdf/130414-PUBLIC-WB-AfricasPulse-Fall2018-vol18-Web.pdf

[26IMF, “Global development finance report”, 2018, chapter 1, p.17. Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/GFSR/Issues/2018/09/25/Global-Financial-Stability-Report-October-2018

[27Éric Toussaint, Damien Millet and Jérôme Duval, « Un FMI ‘redevenu utile’, mais pour qui ? », CADTM, 5 June 2011. Available at: https://www.cadtm.org/Un-FMI-redevenu-utile-mais-pour

[28The 35 countries: Afghanistan, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Barbados, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Colombia, Congo (Republic of), Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Gabon, Georgia, Guinea, Honduras, Jordan, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger, Pakistan, São Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Togo, Tunisia and Ukraine. IMF Lending Arrangements as of November 30, 2019 Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/np/fin/tad/extarr11.aspx?memberKey1=ZZZZ&date1key=2020-02-28

[29Jérôme Duval, “Forced marriage between Argentina and the IMF turns into a fiasco”, CADTM, October 3, 2018. Available at: https://www.cadtm.org/Forced-marriage-between-Argentina-and-the-IMF-turns-into-a-fiasco

[30Collective, “Open letter to the Egyptian President on the pending agreement with the IMF”, August 20, 2016. Available at: https://www.cadtm.org/Open-letter-to-the-Egyptian

[31Marie-Laure Coulmin Koutsaftis, « La Grèce sous tutelle jusqu’au remboursement des prêts », CADTM, May 11, 2018. Available at: https://www.cadtm.org/La-Grece-sous-tutelle-jusqu-au-remboursement-des-prets

[32Omar Aziki, « Le FMI continue à imposer ses réformes catastrophiques au Maroc », CADTM, February 12, 2017. Available at: https://www.cadtm.org/Le-FMI-continue-a-imposer-ses

[33Fathi Chamkhi, « Tunisie : Aux origines de l’embrasement social de janvier 2018 », CADTM, March 12, 2018. Available at: https://www.cadtm.org/Tunisie-Aux-origines-de-l

[34Jérôme Duval, “IMF Interference Plunges Ukraine into Recession”, CADTM, November 23, 2015. Available at: https://www.cadtm.org/IMF-Interference-Plunges-Ukraine

[35Jean Nanga, « Afrique centrale : Retour à l’ajustement structurel néolibéral et mobilisations populaires », CADTM, May 12, 2017. Available at: https://www.cadtm.org/Afrique-centrale-Retour-a-l

[36Éric Toussaint, “The IMF and the World Bank: It’s time to replace them”, CADTM, October 17, 2017. Available at: https://www.cadtm.org/The-IMF-and-the-World-Bank-It-s

[37Émilie Paumard, « Le FMI et la Banque mondiale ont-ils appris de leurs erreurs ? », CADTM, October 13, 2017. Available at: https://www.cadtm.org/Le-FMI-et-la-Banque-mondiale-ont

[38Mark Weisbrot, Rebecca Ray, Jake Johnston, Jose Antonio Cordero and Juan Antonio Montecin, “IMF ‐ Supported Macroeconomic Policies and the World Recession : A Look at Forty‐One Borrowing Countries”, Center for Economic and Policy Research, october 2009, p.4. Available at: http://cepr.net/documents/publications/imf-2009-10.pdf ; Jesse Griffiths and Konstantinos Todoulos, “Conditionally yours : An analysis of the policy conditions attached to IMF loans”, Eurodad, april 2014, p.4. Available at: https://eurodad.org/files/pdf/1546182-conditionally-yours-an-analysis-of-the-policy-conditions-attached-to-imf-loans.pdf, and Gino Brunswijck, “Unhealthy conditions : IMF loan conditionality and its impact on health financing”, Eurodad, November 28, 2018. Available at: https://eurodad.org/Entries/view/1546978/2018/11/20/Unhealthy-conditions-IMF-loan-conditionality-and-its-impact-on-health-financing

[39Claude Quémar, « Le FMI met le feu en Haïti, en Guinée, en Égypte… », CADTM, August 8, 2018. Available at: https://www.cadtm.org/Le-FMI-met-le-feu-en-Haiti-en-Guinee-en-Egypte-16476

[40Éric Toussaint, « The mountain of corporate debt will be the seed of the next financial crisis », CADTM, May 3, 2019. Available at: https://www.cadtm.org/The-mountain-of-corporate-debt-will-be-the-seed-of-the-next-financial-crisis

[41Éric Toussaint and Damien Millet, « Citizen debt audits : how and why ? », CADTM, January 4, 2012. Available at: https://www.cadtm.org/Citizen-debt-audits-how-and-why

[42CADTM, « Droits devant ! Plaidoyer contre toutes les dettes illégitimes », CADTM, February 1, 2013. Available at: https://www.cadtm.org/Droits-devant

Thailand: The Lingering Spectre of US Colour Revolutions

January 23rd, 2020 by Joseph Thomas

Thailand’s opposition is openly backed by powerful foreign interests, particularly those in Washington. As the opposition attempts to secure power and help serve as a vector for Western special interests, the spectre of a Western-sponsored “colour revolution” increasingly looms over Thailand’s future.

Thailand is a key Southeast Asian nation, with the second largest economy in the ASEAN regional bloc and a key regional partner for China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). By disrupting Thailand’s political status quo, Washington hopes to introduce complications to China’s regional and global rise.

Taking to the Streets 

In early December Thai opposition party “Future Forward” took to the streets with several hundred protesters, obstructing pedestrian bridges and sidewalks in downtown Bangkok.

While Future Forward’s defacto leader, billionaire Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, claimed he clogged Bangkok’s downtown shopping district with followers to fight for “democracy” and “freedom,” it was abundantly clear  the mob he assembled was a direct reaction to recent court cases leveled against him and his party for repeated and blatant violations of Thai election laws.

This included Thanathorn’s holding of media shares while campaigning which is illegal under Thai law. It also includes a supposed “loan” Thanathorn made worth tens of millions of Thai baht to his own party, a loan the party itself has no means of ever paying back, meaning that it was in fact a donation and therefore absolutely illegal under Thai election laws.

Rather than face justice, Thanathorn has assembled a street mob as a means of hanging the threat of eventual violence over the head of Thailand’s courts in hopes of either reversing case decisions or reducing the penalties resulting from various court rulings.

Should nations like the US aid and abet Thanathorn’s street politics, the potential for widespread violence may allow Thanathorn and his political machine to exercise further leverage not only to circumvent justice, but to assume the power and influence his party failed to render from general elections earlier this year. Future Forward came in distant 3rd.

The Spectre of Malign Foreign Interference 

The most troubling aspect of Thanathorn’s recent foray into street politics is his open and deep ties to fellow billionaire and now fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra and his own use of violent street politics to divide Thai society and to pressure Thailand’s institutions into making concessions.

Thaksin, like Thanathorn, is likewise backed by large foreign special interests, particularly in Washington. For years he has secured the largest and most powerful lobbying firms in Washington to help shape Western media narratives favourably around his and his foreign sponsors’ agenda of tipping Thailand back West and away from its growing ties with Beijing.

In 2009 Thaksin’s street mobs disrupted the annual ASEAN summit held in southern Thailand while rioting across Bangkok, carrying out arson and killing two shopkeepers while looting local businesses.

In 2010, Thaksin augmented his street mobs with hundreds of heavily armed terrorists. With the use of war weapons, nearly 100 would die with the violence ending in a day of citywide arson causing billions in damages.

While many have attempted to write Thaksin off as a fading power and introduce Thanathorn as “new blood,” the fact is that Thanathorn is little more than a nominee who represents Thaksin and his still dangerous political machine. Thanathorn’s Future Forward Party headquarters is next door to Thaksin’s Pheu Thai Party headquarters with both parties sharing resources, conducting joint press conferences and adopting a singular political agenda aimed at ousting the current government and assuming power.

Just as the US has done in other nations around the globe, it has selected and is backing political forces in Thailand it hopes can either one day assume power and serve as a vector for US interests, or at the very least render Thailand divided and weakened and “unavailable” to aid in and benefit from China’s regional and global rise.

Thanathorn has already visibly enjoyed the benefits of US support. The US has marshalled its own embassy and the embassies of Western US allies to come out in displays of support for Thanathorn when summoned to face criminal charges.

The US also openly funds a small army of supposed “nongovernmental organisations” (NGOs) that not only support Thanathorn and his Future Forward Party, but also have supplied employees to Future Forward as founding members.

Under the guise of advocating for “human rights” and “democracy,” US-funded NGOs use their resources and influence to shield Future Forward from justice by claiming criminal charges are politically-motivated or that Future Forward’s conduct is merely “freedom of expression.”

Forward into a Dark Future 

Thanathorn and his Future Forward Party claim they do not seek to replicate the violence of 2009 and 2010, despite openly serving Thaksin who was responsible for that violence. Thanathorn also claims he and his party do not seek to replicate the violence that has rocked Hong Kong recently, despite Thanathorn travelling to Hong Kong and openly supporting the US-funded and backed leaders of that violence.

It is clear that Thanathorn is merely attempting to hide what is otherwise an obvious agenda with an obvious and lingering conclusion; that of violence once against spilling into the streets as a means for Thanathorn and the interests he represents to pressure the current Thai political order and exact concessions from them.

It is a dark future Thailand is being led into and one that will have a further negative impact on China as it seeks to compensate for US sanctions and targeted meddling by building ties with nations like Thailand. China cannot build constructive ties with Thailand if Thailand itself is consumed by political conflict and/or violence. Instability in Thailand and in China will produce synergistic benefits for Washington and its foreign policy of meddling, dividing and weakening its opponents, particularly in Asia where the US desperately seeks to reassert itself as a hegemon.

Understanding, exposing and resisting US foreign policy by denying Washington and its proxies the cover of “pro-democracy” or “pro-human rights” narratives is the first step to not only disrupting attempts to destabilise Thailand politically, but also to deny Washington the use of this tactic anywhere else.

*

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

The crowing by Donald Trump that he “terminated” the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force, Major General Qaseem Soleimani, simply because Trump believed, mobster-style, that he had it coming, should remind the world that the United States government stands as the world’s record-holder in either directly carrying out or coordinating with other parties the assassination of political leaders, American and foreign.

In most cases in the past, assassinations ordered by the U.S. intelligence infrastructure had the veneer of “plausible deniability.” Even with the release of millions of formerly classified intelligence documents, the Central Intelligence Agency continues to manage to hide behind the plausible deniability façade. The recent order by Trump for the U.S. military to assassinate Soleimani was not only made public, but it also involved a major international assassination program that also successfully targeted Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the Iraqi commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), the closest thing Iraq has to a National Guard. Al-Muhandis and Soleimani were traveling in the same motorcade at Baghdad International Airport when their vehicles were struck by a drone-launched missile. In another attempted assassination by missile, the chief treasurer for the Quds Force, General Abdul Reza Shahlai, escaped being targeted by a U.S. missile aimed at what believed to have been his location in Yemen.

Trump’s assassination program was eerily similar to a plan the CIA developed in 2001 as a result of strong pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney. Although Cheney’s CIA operation supposedly targeted Al Qaeda leaders for assassination, it came dangerously close to violating a series of presidential orders from Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan prohibiting the targeting of foreign government officials for assassination. Reagan’s Executive Order 12333, which updated those of Ford and Carter, stipulated: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Executive Order 12333 was weakened by follow-on orders signed by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The relaxed presidential orders permitted the assassination of specially designated terrorist leaders.

In June 2009, CIA director Leon Panetta canceled the assassination program because of its potential illegality and the fact that Cheney had hidden its existence from congressional overseers. The Cheney program had relied on armed drones to carry out assassinations of presumed terrorist leaders. With the Trump-ordered assassinations of Soleimani and al-Muhandis, both of whom cooperated with U.S. and other forces in the battles against the Islamic State and other Sunni jihadist groups in Iraq and Syria, the old Cheney program appears to have been reinstated.

There is a big difference between assassinating Al Qaeda and Islamic State leaders and the commanders of government military forces of United Nations member states like Iran and Iraq.

President Ford enacted the first presidential order against foreign assassinations in 1976 after the CIA’s involvement in the assassinations of Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, Dominican Republic President Rafael Trujillo, Chilean President Salvador Allende, and other foreign officials became public. Exposed as a result of Senate, House of Representatives, and Rockefeller Commission investigations were repeated attempts by the CIA to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

The U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) conducted studies and hearings on the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy and that of Dr. Martin Luther King in 1968. The HCSA, which did not receive full cooperation from the U.S. intelligence and federal law enforcement communities, concluded Kennedy and King were likely assassinated as the result of conspiracies. The HCSA, against mountains of evidence to the contrary, also concluded that no agency of the U.S. government was involved in either of the two assassinations. The HCSA did not examine evidence of wider conspiracies involving the U.S. government in the June 1968 assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, the 1970 airplane crash that killed United Auto Workers union president Walter Reuther, or the 1972 attempted assassination of Alabama Governor and presidential candidate George Wallace.

After the HCSA completed its inquiry, there would be future questions over the use of U.S. intelligence assets to carry out domestic political assassinations, including the 1980 assassination of famed musician John Lennon and the attempted assassination of President Reagan in 1981. Both, as well as that of Senator Robert Kennedy, bore the signature of the use of pre-programmed assassins, which was a central feature of a mind-control operation the CIA codenamed MK-ULTRA.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has indicated that the Trump administration has not only restored the Cheney policy of targeted assassinations but reserves the right to carry out assassinations of other “challengers” to U.S. interests. In a speech at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, which was titled “The Restoration of Deterrence: The Iranian Example,” Pompeo stressed that additional leaders of Iran, presumably including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as leaders of Russia and China, could be targeted for assassination as part of America’s “bigger strategy.” Pompeo stressed that the new U.S. deterrence through assassination policy “isn’t confined to Iran.” In addition to Iran, Russia, and China, Pompeo indicated that political and religious leaders in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and elsewhere were subject to U.S. assassination. That has been taken by many in the Middle East to include the leadership of Lebanese Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Pompeo indicated that prior to assassination, targets will be treated to pre-assassination measures, including freezes on their foreign bank accounts and other financial assets. Those officials currently in the pre-assassination phase of being sanctioned include Ali Shamkhani, the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council; Mohammad Reza Ashtiani, the Deputy Chief of Staff of Iranian armed forces; and Gholamreza Soleimani, the head of the Basij militia of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Lebanese officials in the pre-assassination category include Amin Sherri and Muhammad Hasan Ra’d, both Hezbollah members of the Lebanese Parliament, and Wafiq Safa, a Hezbollah liaison officer to the Lebanese security forces.

All Pompeo has managed to accomplish is that any future suspicious deaths or assassinations of any world leader or policy maker will be seen as having possible American fingerprints, and justifiably so. Pompeo’s speech has refocused attention on the October 2, 2018 assassination by Saudi intelligence agents of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Consulate-General in Istanbul. That assassination appears to have been known in advance to Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who maintains a close personal relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), the main architect of Khashoggi’s murder.

Pompeo insists that the new U.S. policy is to deter foreign threats to the United States. Skeptics of the policy believe that it is not U.S. national security that Pompeo is interested in protecting, but Donald Trump’s personal welfare. The suspicious death in a New York federal detention center of one-time Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein, who was arrested in July 2019 and charged with international underage female sex trafficking, have many in the United States and abroad concerned that Pompeo, and Attorney General William Barr are running some sort of “Murder, Incorporated” to silence those who pose a threat to Trump and his vested interests. An Epstein trial could have revealed information about the nature of his relationship with Trump that would have posed a direct threat to the Trump presidency.

*

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.

To say that there has been some strange stuff coming out of the White House lately would be an understatement. If President Donald Trump knew a bit more about history, he would understand that countries that rent out their national armies to serve as mercenaries usually wind up holding the short end of the stick. There is the example of Pyrrhus of Epirus in the third century B.C., for whom the expression “Pyrrhic victory” was coined, and, more recently there was the British employment of 30,000 Hessian and other German soldiers in the American revolution. Hessian regiments were rented out by their prince to the King of England to pay the expenses of his government. The use of mercenaries by the British was cited by the colonists as one of their principal grievances and the Hessians became the losers in one of the few early colonial victories at Trenton.

There is currently considerable evidence surfacing suggesting that Trump views the United States military as some kind of mercenary force, a cash and carry security option for those who can come up with the dough. In a recent interview that Trump gave to Laura Ingraham of Fox News, the president boasted that “We have a very good relationship with Saudi Arabia. I said, listen, you’re a very rich country. You want more troops? I’m going to send them to you, but you’ve got to pay us. They’re paying us. They’ve already deposited $1 billion in the bank.”

Some readers might just suspect that they’ve heard language like that before, but they are most likely recalling The Godfather part 1 movie where Marlon Brando playing a young Vito Corleone was running a protection racket for small businesses and shopkeepers in New York’s Little Italy. Corleone first had to kill the Black Hand extortionist Don Fanucci in order to take over his racket, something that has a certain resonance with what is going on currently in Iraq.

Trump has long complained that America’s allies are not paying enough to compensate the United States for the protection that it provides all over the world. He has pressured allies to pay for the U.S. military presence, even demanding that the Iraqis and South Koreans should reimburse the construction costs of airfields and other defense installations that have been used as bases by the American army and air force. Indeed, not surprisingly, the only country that gets away with having a U.S. base without any Trumpean demand for compensation is Israel, which actually gets the base plus more than $3.8 billion a year in “aid.”

In the case of the Saudis, the government in Riyadh has ponied up the money to pay for the Trump relocation of 3,000 American soldiers. The move is intended to help protect the Kingdom from possible attack by Iran or its proxies, a particular concern given the devastating attack staged by an unidentified someone on the major Saudi oil refinery on September 14th. One might recall, however, that the “unholy” presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia prior to 9/11 was a major grievance successfully exploited by al-Qaeda, resulting in 15 of the 19 presumed airline hijacking terrorists being Saudis.

Trump’s logic on the issue is that of an accountant who works for a protection racket. He looks to make a profit, without regard for the collateral costs that cannot be entered in double entry book keeping. The reality is that sending soldiers to places where they should not necessarily be largely because some foreign country can foot the bill loses sight of the fact that some of those people being ordered abroad will die. That is unacceptable and it makes the American Army little better than a mercenary force, hardly a “force for good” as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo would have it.

Kelley Vlahos of The American Conservative reports how the U.S. military in Saudi Arabia will man “…assets designed to help the Saudi military guard against Iranian attacks, including four Patriot batteries, a terminal high-altitude area defense system, or THAAD air defense system, and two squadrons of fighter jets. She also observes the “clincher” in the deal, which is that “…one important aspect of the deployment is the presence of American forces in more locations across the kingdom. They believe Iran has demonstrated its reluctance to target American personnel, either directly or indirectly, in part because Trump has made clear that would trigger a military response.”

In other words, as Vlahos observes, U.S. military personnel would be serving as human shields for the Saudis, to deter possible Iranian attacks. That sounds like a very bad bit of thinking on the part of whichever lunkhead in Washington came up with the scheme.

If the Saudi case were not bad enough, the Washington Post has also recently published an article extracted from a new book entitled A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump’s Testing of America, by Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig, which includes detailed accounts of meetings between the president and his senior staff.

The book is admittedly designed as a hit piece on Trump and it tends to beatify the military and its senior officers while also uncritically accepting America’s global role, but some of the invective hurled at the generals and admirals by Trump is, quite frankly, disgusting. One particular meeting held at the Pentagon’s top security Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting room called “The Tank” is reported in detail, clearly from the notes and recollections of participants or possibly even from a recording. It took place six months into the Trump administration on July 20, 2017, and included Vice President Mike Pence, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Joseph F. Dunford, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Director of the National Economic Council Gary Cohn, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and the leaders of the military branches. Trump’s personal “strategist” Steve Bannon was also in attendance. Per the article, Mattis and other cabinet members present had arranged the meeting because they had become alarmed by Trump’s lack of knowledge of the key international alliances forged by Washington following after World War II. Trump had been routinely dismissing America’s allies as worthless.

Mattis, Cohn, and Tillerson used PowerPoint presentations for ninety minutes in the belief that it would keep Trump from getting bored. The graphics showed where U.S. troops were stationed and explained the security arrangements that had led to America’s global defense and national security posture.

Trump occasionally spoke up when he heard a word he didn’t like, describing American overseas bases as “crazy” and “stupid.” His first complaint was over his perception that foreigners should pay for U.S. protection. Regarding South Korea he fumed, “We should charge them rent. We should make them pay for our soldiers. We should make money off of everything.”

Trump also called NATO useless, not because of their lack of a raison d’etre, but instead based on what they owed. “They’re in arrears,” he shouted and gesticulated, as if they were late on their rent payments, before directing his ire against the generals. “We are owed money you haven’t been collecting! You would totally go bankrupt if you had to run your own business.”

Trump then got specific, naming Iran, saying of the nuclear pact with that country, which he had not yet withdrawn from, “They’re cheating. They’re building. We’re getting out of it. I keep telling you, I keep giving you time, and you keep delaying me. I want out of it.” And Afghanistan? A “loser war. You’re all losers. You don’t know how to win anymore.”

Trump then went into a rage as he demanded oil to pay for the troops stationed in the Persian Gulf. “We spent $7 trillion; they’re ripping us off. Where is the fucking oil? I want to win. We don’t win any wars anymore…We spend $7 trillion, everybody else got the oil and we’re not winning anymore.” Glaring around the room he concluded “I wouldn’t go to war with you people. You’re a bunch of dopes and babies.”

The only one in the room who responded to Trump’s tirade was Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who objected “No, that’s just wrong Mr. President, you’re totally wrong. None of that is true. The men and women who put on a uniform don’t do it to become soldiers of fortune. That’s not why they put on a uniform and go out and die… They do it to protect our freedom.”

After the meeting ended and the participants were departing, Tillerson famously shook his head and opined “He’s a fucking moron.”

In a follow-up meeting in December, Trump called together his generals and other senior officials in the Situation Room, the secure meeting room on the ground floor of the West Wing. The subject was how to come up with a new policy for Afghanistan. Trump started the discussion by saying “All these countries need to start paying us for the troops we are sending to their countries. We need to be making a profit. We could turn a profit on this. We need to get our money back.”

Tillerson was again the only one to respond: “I’ve never put on a uniform, but I know this. Every person who has put on a uniform, the people in this room, they don’t do it to make a buck. They did it for their country, to protect us. I want everyone to be clear about how much we as a country value their service.” Trump was angered by the rebuke and three months later Tillerson was fired. Mattis subsequently resigned.

Even if one discounts, as many do, the rationalizations made by senior military officers and diplomats for staying the course in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, where they admittedly have screwed the pooch, there is something deplorable in a bullying president who sees everything in transactional terms, buying and selling. Sending American soldiers into potential death traps like Saudi Arabia as part of a non-existent strategy to make money is beyond criminal behavior. People on both sides die when the decision making coming out of the White House is bad, and there has been no president either more ignorant or worse in that respect than Donald J. Trump.

*

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

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on An Army for Hire: Trump Wants to Make Money by Renting Out American Soldiers
  • Tags:

The Iraqi Parliament has decided to ask for the immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces from the country for violating the terms of their presence. The US has broken its contractual obligations to the government of Baghdad and affronted the sovereignty of Iraq, jeopardising its stability. Sources at the Prime Minister’s office said “the request for withdrawal is imminent. US forces have violated the agreement. Therefore, the agreement is now null and void. The agreement had stipulated that US forces were to be given one year’s notice for withdrawal, but since the US broke the terms of the agreement, this time horizon no longer applies.”

Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi informed all countries with military forces in Iraq — the USA, and its coalition partners the UK, Canada, France, Belgium, Denmark, etc. – of the urgency that they initiate withdrawal as soon as possible. So far, I have learned, no country has responded positively to the request via diplomatic channels. Only the US has even answered the Iraqi government, openly declaring its refusal to depart. Tremendous pressure and intimidation are being applied to the government to persuade it not to carry out the constitutional decision voted by the parliamentary majority.

“I can only see one solution ahead: to inform the country that the United States is defying the will of the Iraqi people, and to declare the US military an occupation force if all diplomatic means are exhausted”, said the source.

US officials have overtly refused the lawful democratic decision of the parliament – the democracy that the US claimed to have imported to the country in 2003 – and insist on remaining in Iraq. US Secretary Mike Pompeo described the Iraqi decision as “non-binding”. Nevertheless, no foreign military force can stay in a hostile society, notwithstanding the number of military bases and the massive army power under its control.

The Iraqi Shia, 66% of the 40 million Iraqi population, are expressing their hatred towards US forces in particular and all foreign forces in general. Iraq would like to see these forces depart for good, putting an end to US influence in Mesopotamia and West Asia. A massive protest has been organised for this Friday 24th January, led by Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr, who is warning the US of the consequences of ignoring this Parliamentary decision. It is expected to be the most massive protest in the history of Iraq. But this protest is only the beginning.

US forces have committed serious crimes in Iraq: according to Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi, the US Ambassador in Baghdad informed him of Israel’s responsibility for the five attacks against Iraqi security forces in mid-2019 and the drone assassination of a security force commander on the Syrian-Iraqi borders. These Israeli attacks were carried out with the knowledge and permission of US forces in Iraq, who allowed Israel to violate Iraqi air space and kill its security members. That attack made the US – who maintain control over Iraqi air space – an accomplice of Israel in attacking the US host country, Iraq.

In December 2019, the Trump administration committed another crime, disregarding the Iraqi government and killing more Iraqis intentionally and without any legal basis. US jets attacked Iraqi forces’ positions on the borders with Syria, killing and wounding 79 officers and members of the Iraqi Army, the Federal Police and the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) brigades 45 and 46. The US singled out an encampment of the Iraqi Security Forces, who are based on the borders to hunt down ISIS militants moving through the Syrian-Iraqi deserts.

These forces are under the direct command of Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi. The US accused Iraqi soldiers at this encampment of attacking its K1 base 540 km away. The US had no proof that the dozens of officers its Air Forces killed in its subsequent bombing attack had been behind the killing of an Iraqi born US contractor at the K1 base.  The US even refused to provide any evidence of this when requested to do so by the Iraqi Prime Minister prior to the attack.

Thus, already in 2019, the terms of the US mandate in Iraq had been violated. Then the US very recently committed another crime against Iraq by assassinating an Iraqi commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes and three Iraqi officers at Baghdad airport. It further showed its contempt for international law by assassinating an Iranian Major General, Sardar Qassem Soleimani, and four Iranian officers (Brigadier General Hossein PourJafari, Colonel Shahroud Mozaffarinia, Major Hadi Taremi, and Captain Vahid Zamanian) even though the US had not declared war on Iran. Trump boasted provocatively about the assassination, bragging about “killing two for the price of one”.

Further evidence of US contempt for diplomatic protocol was provided by Prime Minister Abdel Mahdi, when he declared that President Trump had phoned him to ask his mediation to de-escalate tension with Iran. Abdel Mahdi said that “Soleimani arrived in Iraq at my request to receive a response from Saudi Arabia to Iran’s peace initiative. Trump killed a foreign officer on a territory he is supposed to protect and an envoy of peace who landed at the request of the Prime Minister”. But that is not all: it was public knowledge, as announced by Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari (11 June 2016), that Soleimani enjoys immunity in Iraq as an advisor – at the official request of Iraq – to fight ISIS.

ENWdueEXYAAdGfQ

It is inaccurate to say “Soleimani was plotting against US citizens just as he had done for years”. President Trump and his administration provided no evidence for such a claim. warmongering politicians and academics recall only the US occupation of Iraq and the support of Soleimani for the Iraqi resistance, accusing Soleimani of “having the blood of US soldiers on his hands during the US military occupation of Iraq”.

However, “the Security Council has not explicitly condemned attacks upon coalition forces—that would undercut the inherent right of self-defence against foreign invasion and occupation.” It is argued that “the invasion of Iraq was an illegal act (war)of aggression, and that those responsible for it are war criminals” (Mandel, 2004: McGoldrick, 2004).

Therefore, armed resistance against the occupation forces in Iraq at that time was entirely legitimate. The response of resistance, and its consequences for the US-led occupation forces, who in 2003 acknowledged their status as an occupation force, cannot be called an act of terrorism. Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani cannot be responsible for crimes against an occupier who never found the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” that it had used as a pretext for invasion. The US invaded Iraq with no legal basis, causing mass destruction to the Iraqi population and the country’s infrastructure, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

EO4WzwCWAAAowIR

We have now learned from the horse’s mouth why Trump killed Soleimani: the Iranian Major General was “saying bad things” about the US. “How much of this shit do we have to listen to? How much are we going to listen to?” Trump told his donors.

The US continues to allow Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu to violate Iraqi airspace by permitting Israeli jets to bomb Syria from the Iraqi-Syrian borders occupied by the US forces at al-Tanf. Officials in Baghdad said “the US forces have no respect for their agreement with Iraq. For some time now, they have been behaving like an occupation force. This is not the first time this has happened. We inform Syria about it every time this takes place”.

The many crimes committed by the US in the Middle East, its violations of international law, and Iraqi sovereignty, in particular, did not begin with President Trump. But Trump and his team took things to a new level in 2018 when he renounced the nuclear deal known as the JCPOA that is part of UNSC resolution 2231. He didn’t like it because it was “ Barack Obama’s agreement”. Trump thus made the Middle East even more unstable and has brought the region to the brink of war. As he insists on keeping US forces in Iraq, he will one day soon have to explain to Americans why in the face of local resistance to the US occupation US soldiers are dying.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iraqi Parliament: Immediate US Withdrawal Due to Its Violation of the Agreement
  • Tags: , ,

We have now entered 2020, the year in which experts at the United Nations (UN) once predicted Gaza would become unlivable. But the sad reality is not only that those same experts said that Gaza was already unlivable in 2017, but that now the population of 2 million residing in Gaza are under the real threat of genocide.

Sara Roy of Harvard University’s Centre for Middle Eastern studies, who is considered the leading scholar on Gaza’s economy, has written that “innocent human beings, most of them young, are slowly being poisoned in Gaza by the water drink and likely by the soil in which they plant.” So let us break down that statement, based upon the data available to us.

The population of the Gaza Strip is over 2 million strong, more than 50% of which are children (18 and under). Ninety-seven percent of Gaza’s water is undrinkable with only the upper 10% of Gaza’s population having access to clean water according to the UN. If we take these statistics and we look at them critically that would mean that according to conservative estimates only 40% of Gaza’s children are consuming water that is fit for human consumption. This means that parents in the Gaza Strip are forced to make the decision to allow their children to drink contaminated water in order for them to survive.

Israel which has enforced its illegal blockade of Gaza since 2006 – although Zionist propagandists claim it started in June of 2007, which is incorrect – is under international law required to provide Gaza with the ability to sustain itself. Gaza is not a State; it is not a sovereign territory in of itself. According to the UN Gaza constitutes part of what is called the Palestinian occupied territories, with the focus here being on the word “occupied.”

According to the 4th Geneva Convention, Israel is required under International Law to provide the ability for Gaza and the West Bank to sustain an environment of livability. Israel will argue, however, that Gaza specifically is not occupied; that it withdrew in 2005. However it still controls the population registry, the entries and exits, all imports and exports, the electromagnetic sphere, the armistice lines (what Israel calls the border), the territorial waters, airspace as well as having a monopoly on the electricity in Gaza. Israel controls Gaza through and through; meaning that if Israel does not declare an occupation, it is a de facto annexation of the territory.

In excess of 108,000 cubic meters of untreated sewage water flows into the Mediterranean Sea from Gaza. This is due to a lack of power for Gaza’s desalination plant and the lack of building material required to expand, both of which are due to Israel’s policies towards the besieged coastal enclave. The situation is so bad that not only is Gaza’s sea water heavily contaminated, leading to deaths as recently as last year, but also Israel’s Askalan (Ashkelon) based desalination plant periodically halts operations due to the pollution, showing that Israel is willing to put the purification of 20% of its own water at jeopardy in order to punish the Gaza Strip.

Rising from the problem of water contamination is also disease. Gidon Grumberg, the founder and director of Israel’s ‘Ecopeace’, told the Jerusalem post in 2016 that Gaza is a ticking time bomb for cholera and typhoid epidemics. Since then there have been repeated calls for a change to be made to Gaza’s lack of clean water by various experts. If a change is not made in 2020 then Gaza could become a hotbed for disease the way that Yemen has, again due to an illegally imposed blockade.

Beyond the water problem are also numerous other issues plaguing Gaza, all of which are again due to Israel’s illegally imposed – for nearly 15 years now – siege. Upwards of 80% of Gaza’s population are reliant upon international food aid in order to survive, with Israel enforcing a policy of “putting the people of Gaza on a diet,” entailing that Israel counts the minimum caloric intake for the Gazan population to stay alive. Israel of course controls the food aid coming into the Gaza Strip and even makes a profit off of it. The restrictions Israel applies to food coming into Gaza is also used as a political tool in order to punish the Palestinians for their acts of resistance against Israel.

The conservative estimates, according to the United Nations, also indicate that Gaza’s youth unemployment rate is close to hitting 70% with an overall unemployment rate recorded to be at around 50%. Israel also has repeatedly blocked Palestinian cancer patients from entering Israel in order to receive life-saving treatment. Not only this, but due to the lack of power in Gaza, cardiac monitors and X-ray machines become unreliable. In the first half of 2019, the Gaza Health Ministry, which has a regular budget of $40 million a year, had only 10 million dollars worth of supplies available to them and in July (2019) declared a warning of an unprecedented shortage of medicine and medical supplies. According to the World Health Organization 39% of Gaza applications for cancer patients to exit the blockaded Strip were “unsuccessful” in 2018.

Gaza’s population is subjected to sewage regularly flooding, after rainfall, into the streets and causing sickness, especially amongst the poorer population. Even the more well-off, financially, of Gaza’s population, whom of which reside in areas such as Gaza City (North East Gaza), are losing their wealth. Specifically the residents of the al-Rimal area, who are viewed by many as living in an area of prestige are having to flee to places like Istanbul, or become refugees abroad and are losing their families assets due to an absence of income.

Gaza currently survives on a few hours of electricity per day, this is due to the fact that Israel put a cap on the amount of electricity it allows into Gaza, as well as the fact that Israel has bombarded and destroyed Gaza’s electrical grid and power plants, on various occasions. The sole, partially destroyed by bombardment, power plant in Gaza is also in a semi-operational state due to the cutting of diesel fuel from the Strip in early 2018, after the Palestinian Authority stopped paying for the fuel.

As of February 2018, the Gaza Strip has been in a “state of emergency.” Enduring, since the beginning of the siege, eight large-scale military offensive massacres by Israel, with hundreds of smaller bombardments coming in between.

A 17 year old in Gaza would have experienced Israeli internal occupation, a 15 year long ever tightening siege, 8 large scale massacres, hundreds of other attacks, three wars, the constant buzzing of drones, the deaths of friends and family, temporary or permanent displacement and the list goes on and on.

To top this all off, when the people of Gaza rose up in their hundreds of thousands non-violently, beginning on the 30th March (2018), they were ignored by the world which has done nothing to stop Israel for its murder of 330+ unarmed demonstrators and the injuring of approximately 40,000. Until now, the demonstrations are still ongoing on a weekly basis and no Israeli soldiers have been killed or sustained any serious injuries.

According to International Law, the people of Gaza have every right to use armed force in order to struggle for self determination and to end the siege. Israel has no claim to a “right of self defence”, just as rapist would have no claim to a right of self defence against their rape victim, and the next time we hear of Israel’s “right” in anyway to use force, we must know that whoever repeats this is contradicting the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Aviv Kochavi said recently in a speech pertaining to a future war against Gaza, that Israel will target electrical, agricultural and other structural components, which according to Israel contribute to keeping Hamas – Gaza’s governing Party – afloat. This means that if Israel does begin a new massacre (war) against Gaza – or Hamas as they will claim – then it will mean that all the statistics listed off above will accelerate to unprecedented numbers and that Gaza will become even more uninhabitable.

The only questions now left to be answered are, what will stop Israel from completely genociding the people of Gaza? and how will the worlds future generations look at us today for allowing this holocaust to occur against the people of Palestine. One million Palestinian children are being systematically poisoned by Israel and there is nothing but deafening silence.

*

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 Desertpeace

Iraqi President Denounced for Meeting with Trump in Davos

January 23rd, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

On Wednesday, former Iraqi Kurdistan region prime minister/current Iraqi president Barham Salih met with Trump in Davos on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum.

He ignored warnings from internal Shia militia groups that he’d be unwelcome back home if met with DJT.

The Iraqi presidency is largely symbolic, usually held by a Kurd. Iraqi Kurdistan officials favor the continued presence of US troops in the country — what PM Mahdi, majority MPs and most Iraqis oppose, wanting foreign occupation ended.

Heightened anti-US sentiment followed the Trump regime’s assassination of Iranian General Soleimani and Iraqi PMU head/Kata’ib Hezbollah founder Muhandis.

The group’s security official Abu Ali al-Askari warned Salih against meeting with Trump, accusing him of “violating the will of the people (and) ignoring the pure blood spilled,” adding:

“We emphasize the necessity of Barham Salih committing to not meeting stupid Trump and the squad of killers that accompany him.”

“We will then say, ‘you are not welcome, and our free children will work on expelling (you) from the honorable and mighty Baghdad.’ ”

Kata’ib Hezbollah spokesman Mohammad Mohie called Salih’s meeting with Trump “deeply humiliating and inconsiderate of the loss of Iraqi blood,” adding:

“Trump has committed unforgivable crimes against the Iraqi people. How could Salih join hands with someone who has no respect for Iraq’s sovereignty and the blood of its martyrs?”

“He positioned himself against the Iraqi people. We call on him to step down and not return to Baghdad. He is no longer welcome among us.”

Another PMU group, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, said if Salih meets with Trump, “then Iraq and the people of Iraq will not accept or welcome the one who put his hand in the hand of criminals and terrorists, on whose hands is the blood of Iraqis,” adding:

“Most Iraqi(s) consider this meeting treacherous. We no longer accept (Salih) as our representative and won’t rest until he’s held accountable for going against the will of the Iraqi parliament.”

“He must step down and be banished from Baghdad.”

Other Iraqi officials said Salih’s meeting with Trump showed disrespect to the country’s “sovereignty.”

After the meeting, he defied popular anti-US sentiment, falsely calling bilateral relations “very good,” adding:

He and Trump “had a very good conversation, and we had a very candid conversation (about) the need for basically restraint, calming things down.”

“This is not time for another conflict. In my conversations with many actors in the region, everybody, everybody, almost everybody is saying, ‘this is getting out of hand. Please cool it down. Restraint.’ ”

In his Davos address, he defiantly said “Iraq is indebted to the US-led coalition for its military and economic support which (it) continues to provide in the fight against ISIL (sic).”

He ignored US support for the jihadist group and the devastation caused by its fighters as directed by Washington earlier, notably in Mosul and Al Anbar province.

Reportedly the Trump regime is shifting thousands of Daesh jihadists from Syria to Iraq. Is it planning to unleash them like earlier as a pretext for pressuring Baghdad to permit continued US occupation of Iraq?

Trump defiantly said his regime will “do things on (its own) terms,” saying nothing about PM Mahdi and Iraqi MPs wanting US and allied forces forces withdrawn from the country.

Instead adding: “(W)e’re talking about a lot of different things, and you’ll be hearing whatever we do.”

“(T)hey like what we’re doing and we like them, and we’ve had a very good relationship (sic).”

“(W)e’ll see what happens…(W)e have a lot of very positive things to talk about (sic).”

As long as Iraq remains occupied by unwanted/widely despised US and allied troops, its sovereignty will be in name only — its security undermined.

Baghdad wants the presence of these forces ended. Trump and Pompeo defiantly ignore Iraqi popular sentiment.

In response to influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s call for a “million-man march” against US troops in Iraq, the mass gathering is planned for Friday in Baghdad, Sadr saying:

If the Trump regime “continues to disregard Iraq’s political and public will to expel US troops,” it’ll have to face the consequences.

Trump earlier threatened to impose sanctions on Iraq “like they’ve never been seen before” if Baghdad continues to demand US forces leave.

By phone with Pompeo following the Trump regime’s assassination of Soleimani and Muhandis in Baghdad, PM Mahdi “requested that (US) delegates be sent to Iraq to set the mechanisms to implement the parliament’s decision for the secure withdrawal of (foreign) forces from Iraq,” adding:

“American forces had entered Iraq and drones are flying in its airspace without permission from Iraqi authorities, and this was a violation of the bilateral agreements.”

Pompeo responded saying US troops aren’t leaving, adding the Trump regime will only discuss reconfiguration of Pentagon involvement with the Iraqis, along with a greater NATO force presence in the country — what’s clearly unacceptable to Baghdad.

On Wednesday, Iraqi PMU official Qais al-Khazali said “(o)ur beloved country is undergoing special and exceptional circumstances,” adding:

“After the US aggression targeted the sons of Hashd al-Sha’abi (PMU) and counterterrorism leaders, the truth behind US military presence finally came to light, and it was revealed that American troops have not been deployed in order to help Iraq, and will not withdraw whenever the Iraqi government requests them to do so.”

“Our country is now living in an occupation phase.”

“The Iraqi nation rejects humiliation, shame, occupation and aggression.”

“Trump has said that he wants to control the Iraqi oil.”

“Iraqi people have thwarted the US scenario of Daesh takfiri terrorist(s).”

“We will force the United States to withdraw from our country, and we will cleanse our country” of its presence.

Achieving this goal is the only way for Iraq to regain the sovereignty it lost to US aggression and occupation.

*

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: Speaking to reporters during a press conference with Salih, left, on Wednesday, Trump, right, said the US and Iraq had a ‘a very good relationship’ (AFP)