Global Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

Com a falta de conhecimento, a solidariedade também desapareceu.

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

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

A propaganda ocidental joga tudo no mesmo saco.

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

Muito semelhante à designada Doutrina Monroe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sim e não.

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

Sem solidariedade, não pode haver vitória.

Sem conhecimento, não pode haver solidariedade.

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

E naturalmente, o conhecimento.

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

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

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

Andre Vltchek

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

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

Email: [email protected]

Webpage: NO WAR NO NATO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quem arquitecta estas linhas e quem é que assim decretou?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John LaForge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

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

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

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

The EAP in a social media post would claim:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did Future Forward eagerly attend this meeting?

US and Future Forward: Birds of a Feather 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rolling Back Thai-Chinese Relations 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

Featured image is from NEO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

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

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

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

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

An excerpt from Charles Lister’s research paper reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

Notes

[1] The Syria Effect: Al-Qaeda Fractures

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, hardly anyone will even care.

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

The centrists and mainstream media outlets are responsible for the right wing win in the UK. They spent all their time bashing and smearing Jeremy Corbyn bc they will always prioritize smashing the left, even if it means allying with the far right. Shameful.

— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) December 13, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

There was extreme election interference in the #UKElection. It didn't come from the Russians. It didn't come from the Chinese. It came from the billionaire class and its political/media lackeys. And it was perfectly legal.

— Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz) December 12, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Featured image is from the author

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Featured image is from TruePublica

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Official Story and Where It Breaks Down

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

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

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

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

On this he was right, contends the author:

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

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

The Other Side of the Story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plot Thickens

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volcker’s Real Legacy

Allen went on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was first posted on Truthdig.com.

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

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

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

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

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

According to the bill, there will be a

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Antonopoulos, Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“There’s all these facts flying around on social media – you don’t know what to believe”.

Wes lost his job as a builder in the crash and these days works as a receptionist at a major employer in Crewe. He reads about the election every day. But he probably won’t vote. “Policies? Democracy? Sod the lot of them – I don’t believe any of it”.

Coming out of her shift, Jade says something similar. “Am I receiving accurate information? All these policies are flying around Facebook.” She, too, is sceptical about voting.

I could cite Kay, Ian and Stephen in Hartlepool; stallholders in Montrose, reports from canvassers in Margate, Broxtowe, Cardiff and London. All of them – and many more besides – said roughly the same thing.

And what they said should terrify us. Because it points to a story about voter suppression, manufactured cynicism, and a Tory war on truth in the age of surveillance capitalism.

I’ve spoken to strangers about politics on streets across the UK pretty frequently since 2003. I’m used to distrust, cynicism and anger. I’m used to “They’re all the same”. But I’ve never come across so many people saying “They’re all liars,” so much angry, active abstention. It feels like something new.

In a pub in Montrose on Saturday, a man in his twenties who works in an oil industry warehouse drew the connections between the Prince Andrew scandal and Boris Johnson’s nonsense. His conclusion? If “they” all lie, why should he trust Labour to deliver its policies? He’s not going to vote.

Everywhere I’ve been in this election, people have cited Johnson’s lies. But rather than being enraged into sacking him, they disengage.

Labour’s pledges are often listed alongside the lies of the other parties, as though promising to nationalise OpenReach is in the same category as inventing a statistic. On the whole, the policies are popular. There’s rarely a suggestion that they would be impossible. But there isn’t sufficient trust in politics for people to believe Jeremy Corbyn will actually do any of it. “They’ll say anything to get elected”.

When I push, many produce left-wing ideas. “The rich will still get richer, the middle class like us will get poorer,” said a woman who planned not to vote in Midlothian, a Labour/Tory/SNP three-way marginal. This feeling crosses the Brexit divide – there are those who denounce the failure to leave, and those who rage about referendum lies.

Get past the fury, and people who feel like this are usually fascinating. Too often, journalists take quick vox pops, hear tabloid headlines repeated back at them and record them, assuming that this is the best expression of people’s deep feelings. Too frequently, active abstainers are treated as an afterthought.

Worst of all, these people are often described as “apathetic” – as though they don’t care about their future or their children or their community. As if they aren’t fussed about their health or wealth. This ludicrous idea that abstentionism implies apathy is perhaps the most pernicious lie of the neoliberal era.

How we live together

Over hundreds of conversations with those who “aren’t interested” in politics over two decades, it’s become clear that millions are enormously frustrated by a political system in which a spayed state is unable to deliver changes in their lives.

As a Hartlepool barman said, “They haven’t done anything for us.”

Over the past forty years, council housing was privatised, rent controls abolished, regulations slashed and public enterprises sold off. Decisions once made by those we elected were delegated to the market.

With this shift to neoliberalism, politics changed from a negotiation about how we live together to a crap reality TV contest, a minority interest. “I’m not a fan,” says Stephen, who I met at a Hartlepool bus stop. “I’m a fan of video games.”

We were changed from citizens into consumers. Capitalist realism bullied us into accepting that there is no alternative. So it’s no surprise that we lost interest in democracy.

This election, though, it feels like something new has happened. The combination of a prime minister who is incontinent with untruths; the Lib Dems’ litany of lies; the failure to deliver Brexit; Trump; and online lying and media manipulation has produced a deep cynicism about our political system.

This isn’t just happening. It’s being done. It’s being done because the Tories are terrified of mass political participation.

Losing the keys to Downing Street

The modern Labour Party is built on a theory of power. When Corbyn became leader, his aim was to win not through obsequiousness, but through organising. Not through triangulation, but mobilisation.

Rather than genuflecting to big finance and the oligarch-owned press, the plan was to build a movement mighty enough to turn over the tables in the temple.

For pollsters, this strategy poses problems. Normally, in the run up to an election, things don’t change much. The balance of power in the country is what it is. Institutions rise and fall over decades, but rarely in the month before a vote.

To predict tonight, we are better off asking this: have the institutions of the British establishment degenerated since June 2017? Is the ruling class more divided than it was under Theresa May? Have the intertwining movements pushing for a Labour-led government grown?

With the collapse of the traditional press, the 2008 crash and the erosion of Anglo-British identity, it’s clear that our establishment is struggling. As Aeron Davis argues, it has lost hegemonic coherence. It could plausibly lose the keys to Downing Street.

Over the course of 2014-2015 the British establishment lost control of Scotland and of Labour – one of their two biggest countries, and one of their two biggest parties. Over the course of this election, the Tories have lost Rory Stewart – the public’s joint-preferred candidate for prime minister in their recent leadership election – David Lidington – their last de-facto deputy prime minister – and their most respected living former prime minister, John Major. And some pretty influential conservative voices in the media too.

On the other hand, Momentum is better organised than ever, a million Remainers have marched, and Corbynism has grown up.

Old battles, new strategies

In response, the Conservatives and their proxies have adopted a new strategy.

As I reported last week, they have imported smear machines from the US. Going undercover at right wing events, I’ve met political operatives bringing the most sophisticated US dark arts to Europe. A plethora of para-political organisations have sprung up, primarily attacking Corbyn, including the Facebook pages pouring bile into the timelines of many of the people I’ve interviewed.

As Cambridge Analytica showed, disinformation and attack ads aren’t expected to convince people to vote for your candidate. The aim is to turn your opponents’ potential fans into cynics. The point is to bung up Labour’s most ferocious weapon: enthusiasm.

In this, the smearers are aided by many sneerers in the press, too.

From dressing up their Twitter account up as FactCheckUK to their endless Himalayan lies, the idea that ‘you can’t trust any of them’ is the key meme of the Conservative campaign. And much of the media has been more than happy to give this message a megaphone, with false equivalence and bullshit balance.

Independent fact checkers have found that 88% of Tory Facebook adverts contain lies, while 0% of Labour’s do. But the BBC led their story on this report with the headline: “General election 2019: Ads are ‘indecent, dishonest and untruthful”.

The BBC political editor

When I’ve asked people up and down the country how they feel about the election, fury with the media is perhaps the most common answer. And they’re right to rage: from The Sun spreading neo-Nazi ‘research’ to the BBC parroting propaganda, never before have so many journalists so publicly soiled themselves. And never before have so many people told me they’re disgusted.

This distrust of democracy is a victory for the right because Conservatives make no promise about the ability of politics to transform lives. They believe in leaving it to the market.

In this context, Tories thrive because they don’t promise nice things. They win because they drive down turnout among those who would benefit most from progressive policies. And because they are the default, ruling-class party. And because people have spent their lives being told that the posh ought to be in charge.

Scotland’s Yes movement thrived by tapping into righteous anger at the system. Dominic Cummings won the Brexit vote by turning it into a rage against how we’re governed: “Take back control.” Labour could have won this election by calling his bluff. By campaigning to give power to the people, they could have made this a referendum on the political system as a whole.

If Labour doesn’t win it will be because they have failed to capitalise on this rage, and they haven’t offered a road away from alienation.

What most people want

In 2017, Labour surged by shocking the media with a manifesto which took the extraordinary step of proposing the sorts of policies most voters want. Corbyn and John McDonnell baited commentators into attacking them on their strongest turf: social democracy. This quarrel drew attention, shaped the election and swung voters.

In 2019, they’ve tried to repeat this trick, running a cinematic sequel: a couple of flashy new ideas beside many of the same old lines. This time, though, the billionaire press has learnt from its mistakes. Rather than denounce rent controls, taxes for the rich and rail nationalisation, they’ve given ideas zero oxygen. Instead, they’ve highlighted Labour’s biggest failure: anti-Semitism.

In February, a poll showed that just 9% of people in Great Britain think that their political system isn’t broken. If Labour had shocked the establishment by proposing to rip up its rule-book, it could have baited them into another fight that would have put most people on Corbyn’s side. Miserably, even Nigel Farage has done a better job of this. When asked during the ‘Question Time’ debate what he stands for apart from Brexit, he proposed replacing the UK’s broken political system.

The British state is a world centre for money and reputation laundering, cripplingly centralised, an outpost of a fading imperial ruling class. It’s a barely democratic weavel-ridden mess used largely to protect wealth for oligarchs. People are right to hate it.

For those of us who have been making this case for years now, it’s been desperately depressing to watch as Labour has failed to tap into this energy.

Labour’s manifesto includes a brief section on the political system, including a commitment to House of Lords reform and a constitutional convention – which could mean anything from tidying up some mess to deep systemic change. This is all to the good, but hardly their Peterloo.

With Johnson’s constitutional vandalism and the deep sense of alienation, why not demand that the rules of our democracy be written by the people, for the people, giving power to the people? Why not announce that the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands and Gibraltar must charge British taxes or declare independence and renounce the protection of the Royal Navy? Why not spar with the media barons? Even Ed Miliband did that. Why not promise to end the constitutional protection of the City of London? Why not shout about participatory budgeting, local control and a fair voting system? Why hasn’t Corbyn denounced elite rule at every opportunity? People hate it.

In modern politics, victory is for those who offer change commensurate with the scale of the crisis people feel. Labour has looked the climate emergency in the eye, and addressed the economic disaster. The party promised a string of strong, appealing policies. It has even come to a conclusion on Brexit.

But unless you convince people that democracy is capable of delivering, all of this crumbles to dust. And voters are right to sense this. If Labour fails to confront the British state, it won’t succeed in squeezing justice from it. Even the best dairy can’t milk a vulture.

It is still possible that Corbyn will become prime minister. On Facebook, my timeline is full of Labour activists in key marginals, enthusiastic about a day of door-knocking. More than 28,000 people have used Momentum’s app to target their election day campaigning.

Their victory will be because there’s nothing as extraordinary as a murmuration of activists flitting at full tilt. It will be because of tens of thousands of warm conversations on frosty doorsteps. It will be because millions are excited to vote for a manifesto which offers hope, and millions more are desperate to sack “Britain Trump”.

It will be because real grassroots can outgrow AstroTurf; because cynical attempts at voter suppression are nothing to the enthusiastic smile of a young activist in a woolly hat on a cold night.

It will be because of people power. And so making people-power permanent should have been Labour’s core message.

Postscript: what comes next

Craig had worked as a fisherman since he was 13. He had to quit in 2016 because his boss got a boat that could go out to sea for a fortnight at a time, and he could no longer care for his sick mother.

When his mum died, he went to look after his dad for a bit. His landlord posted an “abandoned” notice on his house, and because he didn’t return for two weeks, kicked him out.

Universal credit wasn’t enough for a new home. Sleeping rough led to ulcers on his legs, which were amputated in May. He is regularly harassed and sometimes assaulted – “tortured” he says – by two teenage boys who tell me “we clean filth like that off the streets,” using derogatory terms for homeless, black and British Asian people. “It’s because of people like him that Hartlepool is a shit-hole,” they say.

This fascism is the next stage in the process of alienation. If they can’t do anything about the distant and powerful, too many will listen to those who blame the proximate, and powerless.

Last year, Craig tried to take his own life.

He doesn’t care about Brexit. He isn’t registered to vote. But he was desperate to see the back of Universal Credit. And desperate to see the end of the Tories. “It’s a mess. The country is in a mess”.

Labour is right to run against the institutions which cost Craig his home and his legs. They have the support of the street-sleepers I’ve met and the Gypsies and Travellers I’ve spoken to, of the young and the hopeful, the marginalised and the maligned. They’ll borrow votes from the anti-Brexiters and the anti-Borisers. And their activists will inspire many of the actively alienated in the final hours. Will that be enough?

Barely two months after US President Donald Trump’s demagogic announcement that he was pulling US troops out of northeastern Syria to fulfill his campaign promise to bring a halt to Washington’s “endless wars,” the senior civilian and uniformed Pentagon chiefs told a House panel Wednesday that there is no foreseeable end to the American presence there.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley maintained in their testimony to the House Armed Services Committee that the US military was staying in Syria to assure the “enduring defeat” of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and that the fulfillment of that goal is likely years away.

Esper went even further, insisting that US military forces had to remain in Syria not so much to counter any existing military force, but rather an “ideology”.

“I think the defeat, if you will, will be hard because it’s an ideology,” Esper told the House panel after repeated questions regarding US strategy in Syria. “It’s hard to foresee anytime soon we would stamp it out,” he added.

Both Esper and Milley attempted to dodge questions about Trump’s green-lighting of a Turkish invasion of Syria in October. This Turkish incursion was aimed at driving the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia, which had served as the US military’s proxy ground force, away from the Turkish-Syrian border. Ankara views the YPG as a “terrorist” extension of Turkey’s own PKK Kurdish separatist movement, against which it has fought a bloody counterinsurgency campaign for decades.

They also deflected questions about Trump’s subsequent justification for a continued US presence in Syria on the grounds that they were being deployed to “take the oil”, which he said could be exploited by a US corporation like ExxonMobil. Both Esper and Milley claimed to have no knowledge of any plan to steal Syria’s oil, even though US troops, backed by Bradley armored fighting vehicles, have been deployed in the Deir Ezzor oil fields of northeastern Syria.

The US occupation of the oil fields serves to cut off the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from a vital resource for the reconstruction of a country that has been decimated by the eight-year-old war for regime change orchestrated by the CIA. It also represents a direct provocation to Russia, which has signed deals with Damascus to extract oil, as well as China, which previously had oil investments in Syria and is poised to play a leading role in the country’s reconstruction.

Significantly, Esper seemed to identify Washington’s ostensible NATO ally, Turkey, as the principal challenge to US operations in Syria, stating that Turkey’s incursion into the northeast of the country had “complicated the battle space.” He described the Turkish-backed Islamist militias deployed against the YPG as a “wild card” that could provoke a wider conflict in the region and said that Erdogan’s stated intention of settling more than a million Syrian refugees in the border areas threatened “turmoil”.

In his testimony, Esper repeated a refrain that he has sounded in recent days about Turkey “spinning out of NATO’s orbit.”

Washington and Ankara are increasingly at loggerheads, with the Turkish government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan demanding that NATO support its position that the US proxy in Syria, the YPG, is a “terrorist” organization.

In the wake of the NATO summit in London, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said that Ankara would veto the implementation of plans for an anti-Russian military buildup in the Baltics unless the US-led alliance agreed to support the campaign against the “terrorist” YPG. “It would be unfair if some countries supported the plan to defend the eastern flank and at the same time refused to agree on a similar plan for us,” he said.

Meanwhile, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee has approved legislation imposing sanctions on Turkey for contracting with Russia for the deployment of its S-400 missile defense system. Ankara has threatened to retaliate against any US sanctions with measures of its own, including the possible exclusion of US forces from Turkey’s strategic Incirlik airbase.

The US military is remaining in Syria’s northeast with what it claims is a force of 600 troops, along with a detachment of at least 200 more special forces troops near the southern border crossing of al-Tanf. With the inclusion of military contractors and troops rotated in an out on a temporary basis, the real deployment is probably at least twice these numbers. While American forces are currently occupying Syria’s oil fields, their mission is neither to “take the oil,” as Trump proudly proclaimed, nor to combat a shattered ISIS.

Rather, they are continuing the same strategic objectives that underlay the CIA-orchestrated war for regime change initiated under the Obama administration eight years ago. Washington still seeks the overthrow of the government of President Bashar al-Assad and its replacement with a more pliant puppet regime in Damascus. Moreover, it is determined to roll back the influence of the Assad government’s principal backers—Iran and Russia—not only in Syria, but throughout the oil-rich Middle East.

Esper gave a somewhat more candid explanation of the US deployments in the region when he told the House committee that, “The United States strategy in the Middle East seeks to ensure the region is not a safe haven for terrorists, is not dominated by any power hostile to the US, and contributes to a stable global energy market.”

He stressed that the determination of US troop levels in the region was bound up with Washington’s global strategy of preparing for confrontation with US imperialism’s “great power” rivals, in the first instance, Russia and China.

To the extent that Democrats on the House committee challenged Esper and Milley, it was from the standpoint of concerns over Trump’s twists and turns over US policy in Syria strengthening the influence of Russia in Syria and the broader Middle East.

Esper insisted that Washington was engaged in a “responsible” drawdown of forces from the region in order to “reallocate” them to the “great power conflicts.”

Remember when we all were kids and the circus came to town? Inside the ‘Big Tent’ or arena we would sit and view all the many goings on from the three rings in front of us. It was highly entertaining… especially for childish minds.

Folks, the circus has always been with us inside this Amerikan empire. The three rings, for many generations, have always been the same. The two rings placed side by side are the two parties , the Republicans and the Democrats, along with each of their mainstream media minions. The interesting one is the third ring, placed in back of these two. That is of course our Deep State, the one that controls and orchestrates how the other two rings will function and operate. Perhaps the only visibility of this third ring is the countless foundations and think tanks it created and uses to represent it. This Deep State is not to be confused with what the Trump conspiracy thumpers claim it is… because Trump and his cabal get their marching orders from it. No, the real Deep State, what Eisenhower aptly labeled as the Military Industrial Complex (of course he waited, cowardly, until his final year in office to name it) , controls both parties and of course the mainstream media ( and even some parts of the alternative media).

Think about this for a moment: On the key issues affecting the future of our nation, with some exceptions, the three rings of this circus see eye to eye. They both celebrate our excessive militarism and vote for every increase in military spending.

So much so that under the Bush/Cheney Cabal it reached 50% of our federal  taxes: yet under Obama in 2011 it actually trumped that figure (no pun intended).

These three rings support our 1000+ military bases overseas… now in over 100 different countries. They  gave a president the right to step above the constitutional guarantees we should uphold and cherish. The two political/media rings suck up to the bankers and Wall Street predators who are part of ring # 3. Imagine that Democrat Chuck Schumer, a senator who has been a key part of the Senate Banking Committee for decades, has done squat in regard to the usurious credit card interest rates. These are charges that millions of us who cannot pay our bills in full each month are hit with. With the prime rate at around 4.75, those sharks charge many of us rates of well over 20% (sometimes as high as 28%). As far as health coverage and insurance, we know the Republican ring wants to have the private insurers assume total control, even of Medicare.

Meanwhile the Democratic ring, puppets too to the Deep State, cannot even push for a Medicare for All without keeping those private insurance privateers in force; there is only one current presidential candidates running this year who wants the private insurers out: Bernie Sanders (Tulsi Gabbard is not totally clear on that position yet). Remember that Obama, as candidate in 2008, received over $21 million in donations from the Health Care industry… while McCain got  $ 7 million. Do you really think he was going to go all out for Medicare for All with no private insurers?

All three rings in this empire circus want to restart a Cold War with both the Russians and the Chinese… especially the Russians. As far as the Chinese, well, they are so ingrained within our economy , with both their millions of products sold here (see how many are NOT ‘made in China’ in Wal-Mart), and of course the trillions of dollars in bonds and stocks that they hold, along with the real estate they now invest in here… we have to tread cautiously. So, it has to be the Russians that the Deep State is targeting through their dummy straw man NATO.

Look at the Ukraine, who BOTH political parties have held up as a ‘ free nation being threatened by Russian aggression’. Not only did the Deep State, through Neo Cons like Victoria Nuland working for Hillary Clinton (with help from Neo Con VP Biden and the ever present Neo Con John Bolton) orchestrated what many consider a Coup a few years ago.  Just look at who is in power  now in that nation: The Svoboda Party, a ‘self proclaimed’ ultra nationalist party filled with Neo Nazis who still honor the German invasion of the Ukraine in WW2. These are the ‘ victims’ of Russian aggression. Of course, the real story behind all this is the US Deep State’s International Monetary Fund’s influence in the dismantling of the Ukraine’s economy. This has been done to suit the many international predatory corporate interests there. As was done throughout much of Europe ,and of course most of South and Central America, privatization of resources and government run non-profit services has always been their goal. Now, more and more, we see this same plan being carried out right here at home folks.

Since every circus needs an abundance of clowns, we have a slew of them in Amerika 2019. Tune in the boob tube’s mainstream news and news talk shows and view these journalist/clowns like Fox’s Hannity, CNN’s Cuomo and MSNBC’s Maddow. Then go to C-Span’s coverage of the Congress and get a whiff of those clowns, pretending to be Statesmen and Stateswomen! As the bumper sticker so beautifully stated : Elect a Clown…. Get A Circus!!

*

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

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

According to proposed Senate legislation, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism USA wants leading advocate of global peace and stability Russia labeled with this designation.

The measure also calls for Donbass freedom fighters in Donetsk and Lugansk, unwilling to accept fascist rule by Kiev, designated foreign terrorist organizations.

The legislation has nothing to do with preserving and protecting US national security, everything to do with its imperial interests, its endless wars, economic terrorism, and other hostile actions aimed at advancing hegemonic control over planet earth, its resources and populations.

The so-called SMART Act (S.1189) was introduced last April by hardline Senator Cory Gardner. Earlier he said:

“The State Department should consider adding (Russia) to its list of state sponsors of terrorism, alongside its close allies Iran and Syria.”

“The moral case for such a designation is sound (sic). Russia has invaded its neighbors Georgia and Ukraine (sic).”

“It supports…Bashar al-Assad and our enemies in Afghanistan, and it is engaged in active information warfare against Western democracies (sic), including meddling in the 2016 United States elections (sic).”

Hardline US Senators Mike Coffman, Robert Menendez, Marco Rubio and Ben Sasse also called for designating Russia a state sponsor of terrorism.

In August 2018, Gardner, Lindsey Graham, Menendez, Ben Cardin, John McCain (on his death bed), and Jeanne Shaheen introduced the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act of 2018.

It called for “increas(ing) economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on the Russian Federation in response to Russia’s continued interference in our elections (sic), malign influence in Syria (sic), aggression in Crimea (sic), and other activities.”

No action was taken on the measure. Nor did followup Defending American Security from (Nonexistent) Kremlin Aggression Act of 2019 advance so far.

On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the SMART Act. If passed by the full House and Senate and signed into law by Trump, it calls for the State Department to enforce the measure within 90 days.

Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan alone are falsely declared state sponsors of terrorism by the State Department — defining the designation as follows:

“Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act.”

“Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on US foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.”

“Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors.”

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee advanced SMART legislation a day after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Trump and Pompeo in Washington.

Asked about the timing of his visit during a joint press conference, Lavrov said

“regardless of the day you choose to visit Washington, it will surely coincide with either sanctions or impeachment or something else.”

Separately on Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a measure to sanction Turkey for buying Russian S-400 air defense missiles, calling its legitimate purchase unacceptable.

The so-called “Promoting American National Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act (sic) also imposes sanctions on Russia for helping Syria buy weapons for self-defense.

House members passed a similar bill earlier, the full Senate likely to follow suit.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee also approved four energy bills, including the “Energy Security Cooperation with Allied Partners in Europe Act of 2019.”

It opposes Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Europe, encourages NATO countries not to buy Russian gas, and calls increased US liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.

A provision initially included in the bill to sanction companies involved in constructing Russia’s Nord Stream 2 was removed as the action is part of the FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Approved by the House on Wednesday, Senate passage to follow this month, Trump certain to sign the measure into law.

Nord Stream 2 construction is nearly completed. The NDAA provision won’t stop it becoming operational early next year.

Congressional legislation is all about furthering exports of expensive US LNG at the expense of much cheaper/readily accessible Russian natural gas.

It’s also part of longstanding US war on Russia by other means, a failed strategy.

US sanctions war encouraged greater self-sufficiency. In 2018, Russia’s economy grew 2.3%, currently growing at a 1.7% pace, further growth expected in 2020.

Note: Last week, US Under Secretary of State David Hale said the State Department does not consider Russia a state sponsor of terrorism.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Bolivia, December 2019, three weeks after the fascist coup. It is devilishly cold. My comrade’s car is carefully navigating through the deep mud tracks. Enormous snow-covered mountain peaks are clearly visible in the distance.

The Bolivian Altiplano; beloved, yet always somehow hostile, silent, impenetrable.

So many times, in the past I came close to death here. In Peru as well as in Bolivia. More often in Peru.

Now, what I do is totally mad. Being a supporter of President Evo Morales from the beginning until this very moment, I am not supposed to be here; in Bolivia, in the Altiplano. But I am, because these mud huts on the left and right, are so familiar and so dear to me.

My comrade is a Bolivian farmer, an indigenous man. His hands are red, rough. He usually does not talk much, but after the coup, he cannot stop speaking. This is his country; the country that he loves and which has been stolen from him, from his wife and from his children.

We can both get screwed here, but if we do, that’s life; we know the risk and we are happy to take it.

Carlos (not his real name), my driver and a friend, explained:

“I called them, the elders, and they said it is ok that you come. I sent them your essays. You know, people here now read, even in the deep villages. After 14 years of Evo’s government, the entire country is covered by the mobile phone network. They read your stuff translated into Spanish. They liked what they read. They agreed to give you a statement. But they said, ‘if he is not really a Russian-Chinese left-wing writer, but instead some Camacho crony, we will break his head with a stone.’”

Camacho; Luis Fernando Camacho, a member of the fascist, U.S.-backed Revolutionary Nationalist Movement, and the Chair of the Civic Committee of Santa Cruz since 2019. A major adversary of Evo Morales, a man who during the 2019 Bolivian general election, sided with the West, with the treasonous Bolivian military (trained in the United States), and demanded Evo’s resignation, on 5 November 2019.

I am fine with what they say. We are going.

We drive up, and then, at approximately 4,100 meters above sea level, we level up.

A new, wide road is being constructed. Of course, it is a project from the days of Evo’s presidency.

But it is not only the road building that can be detected all around us. There are water towers and water pumps and faucets in every village. Water is free, for all.  There are schools, medical centers as well as sport facilities, and carefully attended fields.

The drive is long, tough. But at one point, we see a few buses and cars parked on the top of a hill.

There is a small plateau, and a giant white speaker sitting in the middle of the field.

People in colorful outfits are scattered all around the site: men, women and children. A group of elders is seated in a closed circle. They are chanting, and their appeal is broadcasted through the speaker. They are addressing what is sacred to them: Mother Earth. They need strength in order to go on, to struggle, to defend themselves.

Deeply Rooted: Indigenous people in Altiplano gather to speak with Mother Earth (Photo: Andre Vltchek 2019©)

I am first ‘scanned’ by the people, and only then allowed to approach the elders. I explain who I am, and soon, the formalities are over.

“Please record but do not film our faces, for security,” I am told. “But later, you can film the gathering.”

Soon after, I sit down, and they begin to talk:

“The situation which we are living in these days in our country, in the communities up here, in the Andean communities is very difficult. In reality we feel frustrated, often abandoned because during the previous government led by President Evo Morales, we as farmers and indigenous people, felt very good. Even if, sometimes, we did not receive too much help, still, the government, the very President Evo Morales, is of our own blood, our own class. For that reason, we were supporting him. And we keep supporting him.”

“And this, what we have, now is a government – dictatorship. They say the contrary, but it is a fascist government. It is a government which is burning Wiphala, our symbol. It dishonors us. We feel humiliated, we feel discriminated against. For that reason, we realize that we cannot fail; we cannot stay here like this, we will continue fighting. There will be elections in our country, and we will continue supporting that one person who has elevated our name; the name of the native people, of workers, of working people, and of the poor.”

“First, we will go to the elections, if of course there are elections. We will go and support our people; our leaders. In case that they will produce electoral fraud, then yes, we will rise!”

I told them that I have known their country, and Altiplano, for more than 25 years. Everything has changed. The villages consisting of mud huts came to life. They woke up, began to bloom. Water for all began to run through the pipes provided by the government. Modern ambulances have been deployed, serving all corners of the nation. Health centers opened their doors to millions of students, and so did schools, and vocation centers. New roads have been built. The government encouraged ecological farming.

Indigenous elders gather to discuss the current state of affairs in their country (Photo: Andre Vltchek 2019©)

Bolivia, for decades and centuries living under monstrous apartheid has been exploited, humiliated and robbed of everything, but lately has begun rising to its feet.

I told them this. I told them how I used to come here, again and again, in the 1990’s, from Peru; a country devastated by the so-called “Dirty War” which I have described in my novel “Point of No Return”. Peru was terribly broken, but here, in Bolivia, people were half-alive. There was no hope, only silent, frightening misery.

Now Bolivia, once the poorest country in South America, has been way ahead of Peru, a state which has been relentlessly cannibalized by the neo-liberal economic model, while still racially and socially divided to the extreme.

Evo’s legacy: super modern mobile dental clinic providing health services to the people (Photo: Andre Vltchek 2019©)

I asked the elders, whether they agreed. They did.

“Certainly. Because with our own eyes we have seen enormous economic changes and we have witnessed how Bolivia rose and after those 14 years, got ahead of this entire Latin American region.” 

I filmed, photographed.

Before we left, an elderly woman approached the car, and screamed something in a local language.

Carlos translated:

“We will all fight those evil beings who declared themselves our rulers. If they don’t disappear, soon again we will close the roads between El Alto and La Paz, and they will have to eat their own excrement. Our people will never again be defeated. Say this wherever you go!” 

I said that I will.

*

In 1971, the great Uruguayan writer, journalist and poet, Eduardo Galeano, published his book Open Veins of Latin America, which soon became the most important tome for the Latin American left-wing thinkers and revolutionaries.

Real transparency: Bolivia’s president publishes his government’s financial account on billboards (Photo: Andre Vltchek 2019©)

Inside the book, which was regularly banned all over the continent, Galeano had written about those 500 years of monstrous plunder, deceit and cruelty, committed by the Europeans and the North Americans against the people of South and Central America. Some of the most terrible crimes were committed on the territory which is now Bolivia, particularly in the silver mines of the city of Potosi, which helped to make Europe rich, but whose tens of thousands of people died, while forced to live and work as slaves.

Not long before he passed away, I worked with Eduardo Galeano in his café, in the old city of Montevideo.

It was during the heady days of the “Pink Revolutions” wave. We were celebrating our victories, sharing hope for the future.

But at one point, Eduardo paused, and said, simply:

“You know, all of our comrades who are holding power now have to be very careful. They have to understand that the poor people who voted them in, or who supported them when they were taking power, have only one thing left in their life, and that is hope. You take away their hope, and they are left with nothing. Robbing them of hope is like killing them. That is why, whenever I encounter our left-wing leaders, and I do it very often, I always tell them: ‘Comrades, careful, Do not play with hope! Never promise to people what you cannot deliver. Always keep your word.”

Juan Evo Morales Ayma, the first Bolivian indigenous president, understood Galeano and his work perfectly well. He and his Movement for Socialism (MAS), never betrayed the trust of the poor people. That is why he was never forgiven by the West, and by many individuals coming from the treasonous Bolivian elites and the military.

*

After my meeting with the indigenous leaders, I asked Carlos to drive us around Altiplano, without any particular plan. I wanted to talk to people; to the poorest of the poor of Bolivia.

Farming family in Altiplano continue struggling amid harsh conditions (Photo: Andre Vltchek 2019©)

At one point, we arrived at a tiny hamlet. A dog with a broken leg welcomed us with loud but innocuous barking. There were two sheep near the entrance to the house. An elderly farmer, his blind wife and a daughter were working in the field.

They were not afraid to speak, even to be recorded and photographed, as long as I promised not to reveal their names.

The farmer had half of his teeth missing, and he was leaning to one side, but his thoughts and words were clear:

“Thanks to Evo for everything. There is his work, and it speaks for itself; that road, infrastructure. Even this little house that we have is because of him.” 

“Here we don’t want that so-called President Añez. She wants to mislead us, she lies to us. We are with MAS; all of us up here are strongly supporting MAS. We are supporting our brother Evo. We have always been suffering here, but Evo came with excellent projects… but now all progress will stop.”

The daughter is perhaps 14 years old. She is a product of Evo’s government. Neatly dressed, with nice glasses, she speaks fluently. Her words are well formulated:

“Those coup leaders have no pity on us. They have been shooting at us, beating us, gassing us. They have been violating our women. Lately, our mothers, our fathers suffered tremendously in La Paz. People were injured, people died, and the military and the coup leaders have no mercy. We don’t want to be slaves, like before. After the coup, the new government said terrible things about our president; things that we don’t like at all. We don’t want to be slaves, nor to be dammed by that new lady-president and by her people. She is a racist. The truth is that she is too racist. They call us ‘Indios’, and say things about us that make us furious. They are discriminating against us in all possible ways.”

“But you don’t lose hope?” I asked.

“I don’t,” she smiled. “I am with MAS. And MAS is going to be victorious. We will defeat those who are behind the coup.”

We left, heading towards the main road.

“One more stop,” I asked Carlos.

We drove, randomly, towards a partially damaged dwelling.

“What happened here?” I asked.

The family members spoke over each other:

“In November, Camacho sent here several buses full of his supporters, from Potosi. They arrived, and began beating us up, insulting us, killing our animals and destroying our houses. They forced us to our knees, tying our hands behind our backs. They called us the most insulting names. They humiliated us. They said that it is over, that now we will know again where we belong.”

I asked Carlos whether he had heard these stories before. He replied, without thinking:

“Of course. You can ask anyone up here, and they will confirm what you just heard.”

Before descending to La Paz, in El Alto, I asked Carlos to stop at several places, where in November, dozens of people died, blocking the capital as the protest against the coup, and against forcing Evo Morales into exile.

The bullet holes that damaged the walls were still visible, and they were clearly marked. There were flowers there, where people had fallen. Soon, hopefully very soon, there will be monuments.

The graffiti all over El Alto, spoke clearly and loudly:

“Añez, we will fish you off – you coup-maker!”, “Añez – dictator!” and “Añez – killer!”.

*

Just half a year ago, I witnessed great fiestas in El Alto. I filmed colorful processions, people dancing, fireworks. I admired the new public spaces, super-modern cable cars, public swimming pools as well as the playgrounds constructed for children.

Now, the city felt like a cemetery. It was eerie, silent, gloomy.

The enormous Mount Illimani, the symbol of this ancient land, was covered by snow. It was beautiful now, but it is always stunning, in good times as well as during the disasters. La Paz, sitting in a tremendous crater, was clearly visible from above.

“The Yankees coming,” said Carlos. “You know, Añez has restored full diplomatic ties with Washington. And their spies and agents are flooding the embassy; all in civilian clothes, of course…”

“With their backs covered by the treasonous Bolivian military,” I uttered, sarcastically.

Carlos was quiet for some time. Then he decided to speak:

“When I was young, I was in the military myself. In Cochabamba, you know, during the water crises, and popular rebellion aimed at making water free. I never told you. Those were tough times. People stood up, and some died. Our unit consisted of mainly indigenous soldiers. The officers were white; almost all were. At one point, we let them know that we would not fire at our brothers and sisters. They shat their pants: captains, colonels; you should have seen them: they were running around, in barracks and outside, with no marks of their ranks. You know, at one point, if they were to have forced us to slaughter our people, we would have refused, and slaughtered them, instead.”

“They were trained in the West?” I asked.

“Many, yes.”

“And now Carlos? What about now?”

He began whispering, although no one seemed to be around:

“I have two relatives in the army. I talked to one of them, a few days ago. It is the same as when I was serving in Cochabamba. The upper ranks are with the Yanquis, but the troops, most of them, are with MAS; they are with Evo. You see, if there is a mutiny, and there very well may be one, soon, then Añez, Camacho and their gringo friends will all soon be fucked!”

* 

I went to the luxury hotel Suites Camino Real in La Paz, for lunch. I had to see “them”, the other side. Those who import exquisite beef from Santa Cruz province, those who consume it here, those who are now celebrating.

Police are stationed everywhere, at the ready, but still very uneasy (Photo: Andre Vltchek 2019©)

And celebrating they were.

Several parties were taking place, simultaneously. People were jumping around, hugging each other, shouting like mad. All white, all “tall and beautiful”, all blonde, peroxide or real. Wine was flowing.

Most of the waiters were indigenous, dressed in Western clothes; hushed and uncertain.

I met a former top economist in Evo’s government, Ernesto Yañez, who at one point served as the vice-President of the Central Bank of Bolivia. It was safe to meet here. We found a quite corner where we could talk:

“I certainly call what happened here, a coup. There was no election fraud.”

“Without any doubt, Evo’s years in power were marked by great economic stability. Especially in the beginning, there were almost no economic problems. The poverty rate decreased from 55% to below 30%. Quality of life increased dramatically.”

“In relatively poor Bolivia, poverty rates are lower than in the richest country on the continent, Argentina, after the reign of the neo-liberal President Macri”, I could not help but mention.

“Yes, but after the coup, the economy here is collapsing,” Ernesto Yañez said.

Image on the right: Former economist in the Morales government, Ernesto Yañez (Photo: Andre Vltchek 2019©)

Half a year ago, I was here, and there were violent strikes by doctors all over Bolivia. Many of them were educated for free, by the state, but after that, they were demanding a neo-liberal medical system, in which doctors and nurses would gain unrealistically high salaries. Many Cuban doctors have been deployed by the government, all over the country, in order to improve medical care.

Ernesto Yañez further clarified:

“During Evo’s government, millions of people moved from lower to middle class. Most of them were young. Which means, before the coup, and after 14 years of MAS rule, many young middle-class people had no idea what it is to live in misery. They took all the achievements of Evo and MAS for granted. Then, when certain hardships arrived, including the slowing down of the economy after 2014, they saw them as the failures of Evo’s government.”

“You know, for instance the doctors that you mentioned; they thought that if they brought down MAS, all their requests would be immediately fulfilled by the right-wing government. It never happened. Now they have no idea what to do.”

“The same as in Santa Cruz,” I agreed with him. “Fuel and utility prices are going up. Now the right-wingers will realize what it is to have their dream come true – a neo-liberal regime. They are getting wiped-out; desperate.”

Ernesto Yañez concluded:

“You, know, Evo made many Bolivian businessmen rich, too. The country and its economy were very stable, for years. Before he came to power, the big players were North Americans, Europeans and Chileans. During his mandate, Bolivian companies were given priority. Bolivian elites were always racist, for them, Evo was ‘un Indio mas’ (just another Indian). But they hid their feelings well. It is because Evo did things well. He changed this country for the better, almost for everybody.”

“But now, things have gone from bad to worse. The new president comes with the bible and cross, burns Wiphala, and people die. Now the Indigenous people want Evo back.”

And not only indigenous people, although almost all indigenous people that I met this time in Bolivia, do.

*

I walked to Plaza Murillo in La Paz, where the Presidential Palace and the National Congress of Bolivia are located.

The police and military were everywhere. During Evo’s government, this was a quiet, open space, full of green trees, children and pigeons.

In front of the National Congress, several ladies dressed in beautiful indigenous clothes, were gathering, talking to each other. These were deputies from MAS.

I pulled out my cameras and approached them. Immediately, security dudes in plainclothes, began approaching me, but the two lady-deputies made protective gestures with their arms, smiled at me, and rebuffed the security officers: “Leave him alone, he is with us.”

I knew we had no time, and I asked only one thing: “Are we standing, comrades?”

They did not hesitate:

“We are standing. They will not defeat us. MAS is the legitimate government of Bolivia.” 

And so, this is what I am reporting from the Plurinational Republic of Bolivia:

The country is under attack from the United States and its allies. It has been injured by its treasonous cadres, both military and civilian. Blood has been spilled. The legitimate president and vice-president are in exile. According to Reuters, “Bolivian minister seeks Israel help in fighting alleged leftist ‘terrorism‘”. Meaning, the legitimate government.

But the country is standing. People are not on their knees. First there will be a vote, but if there are any tricks from Washington or from the Organization of American States (OAS), there will be a fight.

Evo Morales and MAS won the recent elections. There is absolutely no way that MAS will not win again. I spoke to people, and now, even more than before, they are closing ranks around the Movement towards Socialism which made Bolivia one of the greatest nations in the Western Hemisphere.

The indigenous people of Bolivia and the rest of South America are not beggars or slaves. Long before the arrival of those brutal religious fundamentalists and badly brought-up looters – the Spanish conquerors – they were the owners of this beautiful land. Their civilization was much greater than that of their tormentors.

Evo’s government did much more than just improving the social situation in his country. He began reversing 500 years of cruel injustice on this continent. He gave power to the powerless. He returned pride to the people who had been robbed of everything.

Washington shows clearly where it stands. Despite its hypocritical “political correctness”, it is on the side of racism, colonialism and fascist oppression. Instead of defending freedom, it oppresses freedom. Instead of promoting democracy (which is “rule of the people”), it is raping democracy: here in Bolivia, and elsewhere.

Until Bolivia is free again, the entire freedom-loving world should be waving the Wiphala.

The elders from the Altiplano sent a clear message to the world. Elections will take place, but if the people are robbed of their government, there will be an uprising and an epic battle.

Sadly, if there is a battle, some people will join the Earth. But also, the Earth will not stay idle – it will join her People.

Añez together with her colonialist symbols, is already being cursed by the majority of Bolivian people, and so are Camacho and several other traitors. But perhaps, technically, they are not “traitors”, after all. Their allegiances are to those nations which had attacked and have been looting this part of the world, for several long centuries.

After 500 years of being tormented and humiliated, the mother Earth, Pachamama, is embracing her children. Evo and MAS brought them together. This is a tremendous moment in history. People here realize it. European, racist elites realize it. Washington is well aware of it.

Right now, there is a moment of silence; a brief one.

If the fascist coup leaders do not back up, there will be huge thunder, and the people of Altiplano will rise, Wiphala in hand, supported by their ancient, sacred Earth.

*

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

This article was originally published on 21st Century Wire.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Five of his latest books are “China Belt and Road Initiative: Connecting Countries, Saving Millions of Lives”, “China and Ecological Cavillation”with John B. Cobb, Jr., Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter. His Patreon. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Trump wants anti-Semitism redefined. An executive order perhaps already signed is all about stifling legitimate criticism of Israel.

It’s about wanting the Jewish state absolved of occupation, colonialism, and apartheid crimes against humanity.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed self-determination as an essential principle of international law.

Colonial occupation is in clear violation. UN General Assembly Res. 151, the Declaration on Colonialism, condemns the practice “in all its forms and manifestations,” including illegal settlements.

According to the Apartheid Convention (1973), the practice is  state-sponsored “inhuman” racism “committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”

That’s what Israeli repression of the Palestinian people is all about — Gazans harmed most of all by suffocating siege, cross-border incursions, frequent terror-bombing incidents, and naked aggression at Israel’s discretion.

Ignored by the Jewish state, the US and other Western countries is that self-determination is a universal right, affirmed by the UN Charter and other international law.

The West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza are illegally occupied territories, Palestinians ruthlessly persecuted by Israel.

Land seizures and dispossessing Palestinians are flagrant international law violations. So are breaches of Security Council resolutions, Israel guilty time and again, accountability never forthcoming.

All of the above are relevant to Trump’s expected executive order. It’s notably all about wanting legitimate criticism of Israeli high crimes silenced, notably on college campuses by student activists for equity and justice — targeting them and others a flagrant First Amendment violation.

According to the Constitution Center, presidential executive orders (EOs) have “much of the same power as federal law.”

Congress can pass legislation to override an EO, a super-majority needed in case of a presidential veto.

The Congressional Research Service explained that there is no direct “definition of executive orders, presidential memoranda, and proclamations in the US Constitution. There is, likewise, no specific provision authorizing their issuance.”

Every US president since George Washington issued EOs. During WW II, Franklin Roosevelt authorized internment camps for Japanese Americans.

In 1861 during the Civl War, Lincoln suspended habeas rights by this way.

Two EOs were used for his Emancipation Proclamation that didn’t free a single slave at the time. He wanted them deported at war’s end to maintain America as a white supremacist society.

He was a war criminal. He suspended the Constitution and habeas rights, forcefully closed courts, arbitrarily ordered arrests, conscripted US citizens without congressional authorization, and closed newspapers opposing his policies.

Glorifying him as a great president ignores his dark side, the same true of all US warrior presidents and others beholden to privileged interests exclusively at the expense of the public welfare.

Executive branch and congressional support for Israel is overwhelmingly one-sided. Few in Washington dare criticize its actions, no matter how egregious. The same goes for establishment media.

According to AP News, citing three unnamed US officials, “Trump is set to sign an executive order Wednesday targeting anti-Semitism on college campuses,” adding:

“Officials say the order will broaden the federal government’s definition of anti-Semitism and instruct it to be used in enforcing laws against discrimination on college campuses.”

Henceforth, will advocacy for Palestinian rights and wanting Israel held accountable for denying them be criminalized — and not just on college campuses?

According to the NYT, Trump’s order “will effectively interpret Judaism as a race or nationality, not just a religion.”

It’ll permit withholding federal funds from colleges and universities that fail to crack down on criticism of Israel Trump’s EO calls anti-Semitic.

It aims to stifle BDS activism on college campuses, a vital global initiative to counter its persecution of the Palestinian people.

Separate and unequal is fundamental Israeli policy, Muslims especially demeaned.

The Trump regime’s definition of anti-Semitism matches the State Department’s, falsely calling it criticism “of the state of Israel.”

It considers the legitimate global BDS movement and other groups critical of Israel anti-Semitic.

Congressional Anti-Semitism Awareness legislation was introduced this year and earlier but not passed.

Anti-Zionism and anti-Israel are unrelated to hostility and bias toward Jews.

Israel is a nation-state, Judaism a religion. Some of Israel’s fiercest critics are Jews, clearly not self-hating ones.

Calling Jewish state critics anti-Semitic is a long-ago discredited canard.

The same goes for criticizing Zionism, tyranny by another name. The ideology is extremist, undemocratic, hateful, ruthless, racist, destructive, and hostile to peace, equity and justice.

It’s contemptuous of fundamental legal, moral and ethical principles, Jews unacceptably considered a chosen people superior to others.

Anglo-Zionism is a hugely destructive force threatening everyone everywhere. Israeli persecution of Palestinians is well documented — criticizing both a moral and ethical obligation.

US Campaign for Palestinian Rights executive director Yousef Munayyer slammed Trump’s EO, calling it part of a campaign “to silence Palestinian rights activism” by equating legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, adding:

“Israeli apartheid is a very hard product to sell in America, especially in progressive spaces, and realizing this, many Israeli apartheid apologists, Trump included, are looking to silence a debate they know they can’t win.”

Three years ago this month, in response to the proposed congressional Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016 legislation, the ACLU said the following:

“The bill poses a serious threat to the First Amendment free speech rights of those on campus who may hold certain political views,” adding:

“(T)he First Amendment prevents the federal government from using its great weight to impose severe penalties on a person simply for sharing a political viewpoint critical of Israel.”

On Tuesday, Jewish Voice for Peace said “Trump doesn’t care about Jewish safety. (His) Executive Order is about silencing criticism of Israel,” adding:

His EO “will usher in a climate of fear on college campuses, where university administrations will be incentivized to silence student activism, faculty research, and teaching about Palestine – while white supremacist organizing, which has been steadily increasing under Trump, will go unchecked.”

Unobstructed speech, press and academic rights are fundamental. Compromising them is the hallmark of totalitarian rule, the slippery slope where the US and other Western societies are heading — Trump’s new EO the latest example.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

In order to have a revolutionary process, it is necessary to go through revolutionary stages. First, what’s needed is a raised consciousness that may trigger some outrage by a sector of society which may subsequently grow into sustained protests. The protests might gather a critical mass with the support of the general population and turn into general strikes. If the popular movement becomes large enough to impact the economy and the normal functioning of the government, and if the movement is able to seize critical institutions of the government and civil society under a strong and trusted political leadership, then we may have the foundations on which to build a Revolution.

Of course, this is a simplified scenario. The revolutionary process is much more complex and will depend on other factors such as the level of repression exercised by the government through its armed forces and police, or attempts at sincere diplomatic dialogue, the level of overt and/or covert interference by foreign powers, the likelihood of foreign military interventions, as well as the commitment to popular resistance including forceful or armed resistance.

One could pick almost any Latin American country through its history and recognise elements of revolutionary processes that succeeded or failed at any given time. But there is one country that currently stands out and is seldom reported about by the dominant media. That country is Colombia and its long standing struggle. As we observe a persistent popular challenge and confrontation with the rightwing government of Ivan Duque, we realize that there are times when the only word that makes sense in the geopolitical dictionary is “Revolution”, and we ask, is Colombia initiating a revolutionary process?

Colombia has experienced one of the longest armed resistances against a dominant government anywhere in the world, which has been led since the mid-1960s by two major organizations, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia—Ejército del Pueblo (FARC-EP – Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia—People’s Army) and the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Army – ELN). The conflict has been mostly waged in rural areas outside the Bogotá urban area. That stage of armed resistance has confronted a strong repression responsible for thousands of Colombians, mostly civilians, killed in the large majority by rightwing paramilitary and Colombian security forces.

 After a long peace process, in 2016-2017 the FARC-EP signed a peace accord with former Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos, disarmed itself and became the legal leftist political party Fuerza Alternativa Revolucionaria del Común (Common Alternative Revolutionary Force – FARC), preserving the acronym in Spanish as if to preserve the memory of its long struggle. However it decided not to participated in the elections of 2018 that were won by Ivan Duque of the Democratic Center party.

The peace accord signed by FARC-EP leader Rodrigo Londoño (nom de guerre, Timochenko) and Juan Manuel Santos is still in place, but the necessary trust to maintain it is wearing thin and it is becoming one of the major issues that is at the root of the current civil unrest taking place in Colombia. The political link between the ideologically far-right former president Alvaro Uribe, whose administration had engaged in massive military and paramilitary attacks on the rebel forces that also resulted in indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population, and current president Duque has not been conducive to building trust, especially when the implementation of large portions of the peace accord are not progressing fast enough if at all. Restitution of farm land lost due to forced displacements during the civil war, the program of crop substitution from illegal to commercial crops, the facilitated reincorporation of former combatants to civilian life, and, most importantly, the disbanding of government-condoned paramilitary groups are moving very slowly and this is attributed to a lack of resources and political will by the Duque administration.

The continued killing of former rebels and popular leaders has not helped the peace process. In fact, while Londoño remains in support of the process but also critical of it, a faction of the newly formed political party FARC headed by Iván Márquez and Jesús Santrich went into hiding and later declared that they would take up arms again against the state as a “new stage in the armed struggle.” It would be a great mistake on the part of the Colombian government to use this as a pretext to justify violent repression against the population that has occurred even after the signing of the peace accord and may ultimately be responsible for the armed reaction.

Parallel to this development and not in contradiction with it, Colombians are becoming more vocal and over time organisations and groups have swelled the mass movement that we have seen since November 21. In what is comparable to street protests in Chile, Brazil and Ecuador, for more than three weeks multiple thousands of people have taken to the streets in major cities, including Bogotá, to stage mass protests with no end in sight. The protests have grown to be “long overdue” general strikes organised by the Central Unitaria de Trabajadores de Colombia (Central Workers Union of Colombia – CUT) and the Comité Nacional del Paro (National Strike Committee)

Besides unions, the mass movement includes students, social organizations, indigenous and Afro-Colombian people, farmers, cultural and environmental groups, and the political party FARC. The general population supports the protests in rejection of the Duque government’s neoliberal policies that include raising the compulsory retirement age, increasing workers’ contributions to the pension system, reducing the state’s role in social security, and lowering the young people’s minimum wage, among other things.

While the dominant media reports at length about the “pro-democracy” color revolution in Hong Kong they ignore the civil unrest taking place in Colombia. What is happening in Colombia is relevant news because it is part of the Latin American vociferous demands for peace and for opposition to unpopular government policies similar to those in Chile, Brazil, Ecuador, and soon in Bolivia, following the military coup.

Colombia has a 50-year long history of armed revolutionary process that is unique in Latin America but also ignored or some would say covered up. At the same time Colombia’s military budget is the second highest in the region, surpassed only by Brazil. The country has the largest concentration of US military presence in South America with nine military bases, out of 76 in the whole of Latin America as well as numerous US-funded organizations. Colombia has the infamous role of being the willing watch tower of the US’ Latin American “backyard”.

Colombia is attempting to develop a peace process to end the long armed stand-off with the state, however the state is not making the necessary institutional and political changes to make peace happen as agreed to and ratified. So the popular resistance aiming to achieve revolutionary conditions appears to continue now on two fronts, one that recently rejoined the armed struggle and the other that hopes to move through the electoral political process. If we define the revolutionary goal as the non-violent break from the hegemonic foreign imposed neoliberal structures, the two fronts have more in common than we believe. In fact, the broader movement seems to be growing quite widely and fast. This should be a warning call to the Duque administration that seems to be comfortably feeling at ease and conceited under the protection of domestic and foreign military.

Colombia may well be initiating a revolutionary process given its own objective conditions or persistently following its revolutionary path initiated more than half a century ago. The actors at play are all taking up their roles determined to carry them on to the end. We are reminded of Antonio Gramsci: “Revolutionaries see history as a creation of their own spirit, as being made up of a continuous series of forceful tugs at the other forces of society – both active and passive, and they prepare the maximum of favourable conditions for the definitive tug (revolution).”

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Nino Pagliccia is an activist and freelance writer based in Vancouver. He is a retired researcher from the University of British Columbia, Canada. He is a Venezuelan-Canadian who follows and writes about international relations with a focus on the Americas. He is the editor of the book “Cuba Solidarity in Canada – Five Decades of People-to-People Foreign Relations” (2014). He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

As Britons headed to the polls Thursday for the much-anticipated and highly consequential general election, U.K. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn sounded a note of optimism in response to early reports of big crowds and long lines at polling stations across the country.

“It’s happening. We can do this,” said Corbyn after the British newspaper Metroreported that early turnout resulted in the “longest queues ever” at several voting stations.

Aidan Conway, a resident of Balham, London, told Metro that he has “never seen a queue like this at my polling station.”

These images of people queuing to vote will scare the death out of the Tories

Get up, get out and let’s make history#GE2019 pic.twitter.com/iW9lwt6zDR

— Dave Ward (@DaveWardGS) December 12, 2019

Never in my adult life have I ever queued for an election. Every vote counts. Get every young person you know into a voting booth. Let’s #KickBorisOut #GeneralElection #GE2019 pic.twitter.com/p1tFe9kKiE

— Stephen (@dr_swatso) December 12, 2019

Call me crazy but I think @jeremycorbyn might have this, the absolute boy. #YouthQuake #GE2019 pic.twitter.com/qJ46ybGQVm

— Dylan Murphy (@DylanMurphyIRL) December 12, 2019

“Many of the voters out this morning have said the lines are ‘full of young people,'” Metro noted.

That could be good news for Labour. According to YouGov, more than 60 percent of voters between the ages of 18 and 29 voted for the Labour Party in the 2017 general election.

“More than 1.5 million people under the age of 34 registered to vote between Oct. 22 and Nov. 19, compared with 1.2 million in the same time frame in 2017,” the New York Times reported late last week.

Labour activists on Wednesday continued to promote their get-out-the-vote push online and in communities nationwide, telling voters there was still time to make a difference and urging them to head to the polls to “kick the Tories out of government”:

Polls move when people do.

It’s not too late. Go to https://t.co/1AWWRKJVSv, get yourself down to a marginal, and knock doors to get these Tories out of power. #UKElection #GE2019

pic.twitter.com/Uhvs2EcfkD

— Ash Sarkar (@AyoCaesar) December 12, 2019

As Labour supporter and Guardian columnist Owen Jones wrote Wednesday, “Tories have discounted millennial rage against their policies and that mistake could cost them dear at the polls.”

They have endured a decade of assaults on their living standards and their beliefs. The Tory elite calculated that this onslaught would have no political consequences because young people would not vote in sufficient numbers for it to matter. This hubris finally collided with reality in 2017, but it was not enough.

And so this is the question that will soon be answered. Will enough young people march to polling stations, in the right places, to stop a hard-right Tory government committed to implementing hard Brexit by the end of next month? Will Boris Johnson’s entitlement meet its nemesis in the shape of a revolt of the young? There is very little time left. But if Britain’s nightmare finally ends, it will probably be the young who save us from it.

Corbyn has characterized the general election as a life or death moment for the National Health Service. Last month, the Labour leader unveiled over 450 pages of trade documents that he said show Johnson has put the NHS “on the table” in talks with the U.S. over a possible post-Brexit trade pact.

As voters headed to the polls Wednesday, Corbyn tweeted, “Boris Johnson will sell-off our NHS, and that’s the tea.”

“Today, vote to save our NHS,” Corbyn said. “Vote for a pay rise. Vote for free childcare. Vote for lower fares and bills. Vote for real change. Vote for Labour.”

Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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

Featured image is from Dave Ward/Twitter

Vanessa Beeley, the award-winning journalist who has gained notoriety for her on the ground reporting on the Syrian conflict has faced opposition in her efforts to speak to Canadian audiences at the invitation of local anti war activists.

According to Ken Stone of the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, a lead organizer of Beeley’s cross-Canada speaking tour, six venues have so far backed away from hosting the UK journalist’s talks. These include Palestine House in Mississauga, the Steelworkers Hall in Toronto, St. Paul’s University in Ottawa, the University of Montreal, the University of Winnipeg, and the Millenium Library, also in Winnipeg.

Stone explains that the withdrawal from agreements at each venue to host Beeley were preceded by the circulation of at least two hit pieces on the journalist upon her arrival in Canada – one by La Presse in Quebec and one by the Huffington Post. Stone explained that the decision to cancel in each case was precipitated by the circulation of these articles by unknown actors.

Says Stone,

“There wasn’t an organized effort, but there were people in individual cities where she was speaking who took it upon themselves to circulate these articles behind the scenes – shadowy figures who tried their very best to scare the managers of various venues into cancelling, and they did so six times.”

The proper name of the tour is ‘Canada’s Dirty War on Syria: The White Helmets and the Regime Change War billionaires.’ Ms. Beeley was intent on presenting her research into Canada’s role in undermining the government of President Bachar Al Assad. Beeley’s message directly contradicts mainstream reporting on the conflict, particularly her research into the White Helmets, which she and other independent journalists classify as a propaganda construct providing public relations cover for regime change efforts and continued economic sanctions that are decimating the country.

The justification for one venue after another cancelling is not clear, as none have officially provided any explanation. According to Stone, however, there were two venues on the tour that allowed the Beeley presentation to take place in spite of this unexpected opposition. One was the New Vision Church in Hamilton. The other was the Knox Metropolitan United Church in Regina. Both Ministers highlighted concerns from a complainant about ‘hate speech’ being directed toward the White Helmets, and the prospect of traumatizing vulnerable Syrian refugees.

Organizers explained to the Ministers that the talks were not about hate speech but rather about highlighting the findings of an independent journalist and war correspondent ‘whose research methods are very thorough’ about the true nature of the Syrian conflict and the role of the White Helmets.

According to an email, forwarded to this author, from the pastor at the Hamilton venue, there was concern expressed about Beeley engaging in ‘hate speech’ toward the White Helmets. According to the pastor at the Regina venue, the letter he received essentially echoed the common, mainstream media reinforced perception that the White Helmets are heroes, that Syrian civilians are fleeing a despotic Syrian regime, and that Beeley is spreading “lies for war criminal Bashar Assad.”

Stone added, “one of the people who spoke to both Ministers about the ‘traumatization’ turned out to be traced back to an address in the state of Washington USA. She was claiming that she was going to be traumatized by Vanessa speaking 4000 miles away!”

Full disclosure: this author was active in trying to secure a venue for Vanessa Beeley at the University of Winnipeg. The deplatforming in this case was a little more complicated. I had apparently used an improper process to secure the space on campus initially. However, when the event coordinator on campus got hold of me and explained the problems with the process, she directed me to find a venue elsewhere. When I asked about the prospects for booking the space by following the proper procedure, and paying the appropriate fees, I was told the event would likely not go ahead owing to problems the President’s Office had with the content.

In spite of multiple attempts to get more details over several days, the university has yet to provide an explanation of precisely what they found objectionable about the ‘content.’

A second venue, the Millennium Library in downtown Winnipeg was secured through friendly staff six days in advance of the event date. However, on Tuesday (Human Rights Day as it turns out) two days before the event was to take place, I received a call from a higher up – the Manager of Library Services. He had expressed regret but that after lengthy deliberations he had with other team members, he determined that the event would violate their guidelines and that he was exercising his right under the contractual agreement to cancel the booking.

No official explanation was offered beyond this although when pressed, this individual did indicate an ‘opinion’ on his part that after reviewing the speaker’s content, the content of the presentation could be construed as hate speech. Overtures to have this manager meet with myself and other organizers to assuage concerns about the event, were rejected. He said his decision was final. He did relent to sending a written explanation of his reasons for cancelling the booking:

“We considered our room usage Regulations and Conditions of use, event content, and community interests in this decision.”

Further correspondence was forwarded to me through a third party about the event planned for the University of Winnipeg from another member of the campus community. The concerns could be summarized as follows:

• Ms. Beeley is promoting ‘harmful’ theories in defence of President Assad.
• She is promoting ‘anti-semitic’ and harmful messaging against the White Helmets, ‘a group that provides vital humanitarian search and rescue operations in areas of Syria subject to intense bombing.’
• the content could be ‘traumatizing’ to the Syrian refugee population at the university.

About a day later, a representative of the university’s student executive had private messaged the organizers through the Winnipeg facebook event page expressing concern about the event. This person echoed the points above. The individual’s facebook page, however, reveals a clear effort to deplatform Vanessa Beeley.

Excerpts (emphasis added)

PLEASE SHARE

“Vanessa Beeley has been called “The Syria conflict’s goddess of propaganda.”

As part of a Canadian speaking tour hosted by the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, Vanessa Beeley was supposed to speak at the University of Winnipeg tomorrow, December 12th. But, following pressure and advocacy from the community, the University of Winnipeg cancelled the event. The venue changed to the Millennium library and again after community pressure, they cancelled it. The Hamilton Coalition dropped the event and it looks like its been now picked up by Peace Alliance Winnipeg. All of this has happened within the last 3 days.

Among countless other things;

1) Beeley supports Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad, who is responsible for: the murder of more than 400,000 Syrians, over 5.7 million Syrians fleeing the country, and over 6.1 million internally displaced.

2) Beeley has said that the White Helmets, a humanitarian organization with thousands of volunteers who risk their lives rescuing victims of the conflict, are a terrorist organization. The White Helmets were nominated for the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize.

3) Beeley believes that the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack, which killed 12 and injured 11, was an event staged by the French government.

4) Beeley legitimized an airstrike on Douma, Syria that killed 70 Syrians, stating it was a “legitimate strike on #Douma terrorist nest”.

Beeley’s talk is scheduled for 7:00pm tomorrow at the Winnipeg Chilean Association, 892 Burrows Avenue. Emails have already been sent to the groups involved in organizing tomorrow’s lecture to urge them to cancel the lecture, but since there’s just 24 hours until the lecture, please share this post to make sure that Peace Alliance Winnipeg WILL NOT give Beeley the platform to share lies, conspiracy theories, hateful rhetorics and propaganda.

Vanessa Beeley is apparently by no means unique or distinct in experiencing this kind of character assassination. A September 2019 article for Mint Press News, authored by Alexander Rubinstein, detailed how three prominent journalists: Rania Khalek, Anya Parampil and Max Blumenthal, were seeing their work suppressed at the hands of so-called journalists with suspicious links to think tanks and media institutions. To quote the Mint Press article (emphasis added):

The tactics employed to silence these reporters have included death and rape threats, spurious lawsuits, threatening phone calls, pressure campaigns to have them fired, and persistent harassment against any institutions publishing their work or hosting their talks, books, or documentary tours.

This article, and Vanessa Beeley’s own reporting reveals that there is a sophisticated network of entities aligned with think tanks and media institutions who have been actively involved in this campaign to contain the Syria narrative. Individuals like Chris York of the Huffington Post UK, the link to whose article is being shared by Winnipeg based agitators, has been a leading critic of Beeley’s since January of 2017.

According to Beeley, York’s series of articles discrediting her work typically relied on familiar tropes about being ‘Russia-centric’ and ‘Assadist’. These were quickly followed by Olivia Solon’s hit piece for the Guardian, and articles in a similar vein by The UK’s Times newspaper, former Guardian correspondent, Brian Whitaker, Bellingcat, the BBC, journalist Nafeez Ahmed, academic Idrees Ahmad, and a 48-page report from the White Helmet PR agency, Syria Campaign.

While the campaign to discredit Beeley and others trying to expose the reality behind the Syrian conflict seems daunting, Ken Stone of the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War sees a silver lining behind the dark cloud of suppression of dissent. He believes that the forces of empire are effectively on the ropes.

“They are unable to manufacture consent for their foreign policy and their regime change wars and so the only resort they have left is to try and silence the opposition…Even the idea of local citizens in a community being able to rent a hall and bring in a speaker by invitation and open it to the public. What does that say about our Charter Rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly? Nonetheless, despite all that, we had, so far six successful meetings for Vanessa.”

Barring the prospect of a last minute deplatforming, Vanessa Beeley’s final presentation is scheduled to take place in Winnipeg, Manitoba at the Winnipeg Chilean Association at 892 Burrows Ave. Admission is free. More details at the event’s facebook page; https://www.facebook.com/events/510908552828529/

Political rottenness may be bottomless.  Consider the following description of a political aspirant for the White House, this person being from the Democratic Party.  His “liabilities as a political candidate are so glaringly obvious that it’s easy to dismiss his presidential bid as a vanity project.”  The author goes on to describe what can only be seen as a template of sorts.  “He is utterly devoid of charisma, has no real organic base in the Democratic Party, and is a viable candidate only because he’s filthy rich and is willing to inundate the race by opening up his nearly limitless money pit.” 

At a pinch, Jeet Heer, writing in The Nation, might have been describing Donald Trump in 2015. But this treatment is afforded to the cash-heavy Michael Bloomberg, accused of representing “another strand of authoritarian politics.” 

Heer has a point, but it is a prosaic one.  The nature of most political systems is that they produce a type of political candidate deemed acceptably pestilential.  The danger for US presidential politics was long in coming; that the Founding Fathers, in their vision of republicanism, would fail to prevent the next emperor from emerging.  Restraints, fetters and oversights have long been the stuff of this idea: you cage the emperor-to-be, render the figure accountable.  The modern presidency, with all the accoutrements of the entangling state, has achingly chafed against them.   

Abraham Lincoln can be seen to be a pioneer in this regard, and almost peerless in terms how he expanded the position of the executive power in the US.  As the civil war against the South bloodied and bled the state from April 1861, he came to be seen as authoritarian and loose with the Constitution.  He self-arrogated one prerogative after another, usurping Congressional powers in ordering the blockade of Southern ports, initially calling for 75,000 militia troops and a further 40,000 three-year volunteers.  Then came the suspension of habeas corpus.  As with previous figures accused of having Caesar’s pretensions, he was assassinated.    

The Trump presidency has certainly been a cause of alarm for those fearing the onset of a new tyranny.  The Donald has been casually venal in office, outsourced its functions for personal gain and treated his position as a theatrical extension of a social media presidency.  The distinction between political manipulation deemed acceptable by the Constitution’s framers, and abuse deemed unconstitutional, is currently being tested and is unlikely to make the distance.

As the impeachment drama unfolds in the House, the clutch of Democratic candidates has done nothing to suggest that this trend in American politics is shifting.  Messy, discordant and disparate, the field remains cluttered.  The departure of Kamala Harris, and the entry of former New York mayor Bloomberg, was a strong suggestion of things to come, a sort of social Darwinian culling in the offing.  Harris might have been an identitarian’s identity-kit politician, an antidote against white-male chauvinism, but her positions were unclear and elastic.  Her departure from the race, however, threw up an inescapable fact: to run for the White House entails having pockets so capacious as to be obscene.    

As Harris campaign manager Juan Rodriguez noted in a memo,

“To effectively compete with the top campaigns and make the necessary investments in the critical final 100 days to the [Iowa] caucus, we need to reduce expenditures elsewhere and realign resources.” 

This is the language of budgeting, corporate outlays, and management, a far cry from presidential majesty.

Bloomberg’s bid furnishes a similar claim. It is an announcement that the only way of removing a wealthy white male with authoritarian tendencies is to supplant him with another, even wealthier one.  His candidacy is already teasing out gushers and admirers.  Michael Starr Hopkins, a promiscuous strategist who worked with the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Delaney, insists that Bloomberg cannot be dismissed out of hand.

“In a normal election cycle, I would not give much attention to his candidacy, certainly not as a Democrat.  But as we all know, this is not a normal election cycle, and the fallout from the re-election of Donald Trump would only enforce his authoritarian tendencies.” 

Hopkins evaluates Bloomberg and finds an impressive figure able to defeat Trump.  “He is better than Trump in every way.  Successful businessman, check.  Dedicated philanthropist, check.  Effective politician, check.”

This flurry of enthusiasm for the improved Trump – the one who actually succeeds at the President’s pretensions – has not been in a minor key.  Thomas Friedman, holding forth from the New York Times, was “glad” Bloomberg had stuck his oar in. “Today ‘billionaire’ has become a dirty word and a disqualifying status for many in the left of the Democratic Party.  To me, that is as nonsensical as dismissing Elizabeth Warren as a ‘communist’ who wants only to confiscate your money.” 

The non sequitur remains Friedman’s glaring strong suit, but deployed in this way shows how far gone the state of US politics is.  He digs into the usual reserves of justification as to why a voter might go for the wealthy authoritarian with Caesar’s ambitions.  Bloomberg was “not just some wealthy dude who made his money betting on derivatives on Wall Street and now pops off about the need to cut taxes.”  He “risked everything”; he showed pluck in starting “a business that took on giant incumbents and outperformed them and boosted productivity.”     

Fellow New York Times stable mate Bret Stephens is of like mind, and method.  If you accepted the proposition that “trouncing Donald Trump is essential to the preservation of liberal democracy, then it won’t do to cross fingers and hope he stumbles.”  Bloomberg’s addition “would be a gift to Democrats, the country and the world.  Sneer at it at your peril.”  

Bloomberg is pushing his own credentials by boosting those of the incumbent. But he does so using the very same language that failed to convince voters against Trump’s merits: well cured experience and ample readiness for office. “I think Trump is getting stronger and I think he would just eat alive the candidates.”  His rivals, he continued to explain to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, lacked “practical” plans and “management experience and the President’s job is a management job.”  So the logic of the moneyed authoritarian, the executive bully in politics, comes full circle.  Trump’s legacy, on some level at least, is assured.   

*

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

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

Featured image is from Flickr

On December 11, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s Abu Bakr al-Siddiq Army and the special forces unit, known as the “Red Bands”, attacked and captured the area of al-Katibat al-Mahjura in southeastern Idlib. Units of the Syrian Army deployed there were caught off-guard and withdrew after a few hours of clashes.

Al-Katibat al-Mahjura [the abandoned base in Arabic] is a former base of the Syrian Air Defense Forces. It overlooks the village of Umm al-Tinah controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. When the army captured the base last week, pro-government sources speculated that it may use it to advance further into southern Idlib. However, another week of inactivity allowed militants to regroup and take this facility back.

It’s interesting to note that militants’ advance took place amid another round of the Astana format talks, which are designed to find a political solution of the conflict. Nonetheless, as long as al-Qaeda-style groups operate in Idlib, this will not be possible.

A unit of the Syrian Army in northwestern Hama shot down on December 11 an armed unmanned aerial vehicle launched from the militant-held area. The UAV was armed with several small-diameter munitions and appeared to be of the same type that had been repeatedly used to attack the Russian Hmeimim airbase on the Syrian coast. The renewed UAV attacks are another sign of the growing escalation in the region.

Meanwhile, the situation in northeastern Syria appears to be stabilizing. The Syrian Army and the Russian Military Police reopened the M4 highway in northeastern Syria after the withdrawal of Turkish-backed militants from the Shirlrak silos near Ayn Issa. According to state media, the army completed its deployment south of the highway, between the town of Tell Tamr in northern al-Hasakah and the town of al-Truaziyah in northern Raqqa.

*

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

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

Interim Prime Abdallah Hamdok of the Republic of Sudan visited the United States during early December seeking to have sanctions lifted against his newly-created administration.

In meetings with members of Congress and the National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, Hamdok requested the removal of Sudan from the list crafted by Washington of those states ostensibly involved in supporting “terrorism.”

These events come in the aftermath of a series of negotiations with internal opposition groups inside Sudan. Some of these grouping are armed and have been engaged in military operations against the former administration of the ousted President Omer Hassan al-Bashir.

Al-Bashir was overthrown in a military coup on April 11 amid ongoing mass demonstrations and rebellions which had spread throughout the oil-rich nation. The protests began during December 2018 over the rise in food prices and soon escalated into demands calling for the removal of the National Congress Party (NCP) government.

With the removal of al-Bashir, a new Transitional Military Council (TMC) was established in an effort to end the unrest. After the continuing post-coup demonstrations and a massacre of civilian protesters in June outside the defense ministry headquarters where a sit-in was being held, the TMC agreed to the creation of an interim coalition administration composed of the FFC and the military junta.

Sudan demonstrations during 2019

The new Prime Minister Hamdok is attempting to reconfigure the posture and image of the Sudanese government. He has opened up negotiations with the political parties and coalitions which created the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC) movement and the TMC as well as seeking to resolve the conflicts led by the several groups within the Sudanese Revolutionary Front (SRF) based in Darfur, North Kordofan, South Kordofan, Blue Nile and other regions.

New Prime Minister Makes Further Overtures to Washington

While in the U.S., Hamdok addressed the Atlantic Council in Washington requesting the removal of sanctions and the delisting of Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism. He emphasized that the presence of leading military figures in the transitional government should not deter the Trump administration from normalizing relations with Khartoum.

His addressed pointed out that the civilian and military forces are working together to create a new political dispensation. Nonetheless, the prime minister noted that doubts remain in the U.S. among leading officials that a genuine transition is still not assured.

In an article published by the Sudan Tribune on December 6, it says that:

“Hamdok disclosed that he has a negotiating team in Washington that is conducting talks with the American administration on the delisting process. The direct and frank style that Hamdok adopted during the event shows an increase of confidence on the SST’s (State Sponsored Terrorism) rescission as he used in the past to make law-profile statements. The lifting process requires a formal review for over six months.”

National Security Advisor O’Brien said in a public statement that the U.S. administration is willing to delist Sudan from the SST. There were however, outstanding issues related to removing Khartoum from the list as these were compensation to families of those killed in an attack on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the destruction of USS Cole off the coast of Yemen in 2000 and the commitment by the interim government to assist the U.S. in its war against terrorism.

The previous NCP administration of President al-Bashir had denied any culpability in the attacks on the USS Cole warship or the embassy bombings in East Africa which killed hundreds of people. In addition, the NCP government had categorically rejected any responsibility for funding or training those organizations such as al-Qaeda which have been the propaganda target of Washington in its so-called anti-terrorist campaigns internationally.

Hamdok went as far as to pledge support to the Trump administration in carrying out joint operations against alleged terrorist groups operating in the North and West Africa region in recent years. The prime minister reiterated this position in a quote published by the Wall Street Journal stressing:

“When it comes to combating terrorism, we would like to benefit from U.S. experience, not only of training but intelligence sharing, gathering, equipment, training.”

Revolutionary Transformation Stifled by the Neo-Colonial Status Quo

Such statements from Hamdok shed light on the political outlook of the interim government now operating in Khartoum. How does this foreign policy posture towards Washington differ fundamentally from what was being pursued under former President al-Bashir?

The NCP government had been cooperating with the U.S. in its war against Yemen since March 2015. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have engaged in massive bombing and ground operations in Yemen under the guise of preventing the Ansurallah (Houthis) Movement from taking control of the entire country, the most underdeveloped in the Middle East region.

U.S. warplanes guided by the Pentagon’s targeting and refueling technology have facilitated the war against Yemen which has killed thousands and displaced many more. The social impact of the war on Yemen has been designated as the worse humanitarian crisis in the world today.

Although Hamdok announced after returning to Khartoum from Washington that Sudan had reduced the number of troops serving in Yemen from 15,000 to 5,000, he restated a commitment to maintaining his government’s participation in the continuing war which is in line with U.S. foreign policy towards Iran. The Ansurallah is accused of receiving military and political support from Tehran, a claim the Iranian government has denied. (See this)

Since the military coup against al-Bashir, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have pledged $3 billion in assistance to Khartoum to prop up the interim administration. Just recently, the Sudan Tribune reported that the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) had conducted joint exercises with Qatar.

The Sudan Tribune article reports that:

“According to a statement by the Qatari Defense, the military exercise was attended by Major General Rashid bin Nasser, Head of Qatar’s Authority of Military Institutes and Colleges, and Major General Hafez al-Taj Makki the Red Sea Governor.

Al-Nasser praised the military training of the Qatari officers saying it would enable them to carry out their duties. However, he did not speak about the duration of the training of the exercises. The Sudanese army did not issue a statement about this exercise. On 29 November, the Eritrean government issued a statement accusing Qatar of continuing to provide military support to the opposition groups. Asmara did not accuse the Sudanese transitional government of taking part in this plot but stressed that Qatar uses Sudan as a springboard for its subversive activities.”

Of course states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar operate within the imperialist sphere of influence and not only in the Middle East. There are numerous interventions through their military operations by these Gulf monarchies in the internal affairs of African nations such as Djibouti and Eritrea.

The Sudanese Communist Party (SCP) has been highly critical of the role of Saudi Arabia and the UAE in recent developments involving the interim government under Prime Minister Hamdok. Their criticism was so severe that it prompted a response from the UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash.

In an article published by the Middle East Monitor, its reveals:

“Gargash explained that Al-Khatib’s comments: ‘are based on used and abused ideological concepts associated with his party.” He continued: ‘Our relationship with Khartoum is historic, and the Arab role in supporting Sudan in its current circumstances is necessary.’ It is noteworthy that Al-Khatib delivered a speech in the Omdurman region, last Friday, accusing the UAE and Saudi Arabia of ‘quick intervention during the first days of the uprising’ in Sudan against Al-Bashir regime.”

The SCP in October called for mass demonstrations demanding the dismantling of the former governing party the NCP. The Communists have rejected the political agreements between the opposition FFC and the TMC.

Consequently, the direction of the foreign policy of the interim government is clearly reflective of its class politics related to the domestic situation. The Sudanese people will not be fully liberated within the context of imperialist domination. A struggle for genuine revolutionary democracy and self-determination is the only solution to the current crisis of governance and economic instability.

*

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

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

All images in this article are from the author

After the coup d’état, repression is advancing by leaps and bounds in Bolivia. The dictatorship persecutes the “narco-traffickers”, “vandals” and “terrorists”, that is to say: the social movements, former members of the government, peasants and indigenous people who demonstrate and are assassinated by the army (35 dead and more than 800 wounded). The de facto government criminalizes international human rights observation missions, the ombudsman’s office and even journalists, calling them “digital warriors” or “computer terrorists”. In so doing, it seeks to bury the truth under a mountain of false accusations.

Ultimatum to democracy, parade of neo-fascism

Since the October 20 elections, Bolivia has been going through a political crisis that is far from over. In the framework of an electoral process that received special attention from the international media, the vice-president of the Electoral Tribunal resigned for obscure reasons, casting a shadow of suspicion over Evo Morales’ victory by 47.08% of the votes cast. A difference of 10% (648,180 votes) over former right-wing president and candidate Carlos Mesa was enough to win the elections in the first round.

In fact, Mesa did not wait for the results to denounce what for him was an advertised fraud: he had been predicting it for months. Self-fulfilled prophecy or flight forward? Meanwhile, billionaire Fernando Camacho, whose name appears on the “Panamanian Papers” and who had lost a lucrative market share in his gas distribution contracts when Evo Morales arrived in government in 2006 and decided to nationalize the hydrocarbons to renegotiate the contracts, announced a 48-hour deadline for Evo to resign.

It was in that context when the violence of the opposition was unleashed with an unknown fury: the departmental electoral tribunals and headquarters of the MAS burned, their representatives such as the mayor of Vinto in Cochabamba Patricia Arce, the former vice minister of interculturalism Feliciano Vegamonte were lynched and assaulted….but also the directors of media such as Bolivia TV and CSUTCB Radio (Confederación Sindical de Trabajadores Campesinos), José Aramayo, the latter being tied to a tree, giving rise to a scene more typical of the medieval Inquisition.

The president of the chamber of deputies Víctor Borda resigned after denouncing the burning of his house and the kidnapping and aggression in his home of his brother, lawyer Marco Antonio Borda, by members of the “Civic Committee of Potosí”. Days later, his brother made public a video addressed to international organizations, while he was recovering in a hospital bed. In it, he denounced that “apparently there were orders to attempt against my life to ask for the resignation of my brother (…) If the President had not resigned, my life would have been in danger”. Mining Minister César Navarro also resigned after the fire at his home in Potosí and the attempt to hang his nephew. The same script is meticulously applied by criminals acting under the cover of so-called “civic committees”, financed by Fernando Camacho. Everything fits: Camacho himself unscrupulously threatened those who resisted the coup, saying that he had prepared a black list of “traitors” in a “Pablo Escobar style”.

Interlude masterfully played by the OAS, score written by Washington

With a view to the October 19 elections, Bolivia had implemented all the recommendations of the Organization of American States (OAS) regarding the improvement of the electoral process. Several meetings had taken place between the government of Evo Morales and Secretary Almagro. It was necessary to ensure the much-desired “transparency” and “credibility” in the face of the usual suspicions directed towards governments considered “populist”. The rapid-counting system called TREP was part of that reassuring mechanism… But that supposed life jacket turned out to be a spearhead. The gear of media manipulation was lubricated to perfection by attempting to erase the traditional recount in a country where the rural and indigenous vote has historically been favorable to MAS.

The former vice president of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) Antonio Costas, who resigned from his post, did not do so because he questioned the functioning of the TREP quick count, which he considered positive because it “generates a lot of trust and discourages fraud. However, he believed that “the process could be interrupted by a hacking” of a concurrent company of the audit. After verification by Costas and the TSE, the TREP data after the stop detected as a hack was the same. Because, when they gave the first report “the advance was very strong, with around 10%”. According to Costas, “the data was not modified”: “The OAS engineers were with the TSE all the time at the time of the TREP transmission, taking photographs of the advance very closely and the TSE had an advance until 22h of almost 94%, but we had suspended the information at 83%. It was the knowledge of the OAS that the development from 83 to 94 % in a reasonable period with 380 operators transmitting the information”. There was also no violence during election day: “more than 200 observers have certified the tranquility of the day”.

The president of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), María Eugenia Choque, clarified that the TREP “was suspended in order to avoid confusion with the result of the departmental computer system”. The official assured that they decided to suspend this system because the departmental courts started with the official computation and the TES could not “have two results working at the same time. According to Chancellor Diego Pary, “there was no interruption in the TREP,” but the official count replaced it. But “at the request of the observation missions, the TREP count was restarted 24 hours later. A new trend was unveiled, incorporating votes from more remote regions of the country.

The coup d’état in Bolivia has brought to light the double game of the OAS. It immediately announced, even before the final results were known, that the electoral process was not credible. The U.S. State Department was quick to assert that “the United States strongly supports the October 23 OAS observation report, which reveals a number of irregularities that need to be corrected. Thus it made clear to the “free world” what was the position of the world gendarme towards the Bolivian electoral process.

Evo Morales’ government then accepted his proposal to send an audit mission. But candidate Mesa rejected the OAS mission, fanning the flames. The coordinator of the OAS electoral audit even had to resign to give credibility to the report, as he was the author of a series of articles against the Morales government! Yet Evo accepted his replacement and pledged to make the result binding. Finally, the OAS audit’s preliminary communiqué on the electoral process arrived a week later, two days ahead of schedule. It was not surprising that it denounced irregularities. President Evo accepted new elections. But Mesa and Camacho rejected them. Despite President Evo’s announcement that he would respect the conclusions of the OAS report and allow new elections, the opposition followed its coup strategy. Its objective was precise: to force Evo out, to persecute masism and thus put an end to a collective historical subject.

Shortly before his resignation speech, Evo Morales acknowledged that the OAS had made “a political and not a technical report”. Having overcome another coup attempt shortly after becoming president in 2006, Evo’s government could have prepared for that eventuality. Wikileaks’ revelaton of confidential cables could have even helped anticipate the modus operandi. On August 21, 2009, Hillary Clinton asked her embassy in La Paz: how prepared is the opposition to use violence if necessary? Do you have any plans to counter security forces for defensive or offensive purposes? In another cable on September 10, 2009, Hillary insisted, “Do opposition leaders or groups plan to protest or demonstrate if they suspect election fraud? Do they have a plan to abstain from voting or attempt to commit fraud?

In contrast to the speed with which the OAS issued its first incendiary communiqué, the final report arrived with great delay almost a month later, on December 4. In response, a hundred international experts have demanded that “it withdraw misleading statements about the elections, which have contributed to the political conflict and have served as one of the ‘justifications’ most used to consummate the military coup”. Given this precedent, as well as recent examples of OAS interference in the cases of Nicaragua and Venezuela, it will be necessary for the people to draw their own conclusions. After the coup in Bolivia, what country will take the OAS seriously, enabling it to issue certificates of democracy?

Media war at its peak

Against the backdrop of a properly mediatized suspicion of fraud, violence took on increasing dimensions, although it was tolerated. After being singled out as government supporters, journalists and public service media workers were attacked, humiliated and prevented from working. The police seemed not to act after the opposition came to meet them and convinced them to join the coup. It was probably prepared in advance. The mutiny of police forces in Cochabamba and other departments was duly staged and mediatized by banners announcing “We don’t want dialogue, all together for democracy!” and others visualizing a rude caricature of President Evo hanging face up from his private parts. The psychological and media warfare reached its peak when fear seized masism, as the criminal attacks of the opposition counted on the passivity of the police forces and the army barracks. With their help, an authentic strategy of terror could be carried out: members of the government were threatened, kidnapped, their private homes burned with impunity, and they ended up resigning their positions under the pressure of reprisals against their families.

To the left, Cochabamba police riot greeted by civilians equipped with helmets, truncheons and artisanal rocket launchers (photo: France 24). To the right, children’s illustrations broadcast on social networks by the Cruceña Youth Union, aimed at disguising violence.

In those moments, with the betrayal of the security forces, the destiny of plurinational Bolivia was at stake. It was the event that tipped the balance in favor of a coup strategy conceived as a set of combined forces. An opposition whose sole purpose was to sabotage democracy. Its objective? Allowing once again the plundering of national wealth and preventing the industrial development of Bolivia from its significant reserves of lithium. The military command entered the scene: it “suggested” to President Morales that he resign the presidency for the good of the country. On November 10, Evo Morales was forced to resign in order to end the violence of the opposition and avoid a bloodbath. Significantly, the shock groups or motorcyclists went out to celebrate the arrival of what they consider democracy… many of them still hooded!

Once the coup was consummated, those same forces went out to repress without any qualms those who resisted, whom private sector media described as “mobs“, “vandals,” or “radicals. Contrary to the idea that one could get a “dictatorship” installed 14 years ago, the private press combined with the use of social networks played a crucial role in justifying the coup d’etat through a propaganda campaign in which the role of the victim and the aggressor was inverted and President Evo Morales demonized. In what tyrannical regime could the media have become so open and free on the side of coup sectors?

It’s time to call the facts by name. Neofascist groups played a decisive role in this real coup. A privileged place was reserved for them, favouring the organisation of armed militias acting in cooperation with the police forces. Groups like the Unión Juvenil Cruceñista, defined by the International Federation of Human Rights as a “fascist paramilitary group”. On November 25, its members occupied the headquarters of the Santa Cruz Federation of Peasant Workers’ Unions to burn their equipment and documentation. In Bolivia, the thugs and the military are now making their own rules. It is impossible to imagine in the current context any kind of “transition” without continuing the bloodshed.

Imputing the Massacres to the victims themselves

On Friday, November 15, a march of peasants from the 6 Federations of the Tropic of Cochabamba was on the Huayllani bridge, from Sacaba to Cochabamba. This strategic place of connection with the capital of the department was the object of an important security forces deployment to prevent the coca growers of the Chapare from entering the city. The result was a bloody massacre that resulted in 9 deaths and dozens of wounded. Through videos recorded by the peasants themselves, the excessive use of chemical weapons could be evidenced. In addition, several testimonies evidenced the use of military weapons used by soldiers from helicopters flying over the place. On the same day, Jeanine Añez had signed decree 4078 allowing the Armed Forces to use military weapons without further responsibility, with the aim of neutralizing the social movements in favor of Evo Morales. This document also specified that all public and private entities of the State should provide support to the Military Forces. The media and social networks inoculated in people’s minds the crazy idea that the marchers had shot each other to attract attention, and that the government’s repression was justified to “pacify the country” after the coup.

In Senkata, El Alto, a new massacre took place that the private sector media justified as a sort of “preventive attack,” using the idea that the demonstrators, presented as “terrorists,” would have sought to provoke an explosion of the gas plant that would have made the city of El Alto disappear.

De facto President Añez spared no resources in presenting the aggressor as a victim and vice versa: “we never thought of attacking, we were being attacked (…) from the Army (…) no bullets  were fired (…) There was information from experts telling us that if a flame ignites in Senkata, all of El Alto can fly. Those who conceived this trope reached the pinnacle in the art of propaganda. However, contrary to the lie repeated a thousand times that the army did not shoot “not a single bullet,” different testimonies affirm that the mortal victims were targeted from helicopters.

During its observation mission, the IACHR (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights), which is not suspected of bias in favor of Evo’s government, collected numerous testimonies of the Sacaba and Senkata massacres and denounced that currently there is “no guarantee of the independence of the judiciary” in Bolivia. In response, on December 6, the self-proclaimed president approved the “supreme decree 4100” with the aim of compensating the families of the 35 dead and hundreds injured by the repression she herself ordered. The price to buy their silence? 50,000 bolivianos, just over 7,000 dollars. A fully-fledged “blackmail” for the spokespersons of the victims, who have already announced their willingness to take the case to the United Nations. Immediately a group of spokespersons replied: “We don’t want your money, it’s blackmail”. The silence of the victims is not bought. The IACHR declared its concern at the decree, for including a clause that would make it impossible for victims to appeal to international bodies to claim their rights. This would represent a violation of the commitments undertaken when ratifying the Rome Statute, in particular the principle of non-applicability of statutory limitations in the matter of crimes against humanity.

Frenetic political-judicial persecution

The persecution, arbitrary detentions and death threats against those responsible for the dismissed government and their families are increasing day by day. The same pattern used to achieve the coup remains active until the dictatorship’s goal of ending all resistance to the coup is achieved. This is how anyone who can be used as a scapegoat to launder their crimes continues to be preventively detained.

In recent weeks, the Bolivian Ombudsman’s Office, which confines itself to carrying out an assessment of human rights and counting the victims, has been harassed and its workers were prevented from carrying out their work. Its representative in Cochabamba, Mr. Nelson Cox, questioned “the role played by the Attorney General’s Office and the Police with respect to the cordon and protests in the Ombudsman’s Office facilities, calling those bodies permissive in the face of acts of aggression. The mere existence of this organization is unacceptable to the coup plotters. Rabid at this small demonstration of resistance, the representatives of the de facto government incite their followers to attack the members of the Defensoría even in their private homes: “They have carried out explosions of firecrackers in my home, they have accused me of committing illicit acts, of drug traffickers, murderers, terrorists (…), they have made threats against my daughters and my family” – declared Mr. Cox.

Far from being satisfied with having seized power by force, the de facto government is aware that its legitimacy hangs by a thread. That is why the repression must take a prominent turn until the next elections are organised. Without delay, special anti-terrorist units were presented with great pomp, presumably announcing the next crimes that will go unpunished.

Without fear of ridicule, on December 6, the self-proclaimed president announced the creation of an “inter-institutional committee for the defense of victims for political and ideological reasons of the last 14 years”. Shortly before, Añez had congratulated the spokesman of the paramilitary gangs that terrorized the population in the decisive moments of the coup, acting with the complicity of the police and the army (house fires, lynchings, racist attacks, etc.).

And if it was still necessary to demonstrate the kind of people Añez considers victims, on the same day four miners were released who were convicted for the torture and murder of the deputy interior minister Rodolfo Illanes in August 2016.

On 11 November, the president and former vice-president of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), Maria Eugenia Choque and Antonio Costas, were arrested along with 34 members.

On November 27, Chuquisaca governor Esteban Urquizu was preventively detained for “leaving office” after he resigned on November 10.

On December 3, former Minister of Productive Development Susana Rivero Guzmán denounced “Death threats to my son, destruction of our small house in La Paz and a hostile climate of intimidation of the family. For that reason, she announced her willingness to “turn to international human rights protection bodies.

On December 4, Idelfonso Mamani, a former member of the TSE (Supreme Electoral Tribunal), was arrested. The accusation read: “it is presumed that the TSE assigned the printing of the electoral material to one printing press, however, the work was done by another”.

On December 6, the departure from the country of former Economy Minister Luis Arce Catacora was announced, who was able to benefit from the asylum offered by Mexico. On the same day, former Communication Minister Amanda Dávila was accused of using funds from the State Publishing House to print MAS campaign material. Dávila denounced having been the victim of a montage through a photo of the visit of Morales’ daughter.

This non-exhaustive list allows us to understand that what is underway is a frenetic political-judicial persecution against all members of previous Morales governments, casting a shadow of suspicion on the issue of corruption, in order to challenge and completely erase the memory of 13 years of the process of change in Bolivia, whose economic and social balance has been recognized worldwide, in particular by reducing extreme poverty by 23%.

Confession of crimes against humanity

Because the best defense is attack, “government minister” Murillo, who incited “hunting” members of the ousted government and tried to intimidate those who defended them, has made public his intention to bring Evo Morales before the International Criminal Court in The Hague “for crimes against humanity,” blaming him for the 35 deadly victims, even after his resignation and exile from the country. To endorse a president who has deposed the responsibility for the victims of a regime that has militarized the country and repressed protest is to show boldness without limits, or a way to convince himself of the impunity he believes he can count on after resuming full relations with the United States.

Murillo undoubtedly tries to use everything in his power to invest the victim and the aggressor. This is how he has tried to present Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera as a “confessed terrorist” and a “narco-guerrilla”, reactivating the imaginary vision of the Cold War dictatorships. He has also widely released an audiotape in which Morales is supposedly heard encouraging the blockade of cities in order for the population to resist the coup. Whether an authentic or false document, the preamble to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, clearly inspired by the French declaration of 1789, implicitly foresees the right to rebellion in situations marked by the absence of democratic and constitutional guarantees: “It is essential that human rights be protected by a rule of law, so that man is not compelled to the supreme recourse of rebellion against tyranny and oppression.”

In fact, the de facto government of Añez-Murillo was imposed by an army whose first mission has been to crush protest and teach the humble people of rural areas a lesson, depriving them of their right to vote and their participation in democratic life after centuries of exclusion. Its foreseeable function is to conceal and justify the current wave of repression. But the dignfied people of the Plurinational State of Bolivia carry on their backs an experience of centuries of resisting with iron determination the tyranny of colonialism and its successors. It is time to understand that disinformation campaigns are a global mechanism whose objective is to break the sovereignty of the peoples of the world and demolish the bridges of solidarity. The apostle of Cuban independence José Martí summed it up in an unbeatable way: “Nations that remain strangers must rush to know one another, like soldiers about to go into battle together (…)”

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Alex Anfruns.

Featured image is from OneWorld; all the other images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has certainly opened up pandora’s box in Libya that is now difficult for him to close after he made a series of gross miscalculations and aggression against Greece. This has triggered a crisis all across the Eastern Mediterranean. With Libya in a state of war since the NATO-jihadist alliance removed and murdered long-time ruler Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, two prominent forces have emerged from the initial chaos, the Turkish-backed Government of National Accord in coalition with the Muslim Brotherhood who control the capital city of Tripoli, and the Libyan National Army (LNA) led by General Khalifa Haftar, who controls about 80% of the country and has the backing of the Libyan Parliament based in Tobruk. Alliances are beginning to form and play out as a proxy in Libya.

The Erdoğan-Tripoli deal to steal Greek maritime space to exploit gas and oil deposits has hit a major roadblock as hostilities continue to increase between Greece and Turkey. Not only has the U.S., Russia, the European Union and Israel denounced Turkey’s moves in the Eastern Mediterranean, Egypt, Italy and France have all categorically supported Greece’s position and have vowed to intervene to any Turkish aggression.

As part of the wider Eastern Mediterranean crisis, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said yesterday that Turkey is willing to use the military to steal oil and gas from Cyprus’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The comments come as today Cyprus, France and Italy will conduct the “CYP/FRA/IT 2019 naval exercise in the island’s EEZ,” demonstrating that Paris and Rome want a greater role and influence in the Eastern Mediterranean by cooperating with fellow EU states – Cyprus and Greece.  The U.S. is also aiming to capitalize on pressuring Turkey for its strengthening relations with Russia in recent times, with Congress likely to lift a 1987 arms embargo against Cyprus today, which was already approved by the Senate in the middle of the year.

Meanwhile, the Turkish-Greek border has been intensified. Although Turkey violates Greek airspace on a daily basis resulting in an equal number of Greek jets chasing off Turkish warplanes, Tuesday was especially intense as 38 Greek jets surrounded and chased off over 20 Turkish jets, with a Greek military source saying “we had fun.” This comes as Turkey announced it is willing to use military force against Greece to exploit oil and gas close to Greek islands. This resulted in a flurry of responses from the Greek government and military all announcing that they are not afraid to respond to any Turkish aggression.

Athens is also taking diplomatic and soft power steps to prevent Turkey from beginning a military confrontation with Greece. Athens has utilized the EU mechanisms to ensure backing against Turkish hostilities, with Ursula Von Der Leynen, the new President of the European Commission, saying on Monday:

“We are on your side [Greece], Turkey’s action in the Aegean is unacceptable, we will send a clear message to Turkey.”

Greece also took the step of expelling the GNA (Government of National Accord) Ambassador, prompting the way for the LNA to have European recognition as it is only openly backed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This expulsion of the GNA Ambassador saw the LNA’s Navy Chief Faraz al-Mahtawi state on Greek television that he will personally sink Turkish ships if they arrive in Libya after Erdoğan threatened to militarily intervene in the North African country.

And this is exactly where the Greek-Turkish battle will take place, through a proxy in Libya and not directly with each other. Mahtawi, a Philhellene who was trained at the Greek Naval School, engaged in race politics by saying in perfect Greek on television that Fayez el-Sarraj, the Prime Minister of the GNA, was “not a Libyan, but a Turk,” as his ancestry is Ottoman Turkish colonists to Libya, while he also expressed his hope for Greek support.

With Greece, Egypt and Cyprus in a military alliance, Athens is now expanding its military cooperation further. A move of particular strategic importance made by the Greek military leadership, was the signing of a memorandum of military cooperation between Greece and the UAE, which if we recall, is a key ally of Haftar and opposed to Turkey. This comes as reports are circulating that the UAE and Saudi Arabia are preparing an air operation in coordination with Haftar to defeat the GNA in Tripoli.

It also comes as Libyan Parliament representatives are arriving in Athens to hold discussions with the Greek government. If the Libyan representatives can convince Athens to recognize them, there is likely to be a domino effect of several EU states withdrawing their recognition of the GNA, isolating Turkey further who has not received any international support for the crisis it began in the Eastern Mediterranean. Even Russia, which has strengthened relations with Turkey to the annoyance of NATO, has continued its consistent policy of following international law, with Russian Ambassador Andrei Maslov to Greece saying on Wednesday that “the rules laid down by the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea should be fundamental. There are no alternatives.” This of course is problematic as Turkey is one of only 15 UN members, out of 193, that has not signed it.

Although Turkey claims it is enacting international law, it has not specified which one. This has created a crisis all over the Eastern Mediterranean that is likely to spill over into Libya as Haftar’s forces continue to advance on Tripoli. Although it is unlikely Greece and Turkey will go to war, we can expect a proxy to emerge between the two rival countries with the battlefield being Libya.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image is from DefenseWorld.net

A team of Deutsche Bank macro analysts led by Oliver Harvey has produced its latest note economic note about Brexit expounding on the bank’s near-to-medium-term view on the outlook for British markets.

The bulk of the note is an examination of how the Conservative policy manifesto stacks up against Labour, while also examining how each party’s platform might impact longstanding economic trends in Britannia, including weak productivity (since the crisis, the UK has exhibited the most tepid productivity performance of any major economy, according to the OECD’s data)…

…and a standard of living that hasn’t yet recovered to surpass its pre-crisis peak.

And let’s not forget about taxes. Labour hopes to hike the capital gains tax on investment income, while also raising the inheritance tax and several other levies.

Looking further down the road, DB’s team said they “find it difficult to be bullish sterling until more detail is provided on Brexit outcome.” Strategists are increasingly expressing trepidation about Boris Johnson’s insistence that the Conservatives won’t allow an extension of the next meaningful Brexit deadline (that is, the Dec. 31, 2020 deadline to finish trade-deal talks)

In the near term, the biggest risks are related to the outcome of Thursday’s vote. Conservatives are ahead in the polls, but it’s likely they won’t win an outright majority. So, the first question is what kind of coalition will they form? Two possible iterations are: an alliance with the DUP and/or Brexit Party, or a minority government with the support of the Liberal Democrats. In the event of the former we would be very negative on the pound and bullish UK rates.

Neither route is free of problems for the Tories. The DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) has been a persistent thorn in No. 10’s side since last summer, and both they and the Brexit Party have criticized Johnson’s deal. If they win enough seats, they could try to force Johnson to scrap the deal and push for another round of negotiations, which would probably infuriate both the EU27 and the British public. If the Conservatives end up partnering with the Lib Dems, they might need to commit to a second Brexit referendum in order to pass Johnson’s deal. In the short term, at least, this would present a more optimistic outlook for the pound and UK markets more broadly.

In terms of growth, a Conservative majority followed by implementation of the government’s Brexit deal in January could trigger a bounce in consumer sentiment, in turn lifting growth in the short term. It probably goes without saying, but however the Tories choose to handle the situation, the composition of the governing coalition will be of critical importance to markets.

For example, DB’s team believes business investment would rise if the government (presuming a Tory plurality) agrees to extend the Dec. 2020 deadline, thereby increasing the chances of a lasting trade deal that’s agreeable to both sides.

Polls have consistently shown Conservatives with a sizable lead. But as DB shows, there’s not much of a relationship between the percentage of the vote and number of seats won.

Still, Labour’s program of massive public spending hikes is attractive to the average Joe who is tired of austerity and eager for better broadband access.

Labour’s party manifesto is ambitious, and includes nationalizing the broadband arm of BT Group (formerly British Telecom) to bring free broadband to all of Britain before 2030. The manifesto also calls for much higher regional investment to help smooth out the stark economic inequalities between various regions.

Johnson’s Conservatives are way ahead in the polls. But as investors learned during the Brexit referendum, polls can’t always be trusted.

And anybody who agrees with DB’s long-term skepticism about the pound can probably pick up some OTM puts for a reasonable price.

*

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

The intense diplomatic efforts undertaken by Presidents Putin and Zelensky finally yielded credible hope that peace might eventually return to Ukraine following their first-ever face-to-face meeting during this week’s Normandy Summit in Paris, but the greatest obstacle that both leaders will have to surmount is the subversive efforts of Trump’s ‘deep state’ foes to sabotage the peace process by Color Revolution means.

Today the Washington Post published a bombshell report titled “The Afghanistan Papers,” highlighting the degree to which the American government lied to the public about the ongoing status of the war in Afghanistan. Within the thousands of pages, consisting of internal documents, interviews, and other never-before-released intel, is a vivid depiction of a Pentagon painfully aware of the need to keep from the public the true state of the conflict and the doubts, confusion, and desperation of decision-makers spanning almost 20 years of battle.

As the report states:

The interviews, through an extensive array of voices, bring into sharp relief the core failings of the war that war is inseparable from propaganda, lies, hatred, impoverishment, cultural degradation, and moral corruption. It is the most horrific outcome of the moral and political legitimacy people are taught to grant the state. persist to this day. They underscore how three presidents — George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump — and their military commanders have been unable to deliver on their promises to prevail in Afghanistan.

With most speaking on the assumption that their remarks would not become public, U.S. officials acknowledged that their warfighting strategies were fatally flawed and that Washington wasted enormous sums of money trying to remake Afghanistan into a modern nation….

The documents also contradict a long chorus of public statements from U.S. presidents, military commanders and diplomats who assured Americans year after year that they were making progress in Afghanistan and the war was worth fighting.

None of these conclusions surprise anyone that has been following America’s fool’s errand in Afghanistan.

What makes this release noteworthy is the degree to which it shows the lengths to which Washington to knowingly deceive the public about the state of the conflict. This deception extends even to the federal government’s accounting practices. Notes the report, the “U.S. government has not carried out a comprehensive accounting of how much it has spent on the war in Afghanistan.”

As the war has dragged on, the struggle to justify America’s military presence. As the report notes:

A person identified only as a senior National Security Council official said there was constant pressure from the Obama White House and Pentagon to produce figures to show the troop surge of 2009 to 2011 was working, despite hard evidence to the contrary.

“It was impossible to create good metrics. We tried using troop numbers trained, violence levels, control of territory and none of it painted an accurate picture,” the senior NSC official told government interviewers in 2016. “The metrics were always manipulated for the duration of the war.

Making Washington’s failure in Afghanistan all the more horrific is how easily predictable it was for those who desired to see the warfare state for what it is.

In the words of Lew Rockwell, in reflecting on the anti-war legacy of Murray Rothbard:

War is inseparable from propaganda, lies, hatred, impoverishment, cultural degradation, and moral corruption. It is the most horrific outcome of the moral and political legitimacy people are taught to grant the state.

On this note, it is important to note that the significance of the Washington Post’s report should not distract from another major story that has largely been ignored by mainstream news outlets.

Recently, multiple inspectors with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons have come forward claiming that relevant evidence related to their analysis of the reported 2017 chemical gas attack in Syria. As Counterpunch.org has reported:

Assessing the damage to the cylinder casings and to the roofs, the inspectors considered the hypothesis that the cylinders had been dropped from Syrian government helicopters, as the rebels claimed. All but one member of the team concurred with Henderson in concluding that there was a higher probability that the cylinders had been placed manually. Henderson did not go so far as to suggest that opposition activists on the ground had staged the incident, but this inference could be drawn. Nevertheless Henderson’s findings were not mentioned in the published OPCW report.

The staging scenario has long been promoted by the Syrian government and its Russian protectors, though without producing evidence. By contrast Henderson and the new whistleblower appear to be completely non-political scientists who worked for the OPCW for many years and would not have been sent to Douma if they had strong political views. They feel dismayed that professional conclusions have been set aside so as to favour the agenda of certain states.

At the time, those who dared question the official narrative about the attack – including Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Rep. Thomas Massie, and Fox News’s Tucker Carlson – were derided for being conspiracy theorists by many of the same Serious People who not only bought the Pentagon’s lies about Afghanistan but also the justifications for the Iraq War.

Once again we are reminded of the wise words of George Orwell, “truth is treason in an empire of lies.”

These attacks promoted as justification for America to escalate its military engagement in the country, with the beltway consensus lobbying President Trump to reverse his administration’s policy of pivoting away from the Obama-era mission of toppling the Assad regime. While Trump did respond with a limited missile attack, the administration rejected the more militant proposals promoted by some of its more hawkish voices, such as then-UN Ambassador Nikki Haley.

In a better timeline, the ability of someone like Rep. Gabbard to see through what increasingly looks like another attempt to lie America into war would warrant increased support in her ongoing presidential campaign.

Instead, we are likely to continue to see those that advocate peace attacked by the bipartisan consensus that provides cover for continued, reckless military action abroad.

*

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

On December 3^rd, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced that NATO must address the “security implications” of China’s rise as a “military power”, and in true Orwellian doublespeak, insisted that he did not want to make an adversary out of Beijing but rather was interested in analysing how best to respond to the challengesChina poses in a balanced way…by announcing it a ‘security threat’.

What are these challenges? That China now has the second largest defense budget in the world and has modern capabilities such as long-range missiles that can reach the whole of Europe and the U.S. This alone is apparently enough cause for Stoltenberg to announce publicly that NATO must address this as a challenge to western ‘security’ rather than actually engaging in diplomatic talks with China in order to resolve their concern in the matter like civilised people do. Let’s not forget that the American navy has been actively expanding their presence around China for several years now, yet despite this transparent hostility, it is China who is deemed a ‘security threat’ for having a competent defense budget.

But we know this is not the whole story.

Of course no bully likes it when their victim suddenly learns the art of self-defense, and who would be more paranoid of aggression than those who have been practising it for years on others only to increasingly find the tables turned.

This western paranoia of the communist boogeyman has its roots in Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech which ushered in the Cold War.

Last month was the 30^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and along with its celebration the continuation of a false narrative, not only as to what had instigated the Cold War, but more importantly what the world was promised and ultimately denied when they were told that the Cold War was supposedly finally over.

In a recently published paper, On Churchill’s ‘Sinews of Peace’, I went over the drastic shift in geopolitics that occurred with the passing of Franklin D. Roosevelt who had upheld, along with his vice-president Henry Wallace, an anti-colonial post-WW II vision known as “The Century of the Common Man”. Churchill was very much dependant on American support to destroy the Frankenstein monster that the Bank of England had helped fund into significance and though Churchill loathed FDR’s vision, he was not in a position where he could outright resist it and instead found himself needing to make large compromises and often, most likely with the thought that this would all be temporary…and so it was.

Upon the death of FDR in 1945, the Iron Curtain speech shortly after created an oppressive division throughout the world, the effects of which we are still reeling from.

The Cold War division

Germany was officially divided according to this map by the Soviet Union, the UK, USA and France from 1945 to 1949. This was done to ensure that Germany would not attempt any further military action after WWII. It was Churchill’s Iron Curtain announcement in 1946 that turned the USSR into the free world’s public enemy #1, without any specific reason as to what the Soviets had done to warrant this declaration of the ‘Cold War’ division. This split with the Soviets was formalised in May 1949 when the British, French and American zones were joined to form the Federal Republic of Germany. The Soviets had no choice but to form a separate German republic in October 1949; the German Democratic Republic.

Despite these two German republics being set up, the British, French and American militaries would remain in West Germany until May 5, 1955, and ended their nearly 10 year occupation only after West Germany had joined NATO in 1954. Under these terms, West Germany would be allowed to establish a military force of up to half-million men and resume the manufacture of arms. The end of the Allied occupation of West Germany meant a full recognition of the republic as a member of the western alliance against the Soviet Union.

It should be evident that such manoeuvres were a clear show towards the USSR of not only a hostile stance but an ever increasing aggressive military doctrine that was preparing for a war.

Although West Germany was given ‘independence’ on a short leash, Allied presence never left West Berlin up until at least 1990. Berlin, as the capitol of Germany, held great strategic significance and became a form of battleground in intelligence gathering and espionage. Berlin had been split in two after WWII, and the Allied occupied West Berlin not only became a symbol of ‘freedom’ in response to the ‘tyranny’ of the Soviets, but was an important stronghold to keep in the Cold War, since it was in the middle of Soviet-held territory.

The blockade of roads and rail lines into West Germany by the Soviets in 1948-1949 and the later building of the Berlin Wall in 1961 were terrible decisions made by the USSR but should be measured in the context that such reactions were primarily instigated by an escalating western military aggression against them.

West Berlin would be surrounded by a wall that stretched out to 140 km, was 11.8 ft high, was for the most part electrified and had over 116 watchtowers and over 14, 000 guards and dogs. It would divide Berlin for 28 years.

This was indeed a very terrible period not only for those in Berlin but for much of the world. The Cold War thinking had allowed for the justification of the Spanish Inquisition-like Red Scare that occurred in the United States and elsewhere, where Americans who refused to follow the very narrow line of what was deemed acceptable thoughts and opinions in the free world newspeak could at any point in time face a judicial inquisition on them, akin to having committed a thoughtcrime.

Schools and workplaces were put through drills on a regular basis of how to react if the Soviets were to launch a nuclear bomb against America. Such tactics were used to put the American people in an ongoing fear state and thus quickly, the former allies who had by far the largest death toll in WWII in their essential role in combating fascism, were turned into a terrifying race of boogeymen with seemingly no sense of ‘humanity’ or ‘morality’.

As a quick side note, I want to bring attention to Elbe Day April 25, 1945, which marked the day when the American and Soviet forces met for the first time near the end of the war. There was a very strong comradery that occurred, and these men would become forever united since they experienced together the brutality and hardship of a hard won war.

It is also important to note that the Russians and Americans never had any historical conflict with each other at this point. In fact, Russia’s navy would place itself along both east and west coastlines of the United States during its Civil War to protect Lincoln’s Union from foreign intervention- that is, from Britain and France. The Russian navy were treated as heroes during their seven month stay in the US

Therefore, American and Russian soldiers had always been comrades in arms up until the point of the Iron Curtain speech by Churchill, upon which a division would be forcefully imposed between the two.

China’s invisible role

China’s involvement in both WWI and WWII is too often forgotten today. What is also forgotten is that the Iron Curtain was also directed against their country, and the level of extreme betrayal that occurred against them was on par with that suffered by the Soviet Union. Recall that under FDR’s post-war vision, both Russia and China were intended to be equal partners alongside the USA and Britain in shaping a multi-polar world order.

When WWI had started, China offered their support militarily to the cause of the Allies. Japan had already become a member of the Allied force and it was recognised that their relationship with China was not on ‘friendly’ terms, especially since the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895. China’s loss in this war allowed for a series of treatises that divided chunks of China amongst several nations. One particular region that China very much wanted back was Shandong, which was considered sacred land for the Chinese people since it was not only Confucius’ birthplace but also home to the ancient state of Qin, the last kingdom conquered by Qin Shi Huang, who proclaimed himself China’s first emperor in 219 B.C. Japan was at the time in possession of this region.

Japan was asked whether China could be ‘permitted’ to contribute military support for the Allied cause, to which Japan refused since this would give China a more equal footing with its relations to the West. Despite this refusal, China offered to support the Allies as laborers. Starting in 1916, China began shipping thousands of men to Britain, France and Russia who would work to repair tanks, assemble shells, transport supplies and munitions. Since China was officially neutral, commercial businesses were formed to provide the labor.

After a year of supplying labor, the Chinese contribution remained largely unrecognised diplomatically. By the end of the war, Chinese workers would rank as the largest and longest-serving non-European contingent in WWI.

By the end of the war, western powers ultimately awarded the Shandong territory to Japan in the Treaty of Versailles. China was understandably upset and refused to sign the treaty. The Versailles Treaty became a clear sign to the Chinese that they could not trust the European nations to support China’s welfare and that China would have to look elsewhere for support moving forward. [America did eventually intervene on this decision and awarded the territory to China in 1922.]

Another blow would be China’s earning of only two seats at the Paris Peace Conference, relative to Japan’s five seats, the reason why China had fewer seats was because they did not play a military role in the war- a role they were forbidden to play.

When WWII started and Japan had taken the side of fascism, China contributed its military forces on the side of the Allies. China had the second highest death toll in WWII after the Soviet Union. However, if you look more closely at the graph depicted above, the number of civilian deaths is much higher than military deaths (by about 12 million). This is because the Japanese fascists committed genocide on the Chinese people. The most notorious being the Nanking massacre which not only had a gruesomely large death toll but became infamous for its horrific torture and mass rape on the Chinese people. During this ethnic cleanse by the Japanese fascists throughout the entire WWII (which overlapped the second Sino-Japanese war), mass graves were dug out and millions of Chinese people would be told to step inside before they were shot to death. The Jewish holocaust is recognised as one of the worst crimes against humanity in recent history. However, not much is given to the memory of the mass genocide that was committed on the Chinese people during the same period.

Despite their great sacrifices, both the USSR and China would be labeled less than a year after the war as the new face of anarchy and barbarism, not by their actions but simply because Churchill and the British Empire had decided it so.

The empty promises of a post-Cold War world

On November 9^th, 1989 the Berlin Wall fell and the end of the Cold War quickly followed… or at least this is what we are told.

The USSR agreed to the destruction of the Berlin Wall specifically on the basis that the western powers would agree to dismantle the war drive and that NATO would cease to expand its military bases any further. Many of the terms of these agreements were outlined in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. However, this treaty that promised the dissolution of the Cold War paradigm was ultimately breached by NATO, with Russia suspending its participation in 2007 and in 2015 ultimately removing its participation in the treaty since NATO had no intention to honor it. Since the supposed end of the Cold War, NATO has only continued its expansion, increasing tension towards an ultimate conflict with Russia.

In 2007, President Putin gave a now famous speech at the Munich Security Conference. In this speech he discussed the fallacy of a unipolar world order envisioned by NATO and that there can only exist a multipolar world at this stage in history:

“This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.”

Where are we now?

We need to grow up, and grow up fast. We cannot afford to be led by childish stories of the boogeyman and be governed by fear so easily any longer.

It is time we, the West, recognise our faults and hypocrisy. The western hegemony over the world is coming to an end and we should be happy for our brothers and sisters who have a renewed hope for a better life, largely from the New Silk Road. We have no place to condemn their rise as a threat to western stability. Western powers have been guilty of breaching trust with the Russians and Chinese time after time. We need to correct this monstrous inability to be able to trust and love those outside the western sphere. These cultures, some which may have been considered by us backwards not that long ago, have grown and cultivated themselves such that we today look very small next to them. We have become the backwards culture. We have become the barbaric culture that only knows war and is a disbeliever in peace. We who are privileged enough to never have experienced war in our homelands for almost a century, are the ones who condone it as necessary on others. What an ugly belief this is. It is time the West, and its people, have the humility to admit that they have something to learn from the rest of the world. Only then can there be a true dialogue amongst civilisations towards the common goal of peace.

*

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

Cynthia Chung is a lecturer, writer and co-founder and editor of the Rising Tide Foundation (Montreal, Canada).

All images in this article are from SCF except the featured image

It has been termed the ‘Brexit’ election, but in fact what is arguably the most important election of our lifetime has opened a can of worms when it comes to exposing the ails in our society. Not that the Conservative party have wanted to discourse to be about anything other than Brexit, of course. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s motto of ‘Get Brexit Done’ is all we hear in his soundbites, as he continues to insist this is the one issue of interest to voters. He struggles to deal with any other domestic topic, be it education, welfare or health. This was made clear just the other day when he randomly confiscated a journalist’s phone when confronted with the photograph of a young boy, forced to lie on the floor of a Leeds hospital due to a shortage of beds, much to the perplexity of viewers. It was obviously a gut reaction, an act of desperation by a politician devoid of empathy and unable to relate to others in need, and one which demonstrates sheer irritation that someone is daring to ask him such ‘awkward’ questions.

But for those voting for the Labour party on Thursday, this action is indicative of the callousness and detachment of the current ruling party, and symbolic of why it is that we urgently need a change of government. Almost a decade of the Conservatives in power, and the impact on the lives of many Brits has been catastrophic. Austerity, cuts to the welfare budget, police officers taken off the streets, lack of investment in the NHS has led to some shocking statistics. For example, just this year the UN released a damning report which concluded that 1 in 5 children were living in poverty in the UK. But moreover, they linked it directly to government policy, stating that the UK’s social safety net had been “deliberately removed and replaced with a harsh and uncaring ethos”.  It is abhorrent to think that from being deemed ‘necessary’, these cuts referred to as ‘ideological’ by the UN special rapporteur. In fact he went as far to suggest Britain was being deliberately being transformed into the unequal society of the Victorian era: “Some observers might conclude that the DWP had been tasked with “designing a digital and sanitised version of the 19th Century workhouse, made infamous by Charles Dickens”, he said.

And yet, in England at least, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s message of equality, higher wages, raising taxes for the super rich, more money for the NHS, and the nationalisation of public services, does not seem to be getting through. Boris Johnson is still leading in the polls, as people still express support for his pro-Brexit stance. In Scotland it has long been a different story. The Scottish National Party has won elections north of the border for years now, and the strong Remain stance up north means that the Tories are unlikely to gain a significant proportion of the vote. Labour has little support in Scotland also, arguably because their policies are too similar to those of the SNP and their politicians less inspiring. The SNP are blessed with an array of competent, eloquent MPs and MSPs who continue to gain the confidence of Scottish voters. And the emphasis of the Scottish government not just on remaining in the EU, and on Scottish independence, but on welfare, has proved a winning combination for Nicola Sturgeon, and is likely to continue to be.

So as Scotland is forecast to be bathed in a sea of yellow once again this Friday on the political voting map, the rest of the country looks set to be a tricolour of blue, yellow and red, representing a hung parliament. And where does this leave Brexit, one may ask? Well it could very well be what every Brexiteer has dreamt of.  If the Conservatives get the highest percentage, but not enough for a majority in Westminster, it is not too far-fetched to imagine a scenario whereby the Conservatives join forces with Nigel Farage’s Brexit party. Then together they would proceed to ‘Get Brexit Done’ either with a No Deal Brexit or with Johnson’s negotiated withdrawal agreement. A dream scenario for the Brexiteers perhaps, but for the rest of the country, a nightmare. An uncertain future for Britain lies ahead…

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Former presidents, ministers, members of parliament, trade unionists, and political leaders from four continents sign an open letter explaining why the world needs a Labour government.

***

We, the undersigned, express our solidarity with the Labour Party for today’s election in the United Kingdom.

After a decade of austerity, the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister would send a message of hope across the world that a future of social justice is possible. A Labour victory would be an inspiration to millions fighting for a future beyond neoliberalism – one in which the interests of ordinary people could be advanced, our social fabrics restored and the domination of an economic elite over our democracies brought to an end.

Faced with the rising tide of the far-right in many countries, the need for progressive governments with transformative social agendas has never been greater. Electing Labour under Jeremy Corbyn would be a step in the right direction – helping to contribute to a new era of internationalism, peace and diplomacy, which challenges reactionary politics with a spirit of co-operation.

It is also increasingly clear that we are running out of time to tackle the climate crisis. A Labour government, with a commitment to a Green New Deal and radical action to bring about carbon neutrality, would be a watershed in the battle to save our planet and particularly its poorest people from the consequences of ecological breakdown.

We wish the Labour Party the best in this election, and hope it can be the start of building not just a better Britain – but a world for the many, not the few.

Signed,

Dilma Rousseff, former president of Brazil, Workers’ Party

Yanis Varoufakis, MP, leader, MeRA 25 (Greece)
Srećko Horvat, co-founder, DiEM 25
David Adler, policy director, DiEM 25

Rafael Correa, former president of Ecuador, Acuerdo Nacional
Guillaume Long, former Foreign Minister of Ecuador, Acuerdo Nacional

Pablo Iglesias, MP, leader, Podemos (Spain)
Miguel Urban, MEP, Podemos
Idoia Villanueva Ruiz, MEP, international spokesperson, Podemos
Juan Carlos Monedero, founder, Podemos

Íñigo Errejón, leader, Más País (Spain)

Noam Chomsky, academic
Leo Panitch, academic
Gar Alperovitz, co-founder, Democracy Collaborative
Erik Sperling, executive director, Just Foreign Policy

Andrew Feinstein, former minister, African National Congress (South Africa)
Ronnie Kasrils, former minister, African National Congress (South Africa)

Cansel Kiziltepe, MP, Social Democratic Party (Germany)

Bernd Reixinger, co-chair, Die Linke (Germany)
Jörg Schindler, general secretary, Die Linke (Germany)
Fabio de Masi, MP, Die Linke (Germany)
Martin Schirdewan, MEP, Die Linke (Germany)

Sabine Schatz, MP, Social Democratic Party (Austria)
Eva-Maria Holzleitner, MP, Social Democratic Party (Austria)

Matthew Green, MP, New Democratic Party (Canada)
Andrew Jackson, former chief economist, Canadian Labor Congress

Marisa Matias, MEP, Bloco de Esquerda (Portugal)
Ivan Goncalves, former MP, Socialist Party (Portugal)

Francesco Laforgia, Senator, La Sinistra (Italy)

Pernille Skipper, MP, leader of the Danish Red-Greens
Nikolaj Villumsen, MEP, Danish Red-Greens

Audun Lysbakken, MP, leader, Socialist Left (Norway)
Bjørnar Moxnes, MP, leader, Red Party (Norway)
Torstein Solberg, MP, Labour Party (Norway)

Li Andersson, MP, chairperson, Finnish Left Alliance

Jonas Sjöstedt, MP, leader, Swedish Left Party
Ali Esbati, Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez, Ciczie Weidby, Jessica Wetterling, Elin Segerlind, Håkan Svenneling, Tony Haddou, Ulla Andersson, MPs, Swedish Left Party

Luka Mesec, MP, leader, Slovenian Left Party
Matej Tasner Vatovec, MP, Slovenian Left Party

Sara Nelson, international president, Association of Flight Attendants (USA)
Teferi Gebre, executive vice-president, AFL-CIO (USA)
Jesse Sharkey, president, Chicago Teachers Union (USA)
Bob Master, policy director (district one), Communication Workers of America
Andrew Porter, organiser, National Nurses United (USA)
Ryan Kekeris, organiser, International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (USA)

Maurice Mitchell, national director, Working Families Party (USA)
Alan Minsky, executive director, Progressive Democrats of America
Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, alderman, Chicago 35th, Democratic Socialists of America
Rossana Rodriguez-Sanchez, alderman, Chicago 33rd, Democratic Socialists of America
Mike Sylvester, Maine congressman, Democratic Socialists of America
Bhaskar Sunkara, publisher, Jacobin Magazine

Circe Camacho, Mexican Labour Party

Lara Merling, research officer, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)

Joan Collins, MP, Independents 4 Change (Ireland)

*

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

For the past 30 years, no matter which party has been in power, the US economy has produced more and more “bad” jobs – because the Race to the Bottom is ruling class policy.

“Whole sectors have become precarity zones.”

A Brookings Institution study  shows 44 percent of all American workers toil in “low-wage” jobs, with median earnings of $18,000 a year. Most of them are adults in their prime working years, whose paychecks provide the main sustenance for their families, 20 percent of which live at below 150 percent of the poverty line. Blacks and Latinos are overrepresented  in low-paid employment, but more than half of these bad jobs are held by whites.

The corporate consensus, shared by its monopolized media, is that the economy is booming – which only confirms that the Race to the Bottom is ruling class policy, no matter how much the “liberals” at places like Brookings bemoan the hardships inflicted on the working poor.

Working class precarity is built into the system, by design. Another study, measuring the Job Quality Index , shows that the proliferation of low-paid work isn’t a hangover from the 2008 meltdown, but a characteristic of late stage capitalism. “In 1990, the jobs were pretty much evenly divided” said one of the creators of the index. “We discovered that 63% of all jobs that were created since 1990 were low-wage, low-hour jobs.” The data show the Race to the Bottom has accelerated for U.S. workers under both Republican and Democratic administrations:  the elder and younger Bushes, Clinton, Obama, and now Trump, who is running for re-election on the strength of the economy.

“Precarity is built into the system.”

The duopoly system is a magnificent mechanism of corporate rule and working class ruin. When only corporate parties are permitted to govern, and corporate mouthpieces monopolize the media, capitalist-inflicted misery is made to seem natural and inevitable. The highly-educated researchers at Brookings can imagine only one way out of the downward spiral for those localities where bad jobs are the norm: “attract and grow more high-wage jobs by drawing new companies in and helping existing companies grow and increase their productivity.” In other words, more capitalism, of the more socially-conscious kind. But clearly, the stock market favors precarity capitalism, which it rewards with high returns, and punishes capitalists that don’t immiserate their employees or farm them out to low-wage contractors.

Low-wage labor mixes uneasily with higher-paid employment in the so-called success-story cities, as well. According to Brookings, bad jobs number “nearly one million in the Washington, D.C. region, 700,000 each in Boston and San Francisco, and 560,000 in Seattle. Addressing the challenge of low wages combined with high housing prices is a key issue in these places.”

Brookings concedes that education isn’t the answer. “There simply are not enough jobs paying decent wages for people without college degrees (who make up the majority of the labor force) to escape low-wage work,” say the researchers. Lots of low-paid workers already have degrees. “Fourteen percent have a bachelor’s degree and an additional 8% have an associate degree,” according to the study.

Whole sectors have become precarity zones, where 75 percent or more of the workers earn low wages: “These include retail sales workers, cooks and food preparation workers, building cleaning workers, food and beverage serving workers, and personal care and service workers (such as child care workers and patient care assistants),” the latter being mostly female and heavily Black and brown.

“The stock market favors precarity capitalism, which it rewards with high returns.”

The Brookings think-tankers are not permitted to think outside the tank. But they are required to make broad statements of good societal intentions. “The goal of economic development should be to support growth that is shared and enduring, increase the productivity of firms and workers, and raise standards of living for all,” said the Brookings Institute’s Amy Liu. But of course, that would mean forcing capitalists to restructure their practices for the common good, or – the truly unthinkable! – putting the economy in the hands of the workers that create the wealth, while ensuring that everyone that wants work, has it.

The proposition is quite simple, but unmentionable in the thought-free bubble imposed by monopoly media and rigged search engine algorithms. Therefore, the capitalist narrative always ends with a question mark for the hobbled intelligentsia employed to rationalize the social hell created by their think-tank funders. “’Where will the good jobs come from?’ is perhaps the defining question of our contemporary political economy,” the Brookings researchers write – and then leave it at that, having no answer that the Lords of Capital would approve.

The Race to the Bottom fuels consolidation of wealth and power at the Top. Socialism is the only answer, a socialism rooted in the self-determination of all the peoples subjugated by capitalism since its emergence in colonialism and slavery – half a millennium of unrelenting, merciless, genocidal theft of land, labor and peoplehood.  The “democratic” nature of this socialism lies not in ballots supervised by capitalist ruling class servants, but in the mass movement to dethrone the thieves that claim to “own” the world’s resources – a class so numerically tiny that we know the top guys’ names, starting with Bezos. Any thoroughgoing redistribution, no matter how chaotic, would be more “democratic” than the current oligarchy, and nothing could be more irrational.

The rules and definition of democracy will be decided by people in motion in the process of building a new world.

*

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

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected]

Featured image is from BAR

In the 1920s, the influential American intellectual Walter Lippman argued that the average person was incapable of seeing or understanding the world clearly and needed to be guided by experts behind the social curtain.  In a number of books he laid out the theoretical foundations for the practical work of Edward Bernays, who developed “public relations” (aka propaganda) to carry out this task for the ruling elites.  Bernays had honed his skills while working as a propagandist for the United States during World War I, and after the war he set himself up as a public relations counselor in New York City. 

There is a fascinating exchange at the beginning of Adam Curtis’s documentary, The Century of Self, where Bernays, then nearly 100 years old but still very sharp, reveals his manipulative mindset and that of so many of those who have followed in his wake.  He says the reason he couldn’t call his new business “propaganda” was because the Germans had given propaganda a “bad name,” and so he came up with the euphemism “public relations.”  He then adds that “if you could use it [i.e. propaganda] for war, you certainly could use it for peace.”  Of course, he never used PR for peace but just to manipulate public opinion (he helped engineer the CIA coup against the democratically elected Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954 with fake news broadcasts).  He says “the Germans gave propaganda a bad name,” not Bernays and the United States with their vast campaign of lies, mainly aimed at the American people to get their support for going to a war they opposed (think weapons of mass destruction).  He sounds proud of his war propaganda work that resounded to his credit since it led to support for the “war to end all wars” and subsequently to a hit movie about WWI, Yankee Doodle Dandy, made in 1942 to promote another war, since the first one somehow didn’t achieve its lofty goal.

As Bernays has said, “The American motion picture is the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda in the world today.”

He was a propagandist to the end.  I suspect most viewers of the film are taken in by these softly spoken words of an old man sipping a glass of wine at a dinner table with a woman who is asking him questions. I have shown this film to hundreds of students and none has noticed his legerdemain.  It is an example of the sort of hocus-pocus I will be getting to shortly, the sly insertion into seemingly liberal or matter-of-fact commentary of statements that imply a different story.  The placement of convincing or confusing disingenuous ingredients into a truth sandwich – for Bernays knew that the bread of truth is essential to conceal untruth.

In the following years, Bernays, Lippman, and their ilk were joined by social “scientists,” psychologists, and sundry others intent on making a sham out of the idea of democracy by developing strategies and techniques for the engineering of social consensus consonant with the wishes of the ruling classes.  Their techniques of propaganda developed exponentially with the development of technology, the creation of the CIA, its infiltration of all the major media, and that agency’s courting of what the CIA official Cord Meyer called in the 1950s “the compatible left,” having already had the right in its pocket. Today most people are, as is said, “wired,” and they get their information from the electronic media that is mostly controlled by giant corporations in cahoots with government propagandists.  Ask yourself: Has the power of the oligarchic, permanent warfare state with its propaganda and spy networks increased or decreased over your lifetime. The answer is obvious: the average people that Lippman and Bernays trashed are losing and the ruling elites are winning.

This is not just because powerful propagandists are good at controlling so-called “average” people’s thinking, but, perhaps more importantly, because they are also adept – probably more so – at confusing or directing the thinking of those who consider themselves above average, those who still might read a book or two or have the concentration to read multiple articles that offer different perspectives on a topic.  This is what some call the professional and intellectual classes, perhaps 15-20 % of the population, most of whom are not the ruling elites but their employees and sometimes their mouthpieces.  It is this segment of the population that considers itself “informed,” but the information they imbibe is often sprinkled with bits of misdirection, both intentional and not, that beclouds their understanding of important public matters but leaves them with the false impression that they are in the know.

Recently I have noticed a group of interconnected examples of how this group of the population that exerts influence incommensurate with their numbers has contributed to the blurring of lines between fact and fiction. Within this group there are opinion makers who are often journalists, writers, and cultural producers of some sort or other, and then the larger number of the intellectual or schooled class who follow their opinions. This second group then passes on their received opinions to those who look up to them.

There is a notorious propaganda outfit called Bellingcat, started by an Englishman named Eliot Higgins, that has been funded by The Atlantic Council, a think-tank with deep ties to the U.S. government, NATO, war manufacturers, and their allies, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), another infamous U.S. front organization heavily involved in so-called color revolution regime change operations all around the world, that has just won the International Emmy Award for best documentary.

The film with the Orwellian title, Bellingcat: Truth in a Post-Truth World, received its Emmy at a recent ceremony in New York City.  Bellingcat is an alleged group of amateur on-line researchers who have spent years shilling for the U.S. instigated war against the Syrian government, blaming the Douma chemical attack and others on the Assad government, and for the anti-Russian propaganda connected to, among other things, the Skripal poisoning case in England, and the downing of flight MH17 plane in Ukraine. It has been lauded by the corporate mainstream media in the west. Its support for the equally fraudulent White Helmets (also funded by the US and the UK) in Syria has also been praised by the western corporate media while being dissected as propaganda by many excellent independent journalists such as Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley, Catte Black, among others.  It’s had its work skewered by the likes of Seymour Hersh and MIT professor Theodore Postol, and its US government connections pointed out by many others, including Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal at The Gray Zone. And now we have the mainstream media’s wall of silence on the leaks from the Organization for the Prohibition on Chemical Weapons (OPCW) concerning the Douma chemical attack and the doctoring of their report that led to the illegal U.S. bombing of Syria in the spring of 2018.  Bellingcat was at the forefront of providing justification for such bombing, and now the journalists Peter Hitchens, Tareq Harrad (who recently resigned from Newsweek after accusing the publication of suppressing his revelations about the OPCW scandal) and others are fighting an uphill battle to get the truth out.

Yet Bellingcat: Truth in a Post-Truth World won the Emmy, fulfilling Bernays’ point about films being the greatest unconscious carriers of propaganda in the world today.

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

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. Visit the author’s website here.

Have you paid for an ancestry report? Perhaps someone gave it to you as a gift. Either way, pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline now owns your genetic fingerprint.

In a paradigm shift that is making some people uneasy, human DNA has been dubbed a commodity. The company 23andMe boasts the world’s largest database of genetic code. This extensive library of DNA has been acquired by offering the public a genealogy report in exchange for a fee.

Many people excitedly paid to hand over their DNA to the company not realizing it would become the “new frontier” for pioneering drugmakers. Pharmaceutical companies now stand to profit greatly from the DNA people paid to send in.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) purchased a $300 million share in the genlogy company 23 and me, which provides ancestry reports to those who submit their DNA. GSK’s CEO stated that this “merger” will accelerate the development of “novel treatments and cures.”

Now that GSK has access to customers’ genetic blueprints, the company says it can use this DNA in studies in order to fast track new drugs for approval, according to the press release.

Reports indicate that 80% of 23andMe customers opt-in to share their genetic fingerprint along with information about their health and lifestyle through a survey. This survey is simply framed to be for research purposes.

More than 5 million people have willingly submitted their DNA to 23andMe in exchange for a chance to access details about their ancestry.

Privacy Concerns

“If people are concerned about their social security numbers being stolen, they should be concerned about their genetic information being misused,” says Peter Pitts, president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.

“This information is never 100% safe. The risk is magnified when one organization shares it with a second organization. When information moves from one place to another, there’s always a chance for it to be intercepted by unintended third parties.”

What is Pitts talking about when he says third parties? Health insurance companies is a big one. Here’s an alarming quote straight from the 23andMe website:

“Your genetic data, survey responses, and/or personally identifying information may be stolen in the event of a security breach. In the event of such a breach, if your data are associated with your identity, they may be made public or released to insurance companies, which could have a negative effect on your ability to obtain insurance coverage.” [emphasis mine]

Big pharma is laughing all the way to the bank seeing as how pharmaceutical companies can now use this DNA data to create experimental drugs. These experimental drugs can then be marketed to consumers based merely on their genetic profiles which may or may not be very accurate in the first place.

Even the FDA has pointed out that false positives or false negatives for certain genetic traits do occur. Of course this won’t stop them from approving fast-tracked experimental drugs based on genetic data.

If you want to close your account at 23andMe you can access that here, however, the company outright states,

“Any research involving your data that has already been performed or published prior to our receipt of your request will not be reversed, undone, or withdrawn.”

Tough luck for those who have willingly paid to hand over their DNA.

*

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

Featured image is from https://www.maxpixel.net

In an October article, I made the argument that Yemen has become Saudi Arabia’s “Vietnam” because despite their technological, demographical and economical advantage over Yemen, it has completely failed to break the Yemeni resistance, headed by the Houthi-led Ansarullah Movement. Although “Saudi Arabia mobilized about 150,000 of its soldiers and mostly Sudanese mercenaries,” this large force has not been able to break the dogged Yemeni resistance.

The Ansarullah Movement announced in November that 4,335 Sudanese soldiers have been killed in the ongoing conflict in the country since 2015, with military spokesman Yahya Seri, saying that the Sudanese people, like other peoples in the region, were subjected to false propaganda by the media to conceal facts. Seri revealed that the 15,000 Sudanese mercenaries were divided on the northern border under the supervision of Saudi Arabia and on the south and west coast under the supervision of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). He then went onto to allege that Sudanese soldiers in the last two years have conducted sexual abuse against women and children, war crimes and violations of human rights – reminiscent of Sudanese war crimes in Darfur and South Sudan.

Many parties and deputies in Sudan have stated that the presence of Sudanese military forces in Yemen had a negative effect on the relations of the peoples of the two countries and called for the withdrawal of these forces. Former President Omar al-Bashir, who was overthrown by the military coup in Sudan earlier this year, argued that Sudanese forces should take part in the Yemeni war at every opportunity possible to help their Saudi friends.

However, Sudanese Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok said that he would recall Sudanese troops from the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, correctly asserting that

“There is no military solution to the conflict in Yemen, either from us or from the other side of the world. The problem needs to be solved by political means.”

This is part of Sudan’s efforts to normalize relations with the West by demonstrating it is a responsible country, with Hamdok even having talks with U.S. officials to discuss the process of removing Sudan’s name from the list of countries that support terrorism. Although Washington lifted the economic sanctions imposed on Sudan since 1997 in October 2017, they did not remove Sudan from the “list of countries supporting terrorism” that was imposed in 1993 for hosting al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Yemeni Defense Minister Mohammed Nasser al-Atıfi asked Sudan to withdraw its troops from the country just days ago in a written statement, explaining that the UAE does not want peace in Yemen, before reiterating their call “to the Sudanese regime to withdraw its troops from Yemen before it is too late.” With this, Hamdok announced the reduction of Sudanese forces in Yemen from 15,000 to 5,000. Part of this effort to completely withdraw from the impoverished Arab country.

The question then remains why Sudan is now withdrawing from Yemen. Sudan has now demonstrated that it wants to act to serve its own direct interests, in which it has none in Yemen. Hamdok has a clear vision for Sudan, that is becoming ever closer to the U.S. His vision for Sudan is to become a leading country in the region that yields significant influence, however, it appears Hamdok does not have much self-confidence and believes this can only be achieved by aligning with Washington.

Discussing the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam that has been a source of tensions between Egypt and Ethiopia, Hamdok added that he wanted to bring the two rival countries together with the Washington to reach an agreement between the three African countries. These tensions started when Ethiopia began construction of a dam in 2011 to increase its electrical capabilities, which worries Egypt as it relies on for 90% of its water needs from the Nile. Egypt believes this waterflow from the Ethiopian highlands could be affected by the dam. Although it was Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi who requested Trump to help mediate during a meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly summit in September, Sudan is demonstrating that it also wants to spearhead efforts to normalize relations between Ethiopia and Egypt.

Hamdok’s efforts to expand Sudanese influence has been in complete opposition to former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir who wielded the military with great power. By withdrawing from Yemen and supporting dialogue so that the tense relations between Ethiopia and Egypt can be eased shows a Sudan that is changing dramatically. With its improving relations with the U.S., Sudan could become a state in northeast Africa that is more aligned to Washington in a region that is increasingly coming under Chinese influence, and it all begins with Sudan’s slow withdrawal from Yemen.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

On Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov met with Pompeo at the State Department as well as Trump in the White House Oval Office.

Several issues discussed including “Russiagate” 

[Careful timing??:

“House Democrats will begin work on completing their articles of impeachment against President Trump on Wednesday evening, setting the stage for a vote by the full House.

The Judiciary Committee is expected to convene at 7 p.m. ET to amend the impeachment legislation introduced Tuesday by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and her top committee chairmen and women.

A second session is expected on Thursday morning at 9.” GR Editor ]

Following their meeting in the Oval Office, DJT tweeted the following:

“Just had a very good meeting with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and representatives of Russia. Discussed many items including Trade, Iran, North Korea, INF Treaty, Nuclear Arms Control, and Election Meddling. Look forward to continuing our dialogue in the near future!”

Lavrov stressed that Moscow’s “correspondence (with the US) will show that we were prepared to cooperate on any issue that had to do with the US suspicions about our interference in elections, but the Obama administration rejected that vehemently.”

Screenshot, CNN, December 11

Russia repeatedly denied interfering in US or other foreign elections. No credible evidence refutes its assertion because none exist. Yet the Big Lie won’t die because hostile establishment media keep repeating it.

Lavrov said

“(t)here are no facts that would support (Russian US election meddling accusations). We did not see these facts. No one has given us this proof because, simply, it does not exist.”

He stressed that “Congress…is doing everything to destroy (Russian/US) relations.” Citing congressional efforts to obstruct completion of two Russian gas pipelines to Europe, he said:

“I can assure you that neither Nord Stream 2 nor Turk Stream will be halted” — both projects in their final stages of construction, to be operational early in the new year.

During a joint press conference with Lavrov, Pompeo falsely claimed “we’ve shared plenty of facts to show what happened in the 2016 election with our Russian counterparts (sic). We don’t think there’s any mistake about what really transpired there (sic).”

He turned truth on its head, claiming “(o)n Syria, we are committed to working though UN Security Council Resolution 2254 to find a political solution to the crisis there…”

The US agenda under both right wings of its war party is all about endless war for regime change — using ISIS and likeminded jihadists as imperial foot soldiers, polar opposite Pompeo’s false claim that the Trump regime “want(s) to assure that Syria never again becomes a safe haven for ISIS and other terrorist groups (sic).”

The country remains infested with tens of thousands of heavily armed US-supported terrorists — mainly in Idlib province bordering Turkey.

On Venezuela, Pompeo lied claiming “(t)he longer that Nicolas Maduro hangs on to power, the deeper the misery of the Venezuelan people (sic),” adding:

“We’ve asked the Russian Government to support the aspiration for democracy and the legitimacy of…Guaido (sic) and the call that we have made for free and fair presidential elections (sic).”

Russia strongly opposes Trump regime economic terrorism on the Bolivarian Republic that’s all about wanting its social democracy eliminated, along with gaining control over its world’s largest oil reserves.

Clearly, no Kremlin help is forthcoming to help the US achieve its imperial aims in the country, nowhere else either.

Ukraine was discussed, said Pompeo, ignoring the Obama regime’s 2014 coup, replacing the country’s democratic governance with Nazi-infested putschist rule.

Pompeo:

“I reiterated to Foreign Minister Lavrov that Crimea belongs to Ukraine (sic) and that the resolution of the conflict in eastern Ukraine begins with adherence to commitments made under the Minsk agreements (sic).”

Fact: Crimea is sovereign Russian territory.

Fact: Russia and Donbass authorities fully observed Minsk ceasefire principles — flagrantly breached by the US-installed Kiev puppet regime on orders from Washington.

Lavrov said it’s “useful to talk to each other…” (T)alking to each other is always better than not talking to each other” — even though US hostility toward Moscow is unrelenting for its sovereign independence, opposition to US aggression, and multi-world polarity advocacy, he failed to explain.

Lavrov did say that

“(i)t’s an open secret that we have different views on different things, and it would be naive to think that overnight we could achieve mutual understanding on key issues…”

“We understand that our joint work was hindered and continues to be hindered by the wave of suspicions that has overcome Washington.”

“(W)e have offered multiple times, and we reminded about that today, to put on paper the mutual obligations on noninterference in domestic affairs of each other…”

“We are prepared to do practical work on the whole range of issues that are of mutual interest.”

Lavrov stressed the importance of saving the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran the Trump regime wants eliminated, its position based on Big Lies in deference to Israeli and its own imperial interests.

On Venezuela, Lavrov stressed that “Russia consistently promotes the idea that it should be Venezuelan-led and the people should define their future” with no foreign interference — Moscow’s position in dealings with all nations.

Washington’s longstanding policy calls for transforming all sovereign independent countries it doesn’t control into US vassal states — notably Russia, China and Iran.

Naked aggression, color revolutions, old-fashioned coups, and other hostile actions are its favored tactics.

That’s what the scourge of imperialism is all about — what’s crucial for humanity to challenge and defeat.

*

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.

As expected, the Dems impeached Trump for winning an election he was supposed to lose, for wanting improved relations with Russia, and other issues unrelated to phony charges against him.

His real high crimes of war and against humanity were ignored. The same goes for betraying the public trust by serving monied interests exclusively at the expense of ordinary people.

Why? Because the vast majority in Congress share guilt, so Dems invented phony politicized reasons to charge him.

On Tuesday, two articles of impeachment were introduced. Excluded were charges of bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations, and obstruction of justice.

Article I: Abuse of power, falsely claiming he sought foreign interference from Ukraine in the US 2020 presidential election.

Last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky refuted the claim, saying there was no Trump blackmail threat, no quid pro quo, no conspiracy, nothing discussed about withholding US aid for political reasons.

House Judiciary Committee counsel Barry Berke falsely claimed “evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power” by seeking help from Ukraine to aid his reelection campaign.

No credible evidence was presented that proves the above charge because none exists.

Article II: Obstruction of Congress, falsely claiming he “directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its sole Power of Impeachment,” adding:

“(W)ithout lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House…”

On Tuesday, Law Professor Jonathan Turley said charges against Trump fall “considerably short of the record needed to support (House Judiciary Committee) claims for a submission to the Senate,” adding:

“The problem with (charges against Trump) is not their constitutional basis but their evidentiary record.”

“This is the thinnest record created in the shortest time of any modern presidential impeachment.”

Dems “are moving to submit an incomplete and undeveloped record to the Senate.”

“…I believe this impeachment is premature and half-formed…(T)he case against Trump (is) one-sided and undeveloped. It is a case that will not withstand Senate scrutiny.”

During December 4 House Judiciary Committee testimony, Turley’s remarks included the following:

“I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger.”

The case against Trump is proceeding “with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.”

“(T)he incomplete record is insufficient to sustain an impeachment case…”

“This misuse of impeachment has been plain during the Trump administration.”

The case against Trump lacks “clear criminal act and would be the first such case in history if the House proceeds without further evidence.”

No evidence proves “a viable impeachable offense.”

“(W)e have never impeached a president solely or even largely on the basis of a non-criminal abuse of power allegation.”

By standards Dems are pursuing, virtually all Trump’s predecessors should have been impeached and removed from office. The same goes for most congressional members.

House Judiciary members are expected to vote on the articles of impeachment this week, a full House vote before yearend.

The case against Trump by Dems is all about seeking a political advantage in November 2020 presidential and congressional elections.

It may backfire for lack of credible evidence and clear majority support — aiding Trump and the GOP at the expense of Dems.

A new Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday showed 51% of registered voters surveyed oppose impeachment, 45% in favor, the results largely along party lines.

Lacking majority public support to remove Trump from office further weakens the Dems’ agenda.

All along, it’s been a sham witch-hunt with no legitimacy, targeting him for the wrong reasons, ignoring the right ones.

*

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.

Two years ago Friday, President Donald Trump formally recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. We knew then that this was an irresponsible and cruelly insensitive act that would do grave harm to the rights and well-being of Palestinians and put an end to any pretense that the United States could help negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What we did not know was that this dangerous move was only the beginning of the damage Trump would do to Palestinian rights and the prospects for peace.

During the past two years, the Trump administration has: Closed the US Consulate in East Jerusalem, closed the Palestinian consular office in Washington, DC, suspended aid to the Palestinians and to American non-governmental organisations working in the West Bank and Gaza, denied funding to UNWRA, the United Nations agency that provides essential services to Palestinian refugees, removed the designation “occupied” from all official publications and statements referring to the occupied territories; declared that in its view Israeli settlements in the West Bank are not “illegal”; and even gone so far as to deny that Palestinians should qualify as refugees. While each of these acts presents problems on their own, added together the toll they may take on the Palestinian people can ultimately be as devastating as a second Nakba.

In the short span of only two years, President Trump and his administration have attempted to undo all of the gains Palestinians have won during the past seven decades. Because the US has shuttered the Palestine Liberation Organisation office and denied that Palestinian refugees are, in fact, refugees and therefore part of the Palestinian community, the US is saying that it no longer sees Palestinians as a national community deserving of recognition and the right to self-determination. Because the US has repeatedly given carte blanche to every Israeli whim, regarding Jerusalem, refugees, and settlements, they have left Palestinians particularly vulnerable to more extreme Israeli measures, annexation, massive land seizures and even expulsion. And because the US has flaunted its contempt for the rule of law and international norms of behaviour, they have created a far more dangerous and precarious world in which any regional power backed by the US can act with impunity and suffer little or no repercussions for their behaviour.

I sometimes wonder if this is what the the “Deal of the Century” is supposed to look like. Maybe, all along, it was intended to be nothing more than what they have been doing for the last two years, creating a nihilistic order in which the Israelis are free to act out their most extreme fantasies while vulnerable Palestinians are forced to inhabit a dystopian world in which they have no rights and no recourse open to them. It is for this reason I suggest that the cumulative impact of what Trump has done has created the conditions for a second Nakba.

There are, of course, avenues open before us that provide ways to avoid such a disaster. While the US has created this mess on its own, each and every one of its moves have been rejected by the Arab States and the overwhelming majority of the nations of the world. For example, only a smattering of minor US dependencies have considered joining the US in moving their embassies to Jerusalem; last month, by a vote of 170 to 2, the United Nations reaffirmed its support for UNWRA; and then there were the denunciations issue by the Arab States and the Europeans to the new US position on Israeli settlements.

The problem is that while the Trump Administration has become increasingly politically isolated by its reckless behaviour, they have not been effectively challenged. To change the current downward spiral dynamic that is unfolding in the Israel-Palestinian arena is a bold confrontation of both the US and Israel. Statements or resolutions will not suffice, since they are routinely dismissed and ignored. What is required is that other nations say “enough is enough” and tell the US that its days of hegemonic control over the “peace process” have come to an end. Israel too must be confronted and made to pay a price for its lawless behaviour and gross systematic violations of Palestinian human rights.

Of course, a unified Palestinian response utilising a campaign of non-violent resistance would also be important, but I hesitate to place emphasis on this factor for two reasons. First, the burden of doing the heavy lifting should not rest on the most vulnerable party to the conflict. And even if the Palestinians were to rise up, as they have before, unless the nations of the world were ready to challenge both the US and Israel, their resistance would come to a bloody end.

We are running out of time. If action is not taken soon, we may well see a second, and potentially more devastating, Nakba. If it occurs, the responsibility for this tragedy will fall not only on the Israelis who carry it out and the US that aided and abetted them, it will also fall on the nations of the world who failed to act in time to stop this tragedy from occurring.

*

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: Human rights activists, including Canadian Michaela Lavis, before being arrested by Israeli authorities in Khan Al-Ahmar

A future without independent media leaves us with an upside down reality where according to the corporate media “NATO deserves a Nobel Peace Prize”, and where “nuclear weapons and wars make us safer”

.

.

If, like us, this is a future you wish to avoid, please help sustain Global Research’s activities by making a donation or taking out a membership now!

Click to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

*     *     *

White Helmets Founder Was Allegedly Assassinated, Turkish Report

By Nauman Sadiq, December 11, 2019

James Le Mesurier was found dead on November 11 in suspicious circumstances after falling off a two-story apartment building in downtown Istanbul. He was alleged to have committed suicide by jumping off the second floor of the building, though the latest findings cast aspersions over the suicide theory, as the circumstances of the inexplicable death indicate likely homicide.

“Sin Taxes” and Orwellian Methods of Compliance that Feed the Government’s Greed

By John W. Whitehead, December 11, 2019

More than two centuries after our ancestors went to war over their abused property rights, we’re once again being subjected to taxation without any real representation, all the while the government continues to do whatever it likes—levy taxes, rack up debt, spend outrageously and irresponsibly—with little concern for the plight of its citizens.

Because the government’s voracious appetite for money, power and domination has grown out of control, its agents have devised other means of funding its excesses and adding to its largesse through taxes disguised as fines, taxes disguised as fees, and taxes disguised as tolls, speeding tickets and penalties.

From Shanghai to Chongqing: The World’s Most Expensive Railway

By Larry Romanoff, December 11, 2019

Work was finally completed in 2010 on China’s Yiwan Railway, a route paralleling the lake formed by the Three Gorges dam, a 380 km East – West line running through beautiful but challenging mountainous terrain from Wuhan, the capital of Hubei Province, and Yichang (the site of the Three Gorges Dam), to Wanzhou City, just East of Chongqing.

The route was originally proposed by Sun Yat-Sen in 1903 to shorten the rail journey between the mountainous regions in the southwest and eastern parts of China. The project initially began in 1909, but was repeatedly abandoned from insurmountable technological problems due to the difficult natural environment, until the central government decided to relaunch it in 2003.

Divide and Conquer Tactics: Millions of Deaths Triggered by the British Empire

By Tomasz Pierscionek, December 11, 2019

Western historians who condemn the USSR for the deaths under Stalin​’s dictatorship should shed a spotlight on ​the millions who died under British rule​, including those in engineered famines across the Indian subcontinent.

The UK general election is a week away and a significant chunk of the country’s media, three-quarters of which is reportedly owned by a few billionaires, is hard at work digging up dirt on Jeremy Corbyn to prevent a Labour Party victory at all costs. However, this uphill task is becoming harder as recent polls show the frequently cited Conservative lead over Labour is rapidly decreasing. The possibility that Mr Corbyn will be Britain’s next prime minister, perhaps at the head of a minority government, is now grudgingly acknowledged.

The Uyghur Issue: How Can the U.S. Dare Lecturing China About the Rights of the Muslims?

By Andre Vltchek, December 11, 2019

The majority of Uyghur people are Muslims. They have their own, ancient, specific culture and most of them are, of course, very decent human beings. Northwest China is their home.

The “problem” is that Urumqi, Xinjiang, are located on the main branch of BRI (The Belt and Road Initiative) – an extremely optimistic, internationalist project which is ready to connect billions of people on all continents. The BRI is infrastructural as well as cultural project, which will soon pull hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and under-development.

Trump-Pelosi Trade Maneuvers: The New NAFTA 2.0, China Tariffs, and Brazil-Argentina Steel

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, December 11, 2019

According to the corporate media, revisions to the USMCA demanded by Democrats since the initial agreement was reached with Mexico a year ago, have been agreed to by Trump, Pelosi, and the president of Mexico, Lopez-Obrador. The revisions reportedly mean more protections for US labor in particular. However, all we have at the moment is what’s reported in the corporate and mainstream media about the revisions. We’ll have to wait to read the final print of the actual agreement. But even the media reports are not much more than vague generalities about the terms and conditions of the revisions. The much heralded improvements to US labor interests in particular don’t appear that different from Trump’s originally negotiated deal a year ago.

Video: President al-Assad: Europe Was the Main Player in Creating Chaos in Syria

By Bashar al Assad, RAI News 24., and SANA, December 11, 2019

President Bashar al-Assad said that Syria is going to come out of the war stronger and the future of Syria is promising and the situation is much better, pointing out to the achievements of the Syrian Arab army in the war against terrorism.

The President, in an interview given to Italian Rai News 24 TV on November 26, 2019 and was expected to be broadcast on December 2nd and the Italian TV refrained from broadcasting it for non-understandable reasons, added that Europe was the main player in creating chaos in Syria and the problem of refugees in it was because of its direct support to terrorism along with the US, Turkey and many other countries.

*

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.

Speculation is rife in the local Turkish media that the founder of the White Helmets, James Le Mesurier, might have been running away from someone before he fell or was pushed to his death in a case that was initially ruled as a suicide.

Reputed Turkish newspaper Daily Sabah reported [1] on Tuesday:

“The biggest question is why Le Mesurier committed suicide from a height of 7 meters and after walking for 10 meters on a lean-to roof. A possible answer is he was running away from someone who broke into his house and tried to leap on the roof of a building across the street.”

James Le Mesurier was found dead on November 11 in suspicious circumstances after falling off a two-story apartment building in downtown Istanbul. He was alleged to have committed suicide by jumping off the second floor of the building, though the latest findings cast aspersions over the suicide theory, as the circumstances of the inexplicable death indicate likely homicide.

The report further states:

“Security camera footage from the last hours of Le Mesurier as he was shopping, the first photos from the scene and contradicting statements of his wife Emma Winberg may change the course of the investigation.

“Winberg said she looked for her husband inside the house and saw his lifeless body when she looked out of the window. Police are investigating now how she was able to wake up about half an hour after she took a sleeping pill and why she stacked a large amount of money inside the house into bags immediately after Le Mesurier’s body was found.”

Despite his “humanitarian credentials,” the founder of the White Helmets, James Le Mesurier, was a shady character, alleged to be a covert British MI6 operative by Russia’s foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova days before his death.

Before taking up the task of training Syrian volunteers for search and rescue operations in 2013, Le Mesurier was a British army veteran and a private security contractor from 2008 to 2012 working for Good Harbor [2], run by Richard Clarke, the former Bush administration counter-terrorism czar.

Much like Erik Prince of the Blackwater fame, Le Mesurier’s work included training several thousand mercenaries for the United Arab Emirates (UAE) oil and gas field protection force, and designing security infrastructure for the police state of Abu Dhabi – a job description that helped him recruit Syrian volunteers from refugee camps in Turkey willing to do dirty “humanitarian work” in enclaves carved out by militant factions in Syria’s war zones.

In this line of work, one is likely to make powerful enemies, including intelligence agencies and militant groups. He could have been killed by anyone of them. In particular, the White Helmets operate in al-Nusra Front’s territory in Syria’s northwestern Idlib province and are known to take orders from the terrorist outfit.

The assassination of James Le Mesurier should be viewed in the backdrop of the killing of the Islamic State’s chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on October 27 in a US special-ops raid. It’s important to note in the news coverage of the killing of al-Baghdadi that although the mainstream media was trumpeting for the last several years that the Islamic State’s fugitive leader was hiding somewhere on the Iraq-Syria border in the east, he was found hiding in the northwestern Idlib governorate, under the control of Turkey’s militant proxies and al-Nusra Front, and was killed in a special-ops raid five kilometers from the Turkish border.

The reason why the mainstream media scrupulously avoided mentioning Idlib as al-Baghdadi’s most likely hideout in Syria was to cover up the collusion between the militant proxies of Turkey and the jihadists of al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State. Unsurprisingly, the White Helmets area of operations is also Idlib governorate in Syria where they are permitted to conduct purported “search and rescue operations” and “humanitarian work” under the tutelage of al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate.

In fact, the corporate media takes the issue of Islamic jihadists “commingling” with Turkey-backed “moderate rebels” in Idlib so seriously – which could give the Syrian government the pretext to mount an offensive in northwest Syria – that the New York Times cooked up an exclusive report [3], on October 30, a couple of days after the special-ops night raid, that the Islamic State paid money to al-Nusra Front for hosting al-Baghdadi in Idlib.

The morning after the special-ops night raid, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported [4] on October 27 that a squadron of eight helicopters accompanied by warplanes belonging to the international coalition had attacked positions of Hurras al-Din, an al-Qaeda-affiliated group, in Idlib province where the Islamic State chief was believed to be hiding.

Despite detailing the operational minutiae of the special-ops raid, the mainstream news coverage of the raid deliberately elided over the crucial piece of information that the compound in Barisha village five kilometers from Turkish border where al-Baghdadi was killed belonged to Hurras al-Din, an elusive terrorist outfit which has previously been targeted several times in the US airstrikes.

Although Hurras al-Din is generally assumed to be an al-Qaeda affiliate, it is in fact the regrouping of the Islamic State jihadists under a different name in northwestern Idlib governorate after the latter terrorist organization was routed from Mosul and Anbar in Iraq and Raqqa and Deir al-Zor in Syria and was hard pressed by the US-led coalition’s airstrikes in eastern Syria.

It’s worth noting that although the Idlib governorate in Syria’s northwest has firmly been under the control of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) led by al-Nusra Front since 2015, its territory was equally divided between Turkey-backed rebels and al-Nusra Front.

In a brazen offensive in January, however, al-Nusra Front’s jihadists completely routed Turkey-backed militants, even though the latter were supported by a professionally trained and highly organized military of a NATO member, Turkey. And al-Nusra Front now reportedly controls more than 70% territory in the Idlib governorate.

The reason why al-Nusra Front was easily able to defeat Turkey-backed militants appears to be that the ranks of al-Nusra Front were swelled by highly motivated and battle-hardened jihadist deserters from the Islamic State after the fall of the latter’s “caliphate” in Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria.

In all likelihood, some of the Islamic State’s jihadists who joined the battle in Idlib in January were part of the same contingent of thousands of Islamic State militants that fled Raqqa in October 2017 under a deal brokered [5] by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

The merger of al-Nusra Front and Islamic State in Idlib doesn’t come as a surprise, though, since the Islamic State and al-Nusra Front used to be a single organization before a split occurred between the two militant groups in April 2013 over a leadership dispute. In fact, al-Nusra Front’s chief Abu Mohammad al-Jolani was reportedly appointed [6] the emir of al-Nusra Front by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the deceased “caliph” of the Islamic State, in January 2012.

Al-Jolani returned the favor by hosting the hunted leader of the Islamic State for months, if not years, in a safe house in al-Nusra’s territory in Idlib, before he was betrayed by an informant within the ranks of the terrorist organization who leaked the information of the whereabouts of al-Baghdadi to the American intelligence, leading to the killing of the Islamic State chief in a special-ops raid on October 27.

Finally, regarding the death of the founder of the White Helmets, James Le Mesurier, in downtown Istanbul, it’s worth pointing out that Turkey has been hosting 3.6 million Syrian refugees and myriad factions of Ankara-backed militant proxies.

It’s quite easy for the jihadists of al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State to intermingle with Syrian refugees and militants in the Turkish refugee camps, and no town or city in Turkey, including the capital Ankara and the metropolis Istanbul where James Le Mesurier was murdered, is beyond the reach of Turkish-backed militant factions and Syrian jihadists, particularly the fearsome and well-connected al-Nusra Front that has patrons in the security agencies of Turkey and the Gulf States.

Plausibly, one of the members of the White Helmets operating in al-Nusra’s territory in Syria’s Idlib could have betrayed his patrons for the sake of getting a reward, and conveyed crucial piece of information regarding the whereabouts of al-Baghdadi to the founder of the White Helmets, Le Mesurier, who then transmitted it to the British and American intelligence leading to the October 27 special-ops raid killing al-Baghdadi.

Could the assassination of the founder of the White Helmets have been an act of revenge for betraying the slain chief of the Islamic State?  What lends credence to the theory is the fact that according to local media reports, a turf war has begun in Idlib governorate after the killing of al-Baghdadi in the October 27 special-ops raid and several militant leaders of al-Nusra Front have been killed by jihadists affiliated with the Islamic 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.

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

Notes

[1] British spy Le Mesurier was likely running away from someone before his death

[2] The most dangerous job in the world: Syria’s Elite Rescue Force

[3] ISIS Leader Paid Rival for Protection but Was Betrayed by His Own

[4] Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi killed in US raid

[5] Raqqa’s dirty secret: the deal that let Islamic State jihadists escape Raqqa

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

Featured image: FILE – In this image taken from file video, showing James Le Mesurier, founder and director of Mayday Rescue, talks to the media during training exercises in southern Turkey, March 19, 2015.  Turkey’s state-run news agency report Monday Nov. 11, 2019, that a former British army officer who helped found the “White Helmets” volunteer organisation in Syria, has been found dead in Istanbul. (AP Photo, FILE)

On December 9, Russian forces entered the city of Raqqah for the first time since the start of their anti-terrorism operation in 2015. A unit of the Russian Military Police set up a temporary humanitarian point and provided locals with aid. According to the Russian side, such humanitarian actions will be a regular practice.

A series of firefights erupted between the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and Turkish-led forces to the southeast of Ras al-Ayn. Nonetheless, no side carried out offensive actions. Local sources links the recent clashes with individual initiative of some field commanders.

Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units have deployed large reinforcements near the Syrian-Iraqi border, west of Mosul.

According to the PMU statement, the 8th Brigade deployed in the Jazira Al-Hadr area after it had received information that large number of terrorists were preparing attacks on security forces in the border area. The report once again emphasized that the PMU is deployed along the Syrian-Iraqi border in order to prevent ‘infiltration’ of terrorists.

The ISIS threat is an important factor influencing the security situation in western Iraq. Despite this, some sources linked this with the recent escalation in the Syrian border area of al-Bukamal. During the past week, alleged ‘Iranian targets’ in al-Bukamal were repeatedly hit by supposed Israeli strikes.

Most likely, the PMU leadership expects that this situation may be used by ISIS to increase its activity in the region. The terrorist group may try to exploit the instability on the border to carry out attacks on both Iraqi and Syria targets in the region. So, the PMU is preparing to repel these attacks.

*

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

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”—C.S. Lewis

“Taxman,” the only song written by George Harrison to open one of the Beatles’ albums (it featured on the band’s 1966 Revolver album), is a snarling, biting, angry commentary on government greed and how little control “we the taxpayers” have over our lives and our money.

If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,

If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.

If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat,

If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.

Don’t ask me what I want it for

If you don’t want to pay some more

‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman.

When the Beatles finally started earning enough money from their music to place them in the top tax bracket, they found the British government only-too-eager to levy a supertax on them of more than 90%.

Here in America, things aren’t much better.

More than two centuries after our ancestors went to war over their abused property rights, we’re once again being subjected to taxation without any real representation, all the while the government continues to do whatever it likes—levy taxes, rack up debt, spend outrageously and irresponsibly—with little concern for the plight of its citizens.

Because the government’s voracious appetite for money, power and domination has grown out of control, its agents have devised other means of funding its excesses and adding to its largesse through taxes disguised as fines, taxes disguised as fees, and taxes disguised as tolls, speeding tickets and penalties.

With every new tax, fine, fee and law adopted by our so-called representatives, the yoke around the neck of the average American seems to tighten just a little bit more.

Everywhere you go, everything you do, and every which way you look, we’re getting swindled, cheated, conned, robbed, raided, pickpocketed, mugged, deceived, defrauded, double-crossed and fleeced by governmental and corporate shareholders of the American police state out to make a profit at taxpayer expense.

We have no real say in how the government runs, or how our taxpayer funds are used, and no real property rights, but that doesn’t prevent the government from fleecing us at every turn.

Think about it.

Everything you own can be seized by the government under one pretext or another (civil asset forfeiture, unpaid taxes, eminent domain, so-called public interest, etc.).

That house you live in, the car you drive, the small (or not so small) acreage of land that has been passed down through your family or that you scrimped and saved to acquire, whatever money you manage to keep in your bank account after the government and its cronies have taken their first and second and third cut…none of it is safe from the government’s greedy grasp.

And then you have all of those high-handed, outrageously manipulative government programs sold to the public as a means of forcing compliance and discouraging unhealthy behavior by way of taxes, fines, fees and programs for the “better” good.

Surveillance cameras, government agents listening in on your phone calls, reading your emails and text messages and monitoring your spending, mandatory health care, sugary soda bans, anti-bullying laws, zero tolerance policies, political correctness: these are all outward signs of a government—i.e., a societal elite—that believes it knows what is best for you and can do a better job of managing your life than you can.

This is tyranny disguised as “the better good.”

Indeed, this is the tyranny of the Nanny State: marketed as benevolence, enforced with armed police, and inflicted on all those who do not belong to the elite ruling class that gets to call the shots.

So-called “sin taxes” have become a particularly popular technique used by the Nanny State to supposedly discourage the populace from engaging in activities that don’t align with the government’s priorities (consuming sugary drinks, smoking, drinking, etc.).

Personally, I don’t think the government really cares how its citizens live or die: they just want more of the taxpayers’ money, and they figure they can rake it in by using sin taxes to appeal to that self-righteous segment of every society that sees nothing wrong with imposing their belief systems on the rest of the populace.

Examples abound.

For instance, a growing number of cities and states (Washington DC, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle, among others) have adopted or considered imposing taxes on sugary drinks, as much as a dollar more for a two-liter bottle of soda, supposedly in the hopes of forcing lower-income communities that struggle with obesity and diabetes to make healthier dietary choices by making the drinks more expensive.

The faulty logic behind these sin taxes seems to be that if you make it cost-prohibitive for poor people to pursue unhealthy lifestyle choices, they’ll stop doing it.

Except it doesn’t really work out that way.

Study after study shows that while sales of sugary drinks decreased sharply in cities with a soda tax, sales figures spiked at stores located outside the city. In other words, people just shopped elsewhere.

You won’t convince former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg of this, however. Bloomberg, a 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful, believes the government needs even greater tax powers in order to force Americans—especially poor people—to make smarter lifestyle choices. “When we raise taxes on the poor, it’s good because then the poor will live longer because they can’t afford as many things that kill them,” stated Bloomberg.

Folks, this right here is everything that is wrong with the power-hungry jackals that aspire to run the government today: by hook or by crook, they’re working hard to frogmarch the citizenry into complying with their dictates, because they believe that only they know what’s best for you.

It’s this same oppressive mindset that’s been pushing social credit systems (here and in China) that reward behavior deemed “acceptable” and punish behavior the government and its corporate allies find offensive, illegal or inappropriate.

It’s the same mindset that supports the government’s efforts to compile a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

It’s the same mindset that has government agents spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using AI eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.

It’s the mindset behind the red flag gun laws, growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others. “We need to stop dangerous people before they act”: that’s the rationale behind the NRA’s support of these red flag laws, and at first glance, it appears to be perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others.

And it’s the same mindset that allows squadrons of AI censors to shadowban individuals for expressing their unfiltered, politically incorrect opinions and beliefs on social media: all in an effort to keep them in line.

Rounding out this dystopian campaign to impose a chokehold on the populace is a technology sector that has been colluding with the government to create a Big Brother that is all-knowing, all-seeing and inescapable. It’s not just the drones, fusion centers, license plate readers, stingray devices and the NSA that you have to worry about. You’re also being tracked by the black boxes in your cars, your cell phone, smart devices in your home, grocery loyalty cards, social media accounts, credit cards, streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon, and e-book reader accounts.

Clearly, those helping to erect the prison walls that now enclose us purportedly for our own good are not people that understand the concept of freedom or individual rights.

Unfortunately, this is what happens when you empower the government and its various agencies, agents and corporate partners to act in loco parentis for an entire nation.

All of the incremental bricks that have been laid over the years as part of the police state’s prison wall—the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers—have helped to acclimate us slowly to a life in prison.

Funded with our taxpayer dollars and carried out in broad daylight without so much as a general outcry from the citizenry, these prison walls have been sold to us as a means of keeping us safe  behind bars and out of reach of danger.

Having allowed our fears to be codified and our actions criminalized, we now find ourselves in a strange new world where just about everything we do is criminalized.

Even so, how did we go from enacting laws to make our world safer to being saddled with a government that polices our social decisions? As with most of the problems plaguing us in the American police state, we are the source of our greatest problems.

As journalist Gracy Olmstead recognizes, the problem arose when we looked “first to the State to care for the situation, rather than exercising any sort of personal involvement… These actions reveal a more passive, isolated attitude. But here, again, we see the result of breakdown in modern American community—without a sense of communal closeness or responsibility, we act as bystanders rather than as stewards.”

Olmstead continues:

[Communitarian libertarian Robert] Nisbet predicted that, in a society without strong private associations, the State would take their place — assuming the role of the church, the schoolroom, and the family, asserting a “primacy of claim” upon our children. “It is hard to overlook the fact,” he wrote, “that the State and politics have become suffused by qualities formerly inherent only in the family or the church.” In this world, the term “nanny state” takes on a very literal meaning.

Unfortunately, even in the face of outright corruption and incompetency on the part of our elected officials, Americans in general remain relatively gullible, eager to be persuaded that the government can solve the problems that plague us, whether it be terrorism, an economic depression, an environmental disaster, how or what we eat or even keeping our children safe.

We have relinquished control over the most intimate aspects of our lives to government officials who, while they may occupy seats of authority, are neither wiser, smarter, more in tune with our needs, more knowledgeable about our problems, nor more aware of what is really in our best interests.

Yet having bought into the false notion that the government does indeed know what’s best for us and can ensure not only our safety but our happiness and will take care of us from cradle to grave—that is, from daycare centers to nursing homes—we have in actuality allowed ourselves to be bridled and turned into slaves at the bidding of a government that cares little for our freedoms or our happiness.

The lesson is this: once a free people allows the government inroads into their freedoms or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny.

Nor does it seem to matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican at the helm anymore, because the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government, whose priorities are to remain in control and in power.

Modern government in general—ranging from the militarized police in SWAT team gear crashing through our doors to the rash of innocent citizens being gunned down by police to the invasive spying on everything we do—is acting illogically, even psychopathically.

When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, and then jails us if we dare step out of line, punishes us unjustly without remorse, and refuses to own up to its failings, we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic.

Instead, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which “operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups.”

So where does that leave us?

Having allowed the government to expand and exceed our reach, we find ourselves on the losing end of a tug-of-war over control of our country and our lives. And for as long as we let them, government officials will continue to trample on our rights, always justifying their actions as being for the good of the people.

Yet the government can only go as far as “we the people” allow.

Therein lies the problem: we have suspended our moral consciences in favor of the police state.

The choice before us is clear, and it is a moral choice. It is the choice between tyranny and freedom, dictatorship and autonomy, peaceful slavery and dangerous freedom, and manufactured pipedreams of what America used to be versus the gritty reality of what she is today.

Most of all, perhaps, the choice before us is that of being a child or a parent, of obeying blindly, never questioning, and marching in lockstep with the police state or growing up, challenging injustice, standing up to tyranny, and owning up to our responsibilities as citizens, no matter how painful, risky or uncomfortable.

As author Erich Fromm warned in his book On Disobedience, “At this point in history, the capacity to doubt, to criticize and to disobey may be all that stands between a future for mankind and the end of civilization.”

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, if you have no choice, no voice, and no real options when it comes to the government’s claims on your life, your movements, your property and your money, you’re not free.

Personally, I’d rather die a free man having lived according to my own dictates (within the bounds of reasonable laws) than live as a slave chained up in a government prison.

*

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].

Western historians who condemn the USSR for the deaths under Stalin​’s dictatorship should shed a spotlight on ​the millions who died under British rule​, including those in engineered famines across the Indian subcontinent.

December 10, 2019, on this day 71 years ago the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was launched by the United Nations. The Declaration reflected the agreed-upon principles that were expected to usher in a new period in which this new global institution would be committed to recognizing the inherent dignity and equal and “inalienable rights of all members of the human family.”

Therefore, December 10^th is recognized and celebrated as International Human Rights Day in various parts of the world but, unfortunately, with little acknowledgement or celebration in the United States. Over 90% of the U.S. public has never heard of the UDHR and even fewer of the existence of Human Rights Day.

However, as internationalists, the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) takes the occasion of Human Rights Day seriously and attempts to educate the U.S. public on its existence. BAP is celebrating Human Rights Day this year by visiting the U.S. Congress to deliver a letter from a Black member of the Movement for Socialism in Bolivia (MAS) that is calling on members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to oppose the U.S. supported coup in Bolivia.

BAP is calling upon the CBC to reassume its traditional opposition to U.S. interventionism and warmongering. A delegation of BAP members will visit the offices of CBC representatives, including CBC Chairperson Karen Bass. The delegation will also visit the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) calling on both of the caucuses to become stronger opponents of the increasing lawlessness of U.S. state in the form of murderous sanctions, support for coups, illegal wars, military agreements and anti-democratic destabilization campaigns in nations across the planet. These actions represent a massive assault on the dignity and fundamental human rights of peoples and nations across the planet, resulting in unimaginable sufferings and the ultimate violation of human rights – the right to life, as millions of deaths have been recorded just over the last two decades.

BAP believes that the lack of awareness of Human Rights Day, and more importantly human rights principles, accounts for the lack of accountability for U.S representatives in relationship to the U.S. public and the ability of the U.S. officials to take the position of upholding human rights. Consequently, the U.S. public is unaware of the extent of the U.S. state’s failure to recognize, protect and fulfill the human rights of its own citizens and residents, while many in the world see the U.S. state as the number one human rights violator on the planet.

This is why human rights education is key for the Black Alliance for Peace and why the Alliance is committed to the radical Black human rights tradition that upholds a vision of human rights that is comprehensive and not centered on states as guarantors of human rights but on organized people as the only effective guarantors. This is an essential principle of the “people(s)-centered human rights framework (PCHRs).

In BAP’s view, the human rights idea must be liberated from the narrow and reactionary framework of U.S. policymakers. On this day, BAP is calling on all people of conscience to reject the liberal, legalistic and state-centered framework that reduces the human rights idea to an instrument of Western imperialist expression in the form of “humanitarian interventionism.”

On this day, BAP reiterates that human rights are never given but must be fought for. BAP stands in solidarity with the people of this planet who are in struggle to realize their collective human rights and self-determination and say without any equivocation that resistance to oppression is a human right from Baltimore to Bolivia.

*

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.

“Primarily, I am a prose writer with axes to grind, and the theatre is a good place to do the grinding in. I prefer comedy to ‘serious’ drama because I believe one can get the ax sharper on the comedic stone.” – Gore Vidal

“The theatre was created to tell people the truth about life and the social situation.” – Stella Adler

“When the play ends, what begins? Seeking conscientization: awareness leading to action” – Sarah Thornton

Introduction

The importance of theatre is demonstrated by the prevalence and variety of forms it takes both locally and globally in society today.  Indeed, over the centuries theatre has played an important sociological and ideological role. It has been used both by communities and elites to propagate and spread ideas for the consolidation of society (Morality plays), for social improvement (Neo-Classical plays) as well as instigating and promoting revolutionary ideas (Brechtian theatre).

In many places theatre is funded by states through state theatres – playing national repertoires as well as showing international plays translated and/or modernised.  However, it will be argued that as political and economic crises grow, so does the widening gap between two forms: community and state theatre. The global economic crisis has seen theatre once more developing into a useful community tool for highlighting important local issues (e.g. policing) and global issues (e.g. climate change) in many different ways (such as mass demonstrations and public squares). It will also be argued that, in general, the state deals with any upsurge in popular resistance by attempting to appropriate radical working class culture into preexisting structures to neutralise opposition. As with other art-forms, the influence of Enlightenment and Romantic ideas can still be felt today.

I will look at the development of general movements in theatre from the seventeenth century: beginning with neoclassical theatre as an Enlightenment reaction to Restoration bawdiness, the influence of Romanticism, the rise of Realism, political theatre of the 1930s leading to the Documentary theatre of recent decades, and the contrasting ideology of state and community theatres of contemporary society.

Village feast with theatre performance, artist from the circle of Pieter Bruegel the younger – central part of painting by unknown Flemish master

15-18th Centuries – Neo-Classicism v Medievalism

Medieval theatre was mainly religious and moral in its themes, staging and traditions, emerging around 1400 and developing until 1550. Theatre was an ideal way to solve the difficulties of spreading the faith to a largely illiterate population. Certain biblical events were dramatised for feast days and performed by priests. In England there were many mystery plays such as the York Mystery Plays, the Chester Mystery Plays and the Wakefield Mystery Plays.

Around the middle of the sixteenth century began English Renaissance theatre which was based on the rediscovery and imitation of classical works. Playhouses were established and became the sites for the production of plays by playwrights such as William Shakespeare (1564–1616), Christopher Marlowe (1564–1593) and Ben Jonson (1572–1637). Genres of the period included the history play, tragedy and comedy, including satirical comedies.

All a far cry from biblical stories and Christian morality: the classical influence bringing the subject matter down to earth.

Reconstruction of the theatre of Dionysus in Athens, in Roman times.

This period lasted until the ban on theatrical plays enacted by the English Parliament in 1642.

This ban, effected by the Puritans, lasted 18 years and ended in 1660 and the theatres were reopened. The strict moral codes of the Puritans were upended and comedies became the predominant mark of Restoration plays. These plays were a form of social commentary – recurring themes were cuckolding, shaming, seduction and the inversion of wealth, class and property. However these themes also represented the upper class who tended to make up the typical audience (unlike the Morality plays) especially as most ordinary people could not afford the price of admission.

Restoration comedies were seen by many as bawdy, and neoclassical theatre was a reaction to the decadence of these Charles II era productions. Neoclassical writers advocated a return to the values and conventions of classical Greek drama. They believed that previous styles put far too much emphasis on emotions and the individual and looked to the classical style for inspiration on how to get people to see society in a more positive, collective manner by encouraging virtuous behavior. The Neo-Classical attitude could be seen in the humanism of the plot lines which encouraged the audience to empathise with the characters rather than laugh at them. The rise of sentimental comedy reflected the Enlightenment idea that without emotion, imagination and sympathy people would not be able to have the moral feelings that lead to our general ideas of justice and virtue.

The Neo-Classicists developed a set of guidelines for the theatre, for example, they:

“included five basic rules: purity of form, five acts, verisimilitude or realism, decorum and purpose. Play houses generally rejected scripts or productions that did not meet these requirements. Playwrights and actors in the Neoclassical period officially recognized just two types of plays: comedy and tragedy. They never mixed these together, and the restriction led to use of the now well-known pair of happy and sad masks that symbolize the theatrical arts. […] Comedies, which were either satires or comedies of manners, tended to focus on the lower ranks of society, while tragedies portrayed the complex and fateful lives of the upper classes and royals.”

19th Century – Romantic reaction and the rise of Realism

The growth of Romanticism in Germany and France eventually affected writing for the theatre as romantic nationalism and a growing interest in a return to medievalist faith in feeling and instinct as a guide to moral behavior. These two opposing philosophies of Neo-Classicism (Enlightenment ideas rooted in science and reason) and Romanticism (based on feeling and faith) eventually clashed in France where the Comédie Française maintained a strong Neo-classical hold over the repertory.

The tensions between the two opposing outlooks eventually resulted in conflict. On the night of the premiere of the drama Hernani by Victor Hugo (1802–1885) in 1830, riots erupted. They became known as the “battle of Hernani“, whereby:

“The large crowd that attended the premiere was full of conservatives and censors who booed the show for disobeying the classical norms and who wanted to stop the performance from going forward. But Hugo organized a Romantic Army of bohemian and radical writers to ensure that the opening would have to go ahead. The resulting riot represented the rejection in France of the classical traditions and the triumph of Romanticism.”

Hugo’s Romantic army of writers and artists attacked Classicist positions and called for “Down with theories and systems! Let us tear away the old lath-and-plaster hiding the face of art! There are neither rules nor models; or, rather, no rules but the general laws of Nature!”

Premiere of the drama Hernani by Victor Hugo in 1830

This triumph of Romanticism meant move away from structure and realism and the rise of a more personalised, individualistic philosophy looking inwards to the self, not to mention an irrational rejection of progress and a return to medieval ideas of faith and hierarchy.

By the 1870s political events and social reforms led to the popularity of the Realist movement and a rejection of Romantic idealism. The Realist movement began in the mid-19th century as a reaction to the irrationalism of Romanticism. However, it was also a reaction to neoclassicism which had become elitist and aristocratic in its assumption of knowledge of Greek and Roman history and myth. The Realists returned to basic ideas of equality, influenced by the French revolution and the Utopian Socialists. Realist ideas had a profound affect on both the theatre and its audiences:

“The achievement of realism in the theatre was to direct attention to the social and psychological problems of ordinary life. In its dramas, people emerge as victims of forces larger than themselves, as individuals confronted with a rapidly accelerating world.”

Henrik Ibsen (1828–1906), the Norwegian playwright, is known as the “Father of Realism” and he wanted a theatre that was closer in style to real life on the stage. Ibsen attacked middle class society’s values and his plays were based on unconventional subjects, e.g., euthanasia, the role of women, war and business, and syphilis. In A Doll’s House, Ibsen questions the roles of men (main provider of the family, public image) and women (limited education) in marriage and society, as well as showing poverty and failed relationships. Realism offered a new type of drama, one in which the public and society could relate to. Ibsen developed the form of the Well-Made play:

“1. Soliloquies and asides were discarded
2. Exposition in the plays was motivated
3. Causally related scenes
4. Inner psychological motivation was emphasized
5. Recognition of environmental influences
6. Acknowledgement of socio-economic milieu”

He encouraged a style of dialogue which would be more realistic and easier to understand. However, what Realism did have in common with Neo-Classicism was the desire to make theatre more useful in the progressive development of society:

“The mainstream theatre from 1859 to 1900 was still bound up in melodramas, spectacle plays (disasters, etc.), comic operas, and vaudevilles.[…] Technological advances were also encouraged by industry and trade, leading to an increased belief that science could solve human problems. But the working classes still had to fight for every increase in rights: unionization and strikes became the principal weapons workers would use after the 1860s—but success came only from costly work stoppages and violence. In other words there seems to be rejection of Romantic idealism; pragmatism reigned instead. The common man seemed to feel that he needed to be recognized, and people asserted themselves through action.”

Other writers in the Realistic form include George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) in England and Anton Chekhov (1860-1904) in Russia. Shaw made fun of society’s norms for the purpose of educating and changing society. He used witty humor to present contemporary views and the showed their consequences putting forward his own ideas. Chekhov’s plays concentrated on psychological reality showing people trapped in social situations and having hope in hopeless situations.

20th Century and Modernism

The influence of Realism continued into the twentieth century where it morphed into different forms such as Naturalism and Socialist realism. Meanwhile the Romantic influence on Modernism could be seen in the characteristic emphasis on an internal life of dreams and fantasies in Symbolist theatre and in the subjective perceptions of reality in Expressionist theatre in Germany.

Realism, on the other hand, flourished in Russia where Konstantin Stanislavski (1863–1938) and Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko (1858–1943) founded the Moscow Art Theatre in 1897. Both were committed to the idea of a popular theatre. Stanislavski developed “psychological realism” which differed from his own Naturalistic early stagings:

“Naturalism, for him, implied the indiscriminate reproduction of the surface of life. Realism, on the other hand, while taking its material from the real world and from direct observation, selected only those elements which revealed the relationships and tendencies under the surface. The rest was discarded.”

Stanislavski and Olga Knipper as Rakitin and Natalya in Ivan Turgenev’s A Month in the Country (1909).

The revolt against theatrical artifice with Realism and later Naturalism produced a new type of theatre which made Stanislavski famous and his theatre very successful. Later in the 1930s Stanislavski’s method would become an important element in the Socialist Realist ideology introduced by the USSR Union of Writers in the mid 1930s. The aim of Stanislavski’s method was ultimately to absorb the audience completely in the fictional world of the play.

The contemporary playwright, Bertolt Brecht (1898–1956) in Germany, reacted to this method which he believed was ‘escapist’ as he felt that any radical content would be blunted, that catharsis would leave the audience complacent. However, Stanislavski believed the audience would observe and learn from the action on stage (using the dialectics of thesis/antithesis/synthesis) in an updated politicised Neo-Classicism. If action proceeded from awareness then the audience would not be complacent but would achieve catharsis through political action instead.

Brecht, in the Modernist fashion, developed what he called Epic theatre which sought to historicize and address social and political issues. He used innovative techniques, one of which he called the Verfremdungseffekt (translated as ‘defamiliarization effect’, ‘distancing effect’, or ‘estrangement effect’). To do this, “Brecht employed techniques such as the actor’s direct address to the audience, harsh and bright stage lighting, the use of songs to interrupt the action, explanatory placards, the transposition of text to the third person or past tense in rehearsals, and speaking the stage directions out loud.”

The contrast between the Stanislaviski’s and Brecht’s methods show very differing attitudes to the audience capacity for understanding and assimilating the content of a play. Charlie Chaplin (1889–1977) used this effect by speaking directly to the audience at the end of his film The Great Dictator, which some believe led to a decrease in his popularity. The audience may feel that the actors are speaking down to them, or insisting on radical action without first knowing and understanding all aspects of the issue being presented. It has to be questioned whether it is necessary to ‘knock people out of their complacency’ and to give an audience credit for their ability to understand the message solely from the action on stage. The Modernist experimentation with forms also led to elite forms of culture such as James Joyce’s (1882–1941) Finnegans Wake as the ultimate indigestible example.

Photograph of Mother Courage and the dead Kattrin (Internationalist Theatre)

As the century wore on other types of political theatre emerged such as the differing forms of Documentary theatre of the 1960s and 1970s. This style of theatre “uses pre-existing documentary material (such as newspapers, government reports, interviews, journals, and correspondences) as source material for stories about real events and people, frequently without altering the text in performance. The genre typically includes or is referred to as verbatim theatre, investigative theatre, theatre of fact, theatre of witness, autobiographical theatre, and ethnodrama.”

While the presentation of pre-existing material may seem dry and undramatic, it was the partisan interpretation and presentation of the material which gives it its artistic power. In other words, its Realist, rather than Naturalist, interpretation made all the difference to what may appear to be a Naturalist form (i.e. using material verbatim).

Another type of alternative theatre which emerged in the late twentieth century (though in some countries it has been around a lot longer) is Community theatre. It refers to a style of theatre which exists in the community itself and can be created entirely by the community, as a collaboration between the community and professionals or put on by professionals especially for that community. Ideologically it can have a vary wide outreach and can be seen:

“to contribute to the social capital of a community, insofar as it develops the skills, community spirit, and artistic sensibilities of those who participate, whether as producers or audience-members. It is used as a tool for social development, promoting ideas like gender equality, human rights, environment and democracy. Most of the community theatre practices have been developed based on the philosophy of education theorist Paulo Freire’s approach of critical pedagogy in theatre and implementation techniques built by Augusto Boal, known as Theatre of the Oppressed.”

Paulo Freire’s (1921–1997) method was to promote social change by getting the audience to participate in critical thinking through dialogue, identifying concerns, solutions and examining different perspectives. The plays would be performed “on streets, public places, in traditional meeting spaces, schools, prisons, or other institutions, inviting an alternative and often spontaneous audience to watch.”

Freire’s approach attempted to stimulate social change by encouraging the audience to build capacities for critical thinking through participation in active dialogue. The participants would identify issues of concerns and discuss possible solutions, with an enhanced tolerance for different perspectives with regard to the same problem. Such plays are then rarely performed in traditional playhouses but rather staged “on streets, public places, in traditional meeting spaces, schools, prisons, or other institutions, inviting an alternative and often spontaneous audience to watch.”

Augusto Boal’s (1931–2009) approach also breaks down the ‘invisible wall’ between actors and audience but the difference being that the audience determines the action on stage not the playwright. For example, Boal writes:

“The spectators feel that they can intervene in the action. The action ceases to be presented in a deterministic manner, as something inevitable, as Fate. Man is Man’s fate. Thus Man-the-spectator is the creater of Man-the-character. Everything is subject to criticism, to rectification. All can be changed, and at a moment’s notice: the actors must always be ready to accept, without protest, any proposed action; they must simply act it out, to give a live view of its consequences and drawbacks.” [1]

Augusto Boal presenting his workshop on the Theatre of the Oppressed. Riverside Church, May 13, 2008.

21st Century – State Theatre v Community Theatre

In the twenty-first century State Theatre and Community Theatre exist side by side but as the global economic crisis deepens the traditional repertoire of the State theatre may seem to become out-dated and distant from social issues.

Community theatre is a form which, like the ballad form in music, is capable of tackling and analysing contemporary issues in a very short period of time. However, the tendency of the state is to try to absorb all opposition into its own conservative narrative and ‘de-fang’ it. This tendency is discussed by the poet Fran Lock in detail:

“This matters, because the people traditionally holding the purse strings, controlling the presses; the people responsible for funding us and publishing us, are the same power elites who decide what constitutes a valid working-class voice, and an acceptable working-class identity. Arts Council England, for example, has nothing to gain from supporting people and projects who challenge or threaten their traditional business model, and most major publishers are wary of a working-class poetics that openly and explicitly acknowledges the politics of its own oppression. To have your work “out there” in any meaningful sense, to secure the invaluable financial assistance by which a creative project lives or dies, is to accept that your work, and that you, as a person, will be mediated, filtered and enmeshed, by and in the machinery of a grossly unequal hierarchy. By this method we are compromised. We tailor and shape our voices and ourselves to fit their image of us, and our working-classness is depoliticised and de-fanged through an act of caricature. By this mechanism is the triumph of working-class representation transformed into the tool by which working-class participation in the arts is edited, eroded and policed.”

A street play (nukkad natak) in Dharavi slums in Mumbai.

Another important aspect which she alludes to is the problem of monolithism (‘shape[ing] our voices and ourselves to fit their image of us’) which is the way dissent can be silenced by portraying minority groups as being made up of similar people all sharing similar views. As Kenan Malik writes:

“Multiculturalists tend to treat minority communities as if each was a distinct, singular, homogenous, authentic whole, each composed of people all speaking with a single voice, each defined primarily by a singular view of culture and faith. In so doing, they all too often ignore conflicts within those communities. All the dissent and diversity gets washed out. As a result, the most progressive voices often gets silenced as not being truly of that community or truly authentic, while the most conservative voices get celebrated as community leaders, the authentic voices of minority groups.”

These are the kinds of difficulties community theatre faces, in particular, problems which are more accentuated where access is provided by a State theatre. However, in the streets, manipulation or outright censorship/rejection is much more difficult. And like the original Morality plays, the community theatre may have an ideological aspect which is equally difficult to moderate.

The Romantic/Modernist influence can still be seen in ‘mainstream’ [non-community theatre] in the emphasis on (formal) experimentation over (sociopolitical) content in projections of the future of theatre, for example:

“We can see the seeds of theatre’s future coming from three directions. Firstly, in the experimental works in the new theatre groups and companies, which may we call; off the existing established theatres. Secondly, in the rise of theatrical movements originated from the experimental works were done in the last century. Thirdly, in the works of few established theatres – and here we stress the word ’few’ – these works mainly done by some daring directors.”

However, not all writers are blind to the growing sociopolitical and economic crises developing globally, as one writer notes:

“The future predictions of trends in theatres. Well, it is true that technology has really affected theatres in terms of audience attendance and also changes in the overall appearance of the live performances in order to attract more audiences but will there be changes in the 21st-century trends in the cinema industry? Well, experts project the following changes in future: Need for community and people interactions will lead more people to the theatres. The increase in smaller theatres located in all parts of the country to attract more people to the theatres. Younger directors and actors will ensure more performances in the smaller theatres and the main focus will be on issues, news, and concerns of the immediate community.”

Thus, it can be seen there are mixed opinions on the future of ‘official’ theatre based in large and small theatres. It could be speculated that the ‘small theatre’ end and community-based theatre would be set for conflict as the professional and the amateur clash over what is to be portrayed and how, particularly if the issues raised and their resolution are perceived from widely differing ideological perspectives.

Conclusion

Throughout the last four centuries theatre has been pushed and pulled in many directions. It has been used by cliques for their own class entertainment. It has been forced many times in the direction of benefiting the greater good and dragged back again to serve elite agendas. However, the importance of theatre for examining social, political and more recently animal and climate issues, in an immediate and negotiable way, will ensure that theatre as a mirror of society will be a difficult form for the state to control.

*

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.

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. 

Note

[1] Theatre of the Oppressed, Augusto Boal (Pluto Press: London, 1998), p.134.

Today the Trump administration, with Democrats & AFLCIO leaders in tow, announced new final revisions and deal with Mexico on the new NAFTA 2.0 free trade agreement called the USMCA.

According to the corporate media, revisions to the USMCA demanded by Democrats since the initial agreement was reached with Mexico a year ago, have been agreed to by Trump, Pelosi, and the president of Mexico, Lopez-Obrador. The revisions reportedly mean more protections for US labor in particular. However, all we have at the moment is what’s reported in the corporate and mainstream media about the revisions. We’ll have to wait to read the final print of the actual agreement. But even the media reports are not much more than vague generalities about the terms and conditions of the revisions. The much heralded improvements to US labor interests in particular don’t appear that different from Trump’s originally negotiated deal a year ago.

The official media story line is that the new revisions provide protections for American workers now that did not exist previously during the 20+ years of NAFTA 1.0. During that period, easily 4-5 million US jobs were diverted to Mexico.

At issue during negotiations on revisions to NAFTA–now called the USMCA–was whether US inspectors would be allowed access to Mexico factories and businesses to ensure that the new labor terms of the revised USMCA trade deal were being enforced. Lopez Obrador and Mexican business have been adamantly opposed to allowing US inspectors access to Mexican factories, which suggests they had something to hide. (Mexico and AMLO both are in agreement on this issue). THey demanded that, instead of inspectors, there would be a joint US-Mexican panel to arbitrate labor disputes. But the issue is independent inspection, not a panel to rule on disputes that may never rise due to absence of inspection. What good is a panel of any kind ruling on a dispute that doesn’t get raised because there’s no independent inspection in the first place? Also important is whether the inspectors inspect unannounced, or whether they have to give a pre-notice before they inspect (that phony arrangement is how the US OSHA law has functioned with little effect for decades). Moreover, if there’s panel, how is it determined and what is its composition? If it’s equal US-Mexico representation, it might never come to a final decision.

In other words, if the final terms and conditions in print for the USMCA provide only for panels, in lieu of unannounced inspectors, then the so-called great labor protections touted by Democrats as part of a final deal are really just another fig leaf of labor protection.

While the mainstream media and Democrats talk up the labor revisions in today’s final deal, the real substance of the recent revisions–sought by Trump and US corporations and bankers–has had more to do with protecting the interests of US big pharma companies and US oil and bankers.

Big pharma has always wanted NAFTA-USMCA to include what it wanted in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal it didn’t get in 2017: i.e. protections on pricing of its drugs in Mexico at levels closer to its price gouging levels in the US. The fine print in the USMCA will tell whether it got this, or at least got a big change from Mexico’s current rules that keep the price of drugs lower in Mexico than in the US.

Another reported big concession by Mexico in the recent revisions apparently addresses the protection of US oil and energy, telecom and banker interests. Since assuming the Mexico presidency, Lopez-Obrador (AMLO) has been moving toward re-nationalizing Mexico’s PEMEX oil company that had come increasingly under financial control in recent decades by US investors and banks. AMLO wants to restore it to its former Mexican government ownership, or at least to control by Mexican banks and capital. Legislation has been drawn up by the AMLO adminstration to enable re-nationalization. US bankers and oil interests in response have wanted changes in the NAFTA-USMCA (NAFTA 2.0) to protect them from re-nationalization. They apparently have gotten it. Reportedly language in the USMCA now exempts oil, gas, power, transport, cement, banks and telecom from any potential future Mexican re-nationalization.

Free trade treaties are always more about money capital flows (from the US into the host country) than about goods flows across borders, even though the goods flows is what’s mostly reported in the media and press. NAFTA has been no different. Free trade–whether the original NAFTA 1.0 or the current 2.0 revisions called the USMCA–is about financing the relocation of US business and manufacturing from the US to the host country.Then about allowing US companies thereafter doing business in the host country to ship their lower cost goods back into the US market without having to pay tariffs. US corporations make greater profits, not only from cheaper production costs and absence of tariffs, but from continuing to charge higher prices in the US when they ship them back, tariff free, as well. But this is all greater profits from production and goods flows.

Free trade provides even greater profits for US investors and bankers who ‘grease the wheels’, so to speak, of the money capital flows in the first place. The money flows are what make profits from production of goods flows all possible int he first place. Banks charge the interest on the loans, and big fees on mergers and acquisitions by US business in the host country, now allowed by the free trade treaty. Banks also buy up the banks in the host country and make more money from lending to host country businesses. Offshore production and lending also allow US multinational corporations to engage in what’s called ‘intra-company’ price manipulation which permit them to reduce taxes on lower reported profits in the US. The offshored, foreign subsidiary operations ‘book’ all the profits–kept offshore and reduced in the US by means of intra-company price manipulation. Profits are still further boosted as now, under Trump, US multinational corporations get to avoid virtually all taxes on their offshore operations, as a result of Trump’s 2018 multi-trillion dollar tax cuts for multinationals.

Yet Trump, the Democrats, and the US corporate media would have us think the USMCA revisions are all about protecting US workers’ interests by introducing dispute panels. The five million US workers who have lost their jobs under NAFTA gained nothing, and paid everything in lost jobs, under NAFTA 1.0. And that’s not changing one iota under NAFTA 2.0, e.g. USMCA by introducing panels–or even if actual independent inspections were allowed. Under Trump no jobs have come back to the US due to any of his trade wars; and none will after USMCA revisions are signed off either.

Free trade is about enriching bankers and investors who ‘grease the wheels’ of US corporate foreign direct investment into the host country, now permitted by the free trade deal. Free trade is about raising profits and stock prices of US multinational corporations once they set up operations or buy up companies in the host country. Free trade is about politicians in both wings of the Corporate Party of America (aka Democrats and Republicans) fooling workers that they are somehow protecting their interests.

So why the closing of the USMCA deal and revisions now? After a year of stalemate in Congress? Likely because Democrat leaders are desperate to show their impeachment proceedings against Trump are not preventing them from passing legislation otherwise. But does anyone think that Trump, his Trumpublicans in Congress, i.e. Mitch McConnell and other Republican political sycophants, would likewise sign a deal if they were in the Democrats place? No, they’d play hardball and continue to refuse to agree to anything right up to the 2020 election.

Trump has recently softened his USMCA position as well in an attempt to close a USMCA deal with Congress and Mexico. Why now? Because Trump’s trade war with China has stumbled and stalled. It appears, per the Wall St. Journal today, that Trump will postpone his scheduled December 15 additional tariffs on China as a concession to get China to buy more of US farm goods. Trump needs to show something from his 18 months of trade wars. The US trade deficit has barely shifted at all during the period, still running near $50b a month. He desperately needs the USMCA deal–any deal–given that the China-US ‘mini’ trade deal is going nowhere and may not even get signed next year. (And it won’t if Trump does not agree in 2020 to further cut US tariffs if he wants more China farm purchases).

Trump’s recent re-imposition of tariffs on Brazil-Argentina steel should also be viewed as part of the mix of trade events in recent weeks. as the China mini-deal stalled, he had to look tough somewhere. Re-imposing steel tariffs was also a not so veiled threat to Brazil-Argentina (which hardly import any steel to the US at all) that they should think twice about increasing sales of wheat and soybeans to China. Trump’s tariffs on their steel is a shot across their trade bow. Both Trump’s concessions on USMCA and his re-imposing of steel tariffs on Brazil-Argentina are indications of his failing trade policy and his weakening bargaining position on such policy as the US 2020 election grows nearer.

Both he and the Democrats want to ‘look good’ for 2020 election purposes: Trump wants to show (and later exaggerate) what he achieved in the revisions to USMCA. Pelosi-Shumer want to argue (and will also exaggerate) the phony labor protections they achieved in the revised USMCA.

But US workers will get, as they have been getting, nothing out of the USMCA or any Trump trade deal so far, more lost jobs and higher prices on imported goods– to be exact $42 billion more in higher prices, according to the NY Fed, and $1000 per month in reduced household income due to the higher import prices, according to estimates by Chase Bank research.

*

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, Jack Rasmus.

Jack Rasmus is author of the just released book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, January 2020, which is now available for purchase at 20% discount from his blog, jackrasmus.com, and website, http://kyklosproductions.com. (Chapter 8 addresses the origins and evolution of US trade negotiations under Trump in further detail).

Featured image: President-elect Donald J. Trump and U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi smile for a photo during the 58th Presidential Inauguration in Washington, D.C., Jan. 20, 2017. More than 5,000 military members from across all branches of the armed forces of the United States, including reserve and National Guard components, provided ceremonial support and Defense Support of Civil Authorities during the inaugural period. (DoD photo by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Marianique Santos)

Interim Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu committed again on Sunday that his government will steal the entire Jordan Valley from the Palestinians. He had floated this plan two months ago but now seems to be determined to move ahead. It makes up 25% of the Palestinian West Bank. Israel is forbidden to annex militarily occupied territory by the 1949 Geneva Convention and by the charter of the United Nations, which were enacted to forestall a repeat of Nazi atrocities. Netanyahu would also annex the 5% of Palestinian territory on which Israeli squatter settlements have been built on land stolen from its Palestinian owners.

Netanyahu is in a world of trouble. He has been indicted on criminal offenses. The only thing that might keep him out of jail is to stay in office and tinker with the law for his own benefit. But he can’t remain prime minister because he lost the last election and hasn’t been able to form a government.

You don’t need to be a really suspicious person to see this announcement as a form of wagging the dog by Netanyahu in hopes of making himself so popular in Israel that he can manage to find a way to fix the system and stay out of jail. Of course, he has made this pledge before, and he nevertheless couldn’t win the election and form a government.

It is rumored that Trump will announce his support for Netanyahu’s massive piece of grand larceny. Trump made waves of his own Sunday, addressing a Jewish audience and telling them that they are “not nice people” but that they will vote for him because they care about money above all else and will reject Elizabeth Warren’s plan to raise taxes. He also insisted that Jewish Americans must give Israel their blind support. He managed to hit all the highlights of anti-Semitism, from caricatures of Jews as money-grubbers with no thought for the public weal to inaccurate charges of dual loyalty.

Israel may well go to the polls again for a third time in a year this spring. The electorate is divided between the far-far-right Likud Party of Netanyahu and the center-right Blue and White coalition of Benny Gantz. So it keeps returning a hung parliament. Gantz refuses to form a government of national unity with Netanyahu. Actually, either of the two blocs could form a government if they allied with the largely Palestinian-Israeli Joint List, but the racist rules of Israeli politics do not permit allowing persons of Palestinian heritage into the cabinet.

If Netanyahu loses again, it is possible that his party will dump him or that his enemies will form a government without him, leaving him in the dragnet of the police.

I explained earlier two of the cases against him:

• In one case, Netanyahu allegedly accepted a couple hundred thousand dollars in bribes from an Australian businessmen in return for favorable treatment of his business and attempting to get him a US visa.

In the other case, Netanyahu is alleged to have offered a deal to Arnon Mozes, the publisher of Israel’s biggest-circulation newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth. Netanyahu supporter and shady casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson had begun a free pro-Netanyahu newspaper, Yisrael Ha-Yom, and it obviously was eating into the profits of the other newspapers in the country. (How this is not illegal as “dumping” baffles me.) Netanyahu allegedly told Mozes that he could persuade Adelson to reduce the publication run of Yisrael Ha-Yom, which would help his bottom line. In return, Mozes should report more favorably on Netanyahu.

This second case really is about destroying freedom of the press and entirely undermining what little is left of Israeli democracy.

Israel never had a claim on the Palestinian West Bank or the Gaza Strip. In 1967 Israel invaded these areas and occupied them even though the Palestinians took no role in the 1967 War. Nearly 3 million Palestinians now live in the West Bank under Israeli military control. Another 2 million live in the Gaza Strip, which is occupied via blockade. Violating international law, Israel long since annexed some of this Palestinian territory and added it to the Israeli district of Jerusalem, settling some 350,000 Israelis on this stolen Palestinian land. Israel has also sent 400,000 squatters to take property away from Palestinian families in what is left of the West Bank.

Now Netanyahu is brazenly planning to steal a quarter of all the land in the Palestinian West Bank, forever ending any chance of a Palestinian state.

The US Congress, which tacitly supports Israeli colonization efforts, has clung to a fig leaf of an imaginary peace process and a two-state solution for decades during which far right wing Israeli governments have energetically worked to forestall any such thing.

*

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 Informed Comment

President Bashar al-Assad said that Syria is going to come out of the war stronger and the future of Syria is promising and the situation is much better, pointing out to the achievements of the Syrian Arab army in the war against terrorism.

The President, in an interview given to Italian Rai News 24 TV on November 26, 2019 and was expected to be broadcast on December 2nd and the Italian TV refrained from broadcasting it for non-understandable reasons, added that Europe was the main player in creating chaos in Syria and the problem of refugees in it was because of its direct support to terrorism along with the US, Turkey and many other countries.

President al-Assad stressed that since the beginning of the narrative regarding the chemical weapons, Syria has affirmed it didn’t use them.

The President affirmed that what the OPCW organization did was to fake and falsify the report about using chemical weapons, just because the Americans wanted them to do so.  So, fortunately, this report proved that everything we said during the last few years, since 2013, is correct.

Video: English (with Arabic subtitles)

Following is the full text of the interview:

Question 1: Mr. President, thanks for having us here.  Let us know please, what’s the situation in Syria now, what’s the situation on the ground, what is happening in the country?

President Assad:  If we want to talk about Syrian society: the situation is much, much better, as we learned so many lessons from this war and I think the future of Syria is promising; we are going to come out of this war stronger.

Talking about the situation on the ground: The Syrian Army has been advancing for the last few years and has liberated many areas from the terrorists, there still remains Idleb where you have al-Nusra that’s being supported by the Turks, and you have the northern part of Syria where the Turks have invaded our territory last month.

So, regarding the political situation, you can say it’s becoming much more complicated, because you have many more players that are involved in the Syrian conflict in order to make it drag on and to turn it into a war of attrition.

Question 2:  When you speak about liberating, we know that there is a military vision on that, but the point is: how is the situation now for the people that decided to be back in society?  The process of reconciliation, now at what point?  Is it working or not?

President Assad: Actually, the methodology that we adopted when we wanted to create let’s say, a good atmosphere – we called it reconciliation, for the people to live together, and for those people who lived outside the control of government areas to go back to the order of law and institutions.  It was to give amnesty to anyone, who gives up his armament and obey the law.  The situation is not complicated regarding this issue, if you have the chance to visit any area, you’ll see that life is getting back to normal.

The problem wasn’t people fighting with each other; it wasn’t like the Western narrative may have tried to show – as Syrians fighting with each other, or as they call it a “civil war,” which is misleading.  The situation was terrorists taking control of areas, and implementing their rules.  When you don’t have those terrorists, people will go back to their normal life and live with each other.  There was no sectarian war, there was no ethnical war, there was no political war; it was terrorists supported by outside powers, they have money and armaments, and they occupy those areas.

Question 3: Aren’t you afraid that this kind of ideology that took place and, you know, was the basis of everyday life for people for so many years, in some ways can stay in the society and sooner or later will be back?

President Assad: This is one of the main challenges that we’ve been facing.  What you’re asking about is very correct.  You have two problems.  Those areas that were out of the control of government were ruled by two things: chaos, because there is no law, so people – especially the younger generation – know nothing about the state and law and institutions.

The second thing, which is deeply rooted in the minds, is the ideology, the dark ideology, the Wahabi ideology – ISIS or al-Nusra or Ahrar al-Cham, or whatever kind of these Islamist terrorist extremist ideologies.

Now we have started dealing with this reality, because when you liberate an area you have to solve this problem otherwise what’s the meaning of liberating?  The first part of the solution is religious, because this ideology is a religious ideology, and the Syrian religious clerics, or let’s say the religious institution in Syria, is making a very strong effort in this regard, and they have succeeded; they succeeded at helping those people understanding the real religion, not the religion that they’ve been taught by al-Nusra or ISIS or other factions.

Question 4: So basically, clerics and mosques are part of this reconciliation process?

President Assad:  This is the most important part.  The second part is the schools.  In schools, you have teachers, you have education, and you have the national curriculum, and this curriculum is very important to change the minds of those young generations.  Third, you have the culture, you have the role of arts, intellectuals, and so on.  In some areas, it’s still difficult to play that role, so it was much easier for us to start with the religion, second with the schools.

Question 5: Mr. President, let me just go back to politics for an instant. You mentioned Turkey, okay? Russia has been your best ally these years, it’s not a secret, but now Russia is compromising with Turkey on some areas that are part of Syrian area, so how do you assess this?

President Assad: To understand the Russian role, we have to understand the Russian principles.  For Russia, they believe that international law – and international order based on that law – is in the interest of Russia and in the interest of everybody in the world.  So, for them, by supporting Syria they are supporting international law; this is one point.  Secondly, being against the terrorists is in the interest of the Russian people and the rest of the world.

So, being with Turkey and making this compromise doesn’t mean they support the Turkish invasion; rather they wanted to play a role in order to convince the Turks that you have to leave Syria.  They are not supporting the Turks, they don’t say “this is a good reality, we accept it and Syria must accept it.”  No, they don’t.  But because of the American negative role and the Western negative role regarding Turkey and the Kurds, the Russians stepped in, in order to balance that role, to make the situation… I wouldn’t say better, but less bad if you want to be more precise.  So, in the meantime, that’s their role.  In the future, their position is very clear: Syrian integrity and Syrian sovereignty.  Syrian integrity and sovereignty are in contradiction with the Turkish invasion, that is very obvious and clear.

Question 6: So, you’re telling me that the Russians could compromise, but Syria is not going to compromise with Turkey. I mean, the relation is still quite tense.

President Assad:  No, even the Russians didn’t make a compromise regarding the sovereignty.  No, they deal with reality.  Now, you have a bad reality, you have to be involved to make some… I wouldn’t say compromise because it’s not a final solution.  It could be a compromise regarding the short-term situation, but in the long-term or the mid-term, Turkey should leave. There is no question about it.

Question 7: And in the long-term, any plan of discussions between you and Mr. Erdogan?

President Assad:  I wouldn’t feel proud if I have to someday.  I would feel disgusted to deal with those kinds of opportunistic Islamists, not Muslims, Islamists – it’s another term, it’s a political term.  But again, I always say: my job is not to be happy with what I’m doing or not happy or whatever.  It’s not about my feelings, it’s about the interests of Syria, so wherever our interests go, I will go.

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

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

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

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

 Question 10: In this moment, in the region, there are turmoil, and there is a certain chaos.  One of the other allies of Syria is Iran, and the situation there is getting complicated.  Does it have any reflection on the situation in Syria?

President Assad:  Definitely, whenever you have chaos, it’s going to be bad for everyone, it’s going to have side-effects and repercussions, especially when there is external interference.  If it’s spontaneous, if you talk about demonstrations and people asking for reform or for a better situation economically or any other rights, that’s positive.  But when it’s for vandalism and destroying and killing and interfering from outside powers, then no – it’s definitely nothing but negative, nothing but bad, and a danger on everyone in this region.

 Question 11: Are you worried about what’s happening in Lebanon, which is really the real neighbor?

President Assad:  Yes, in the same way.  Of course, Lebanon would affect Syria more than any other country because it is our direct neighbor.  But again, if it’s spontaneous and it’s about reform and getting rid of the sectarian political system, that would be good for Lebanon.  Again, that depends on the awareness of the Lebanese people in order not to allow anyone from the outside to try to manipulate the spontaneous movement or demonstrations in Lebanon.

Question 12:  Let’s go back to what is happening in Syria.  In June, Pope Francis wrote you a letter asking you to pay attention and to respect the population, especially in Idleb where the situation is still very tense, because there is fighting there, and when it comes even to the way prisoners are treated in jails.  Did you answer him, and what did you answer?

President Assad: The letter of the Pope was about his worry for civilians in Syria and I had the impression that maybe the picture in the Vatican is not complete.  That’s to be expected, since the mainstream narrative in the West is about this “bad government” killing the “good people;” as you see and hear in the same media – every bullet of the Syrian Army and every bomb only kills civilians and only hospitals! they don’t kill terrorists as they target those civilians! which is not correct.

So, I responded with a letter explaining to the Pope the reality in Syria – as we are the most, or the first to be concerned about civilian lives, because you cannot liberate an area while the people are against you.  You cannot talk about liberation while the civilians are against you or the society.  The most crucial part in liberating any area militarily is to have the support of the public in that area or in the region in general.  That has been clear for the last nine years and that’s against our interests.

Question 13: But that kind of call, in some ways, made you also think again about the importance of protecting civilians and people of your country.

President Assad:  No, this is something we think about every day, not only as morals, principles and values but as interests.  As I just mentioned, without this support – without public support, you cannot achieve anything… you cannot advance politically, militarily, economically and in every aspect.  We couldn’t withstand this war for nine years without the public support and you cannot have public support while you’re killing civilians.  This is an equation, this is a self-evident equation, nobody can refute it.  So, that’s why I said, regardless of this letter, this is our concern.

But again, the Vatican is a state, and we think that the role of any state – if they worry about those civilians, is to go to the main reason.  The main reason is the Western role in supporting the terrorists, and it is the sanctions on the Syrian people that have made the situation much worse – and this is another reason for the refugees that you have in Europe now.  You don’t want refugees but at the same time you create the situation or the atmosphere that will tell them “go outside Syria, somewhere else,” and of course they will go to Europe.  So, this state, or any state, should deal with the reasons and we hope the Vatican can play that role within Europe and around the world; to convince many states that you should stop meddling in the Syrian issue, stop breaching international law.  That’s enough, we only need people to follow international law.  The civilians will be safe, the order will be back, everything will be fine.  Nothing else.

 Question 14: Mr. President, you’ve been accused several times of using chemical weapons, and this has been the instrument of many decisions and a key point, the red line, for many decisions. One year ago, more than one year ago, there has been the Douma event that has been considered another red line.  After that, there has been bombings, and it could it have been even worse, but something stopped.  These days, through WikiLeaks, it’s coming out that something wrong in the report could have taken place.  So, nobody yet is be able to say what has happened, but something wrong in reporting what has happened could have taken place.

President Assad:  We have always – since the beginning of this narrative regarding the chemical weapons – we have said that we didn’t use it; we cannot use it, it’s impossible to be used in our situation for many reasons, let’s say – logistical reasons.

Intervention: Give me one.

President Assad: One reason, a very simple one: when you’re advancing, why would you use chemical weapons?!  We are advancing, why do we need to use it?!  We are in a very good situation so why use it, especially in 2018?  This is one reason.

Second, very concrete evidence that refutes this narrative: when you use chemical weapons – this is a weapon of mass destruction, you talk about thousands of dead or at least hundreds.  That never happened, never – you only have these videos of staged chemical weapons attacks.  In the recent report that you’ve mentioned, there’s a mismatch between what we saw in the video and what they saw as technicians or as experts.  The amount of chlorine that they’ve been talking about: first of all, chlorine is not a mass destruction material, second, the amount that they found is the same amount that you can have in your house, it exists in many households and used maybe for cleaning and whatever.  The same amount exactly.  That’s what the OPCW organisation did – they faked and falsified the report, just because the Americans wanted them to do so.  So, fortunately, this report proved that everything we said during the last few years, since 2013, is correct.  We were right, they were wrong. This is proof, this is concrete proof regarding this issue.  So, again, the OPCW is biased, is being politicized and is being immoral, and those organisations that should work in parallel with the United Nations to create more stability around the world – they’ve been used as American arms and Western arms to create more chaos.

Question 15: Mr. President, after nine years of war, you are speaking about the mistakes of the others.  I would like you to speak about your own mistakes, if any.  Is there something you would have done in a different way, and which is the lesson learned that can help your country?

President Assad:  Definitely, for when you talk about doing anything, you always find mistakes; this is human nature. But when you talk about political practice, you have two things: you have strategies or big decisions, and you have tactics – or in this context, the implementation. So, our strategic decisions or main decisions were to stand against terrorism, to make reconciliation and to stand against the external meddling in our affairs.  Today, after nine years, we still adopt the same policy; we are more adherent to this policy.  If we thought it was wrong, we would have changed it; actually no, we don’t think there is anything wrong in this policy.  We did our mission; we implemented the constitution by protecting the people.

Now, if you talk about mistakes in implementation, of course you have so many mistakes.  I think if you want to talk about the mistakes regarding this war, we shouldn’t talk about the decisions taken during the war because the war – or part of it, is a result of something before.

Two things we faced during this war: the first one was extremism.  The extremism started in this region in the late 60s and accelerated in the 80s, especially the Wahabi ideology.  If you want to talk about mistakes in dealing with this issue: then yes, I will say we were very tolerant of something very dangerous.  This is a big mistake we committed over decades; I’m talking about different governments, including myself before this war.

The second one, when you have people who are ready to revolt against the order, to destroy public properties, to commit vandalism and so on, they work against their country, they are ready to go and work for foreign powers – foreign intelligence, they ask for external military interference against their country.  So, this is another question: how did we have those?  If you ask me how, I would tell you that before the war we had more than 50,000 outlaws that weren’t captured by the police for example; for those outlaws, their natural enemy is the government because they don’t want to go to prison.

Question 16: And how about also the economic situation? Because part of it – I don’t know if it was a big or small part of it – but part of it has also been the discontent and the problems of population in certain areas in which economy was not working.  Is it a lesson learned somewhere?

President Assad:  It could be a factor, but definitely not a main factor.  Some people talk about the four years of drought that pushed the people to leave their land in the rural areas to go to the city… it could be a problem, but this is not the main problem.  They talked about the liberal policy… we didn’t have a liberal policy, we’re still socialist, we still have a public sector – a very big public sector in government.  You cannot talk about liberal policy while you have a big public sector.  We had growth, good growth.

Of course, in the implementation of our policy, again, you have mistakes.  How can you create equal opportunities between people?  Between rural areas and between the cities?  When you open up the economy, the cities will benefit more, that will create more immigration from rural areas to the cities… these are factors, that could play some role, but this is not the issue.  In the rural areas where you have more poverty, the money of the Qataris played a more actual role than in the cities, that’s natural.  You pay them in half an hour what they get in one week; that’s very good for them.

Question 17: We are almost there, but there are two more questions that I want to ask you.  One is about reconstruction, and reconstruction is going to be very costly.  How can you imagine to afford this reconstruction, who could be your allies in reconstruction?

President Assad:  We don’t have a big problem with that.  Talking that Syria has no money… no, actually Syrians have a lot of money; the Syrian people around the world have a lot of money, and they want to come and build their country.  Because when you talk about building the country, it is not giving money to the people, it’s about getting benefit – it’s a business.  So, many people, not only Syrians, want to do business in Syria.  So, talking about where you can have funds for this reconstruction, we already have, but the problem is that these sanctions prevent those businessmen or companies from coming and working in Syria.  In spite of that, we started and in spite of that, some foreign companies have started finding ways to evade these sanctions and we have started planning.  It’s going to be slow, without the sanctions we wouldn’t have a problem with funding.

Question 18:  Ending on a very personal note, Mr. President; do you feel like a survivor?

President Assad:  If you want to talk about a national war like this, where nearly every city has been harmed by terrorism or external bombardment and other things, then you can talk about all the Syrians as survivors.  I think this is human nature: to be a survivor.

Intervention:  And you yourself?

President Assad:  I’m a part of those Syrians.  I cannot be disconnected from them; I have the same feeling.  Again, it’s not about being a strong person who is a survivor.  If you don’t have this atmosphere, this society, or this incubator to survive, you cannot survive.  It’s collective; it’s not a single person, it’s not a one-man show.

Journalist:  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

President Assad:  Thank you.

*

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 SANA

One of the many groups taking part in the massive general strike in France this week, and joining forces with the year-long Yellow Jackets movement, are the country’s public school teachers. The “coup de grâce” for teachers was the Macron administration’s proposed teacher pension reform, in which retirement payments would be calculated based upon salaries earned throughout a teacher’s career rather than their last paychecks.

In other words, a teacher’s earnings as a new graduate and during the years they gained experience and possibly pursued advanced training or specializations would carry equal weight in calculating the amount they would receive upon retiring from service in public education years and decades later.

One teacher’s union put it this way. A retiree with a 40 year career in teaching might have finally attained a salary of 3,200 euros a month. Right now, they would retire with 2,281 euros a month, but after the reforms, that would decrease to 1,803 euros.

All in all, it’s a disingenuous way for a neo-liberal government to claw back the final thanks offered to yet another group of civil servants in the name of budgets and saving costs. But it is also another example of neoliberalism’s war on public education.

“While teacher salaries [in France] are below the average of OCDE countries, this regressive retirement plan is yet another example of the lack of recognition for those who on a daily basis devote themselves to the success of all their students throughout the country,” decries Yannick Trigance, regional council member for the Socialist Party’s National Higher Education Secretariat. According to the council’s calculations, a retired teacher could lose between 300 and 900 euros a month after years of teaching.

Trigance goes on to describe the deleterious effects of the new policy upon public education in general. Citing figures demonstrating decreased applications for teaching positions of as much as 20% in certain fields, Trigance asks, “Who would embark upon a career in which working conditions, salary and retirement are flagrantly disregarded by both political leaders and society at large?”

The effects are already evident in the country’s less well off neighbourhoods. In Paris’ poor northeastern suburbs where the population is primarily composed of immigrants and children of immigrants, 10% of teachers are contractors who may not be qualified. And often classes are simply not held. According to Trigance, pupils in that region have lost 20% of their class hours due to a lack of substitute teachers.

In an email and 15 posted letters, she wrote, “The succession of inspectors who come to [the school] don’t realize just how exhausted everyone is.” She expressed how educators feel alone in their situations due to lack of support when they are pitted between government policy and student needs.

The authorities claim the letter and emails are evidence for the police and warned teachers not to reveal their contents. However one teacher did speak about the letter anonymously, explaining that he thought “she wanted it to be known, and for her act to mean something.”

“She put words to what we are experiencing. In her letter, she describes our daily routine. The tasks that mount up that we never get relief from. The reforms that accumulate, going this way and then that way… we’re always on the front line for everybody. In front of the board, the city, colleagues that we have to help and support with changing teams that often need training… They’re sending us more and more contractors who have absolutely no training or even a diploma, who can’t handle the children and we have to help them.

“I understand what she did. The teaching profession is very consuming, it takes an enormous toll on our lives. When you are under an avalanche of things to do, it’s hard to step back and be able to say, ‘Ok, it’s not my fault, I can’t do everything that they’re asking of me.’ It’s difficult and a lot of colleagues crack.

“The department of education is rarely there to support us. My colleague talked about that in her letter. This feeling of powerlessness that we all feel. In my school, for example, many children don’t have a place to sleep, their families are on the street. That’s also the reality we’re faced with, without any support.”

Recently, educators were asked to become moral arbiters who should refuse to allow mothers wearing hijab from assisting on school field trips. In 2017, the Ministry of Education announced the formation of “secular units” in schools to ensure their freedom from religion, and in September, the minister declared his intention to increase their scope. Already forbidden from wearing veils or religious symbols themselves for the last 15 years, teachers and principals desperate for help from the community find themselves the subject of ire from all sides, confronted by anti-Islamic conservatives, secular liberals, and humiliated parents, as they negotiate yet another assault on their ability to complete their mission as educators.

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.

Danica Jorden is a writer and translator of French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and other languages.

Featured image: Protesters clash with French riot police during a demonstration against pension reforms in Paris, France, 05 December 2019. (Photo: Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock.com)