Global Research

The failure of the American-led occupation of Iraq has surely not been forgotten in Washington. Against by all accounts a much depleted enemy in Baghdad, America’s military and civilian branches were unable to maintain authority in an Iraqi state already devastated by years of Western sanctions prior to the March 2003 invasion.

As the Pentagon finally completed its withdrawal from Iraq in December 2011, they had failed to attain their objectives and, most worryingly, Iraq was developing closer relations with Iran; which had more than a touch of irony to it, and was a disastrous scenario for those in the US capital.

When examining the Middle East nations of Iran or Iraq, it may be important to note that these neighbours are both laden with natural minerals, while they are furthermore located in strategically crucial territories: Among the most important in the world in fact.

Resource-plenty Central Asia lies to the north of Iran and Iraq, with its sprawling, largely uninhabited grasslands and mountains. Situated to the east are Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, further important states, two of which are nuclear-armed. To the south is Saudi Arabia, the biggest oil producer on the planet, and a US ally for the past 75 years.

Iran and Iraq contain the fourth and fifth largest proven oil reserves in the world respectively. Control of these two countries would place a power like the United States in a particularly strong global position. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US National Security Advisor, noted after the Iraq invasion that command over the Middle East would allow the White House to have “politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from the region”.

Iran itself lies astride the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. The Persian Gulf constitutes the earth’s biggest source of petroleum – while the Gulf is also home to the world’s largest offshore oilfield, Safaniya, which was discovered in 1951 and is controlled by Saudi Arabia.

The Persian Gulf nations, which further include Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE, contain almost 66% of the planet’s entire crude oil reserves, and over a third of our globe’s natural gas sources; ensuring that these areas have been sought after by imperial planners for generations. There are almost 40,000 American soldiers stationed in the above four Persian Gulf states, along with an array of high-tech US machinery and weaponry. In recent months, America has also increased its military presence in Persian Gulf waters, sending a message to Tehran.

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow and shallow body of water straddling southern Iran, is likewise of extreme importance. Almost 25% of the world’s oil supplies are shipped through this channel. The Strait has been the scene of escalating tensions between Iran and the Western powers of Britain and America. Tehran has threatened to close the Strait to foreign shipping in the unwanted event of military confrontation with America.

The Strait of Hormuz is controlled by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, which by itself provides Tehran with a measure of clout in international affairs. US personnel are permanently stationed within 300 to 400 miles of the Strait of Hormuz: For example in the shape of the famous United States Fifth Fleet, which is based in nearby Bahrain to the west and has an extensive history dating to 1944, as Japanese war veterans may remember.

Vice Admiral Jim Malloy, current commander of the US Fifth Fleet, said in May 2019 that he is “not restricted in any way” towards sending his carrier strike group, USS Abraham Lincoln, through the Strait of Hormuz if required. “I’m not challenged in any way, to operate her anywhere in the Middle East”, Malloy said during a telephone interview.

Iran is a country much criticised in the West, by political and media figures. Yet the fact is, rarely mentioned, that Iran has not been forgiven for removing itself from US control when in early 1979 the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was overthrown by a popular uprising.

The Shah himself, a brutal autocrat, was given dictatorial powers in August 1953 by a US-British designed coup d’etat, which ousted Iran’s democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mossadegh. Prime minister Mossadegh had nationalised Iran’s oil reserves in March 1951, setting off alarm bells in London and Washington.

The Shah’s family history was already that of a chequered one. His father Reza Shah Pahlavi, who died in 1944, enjoyed warm relations with Hitler, and the Nazi leader even dispatched a signed portrait to him in March 1936, separately describing the Iranians as “pure Aryans”. Summarising the links between the Shah’s father and the Nazis, in early August 1941 Hitler had said, “If there is anyone who is praying for the success of our arms, it must be the Shah of Persia. As soon as we drop in on him, he’ll have nothing more to fear from England”.

Meanwhile, in the post-1979 years, Tehran has continuously pursued policies independent of Washington. Iran is therefore classed as a threat to “stability” and “regional security”.

Iran is clearly something of a challenge to US hegemony in the Middle East. Iranian leaders have indeed developed a closer partnership with Iraq, as one could expect from bordering countries that are religiously (Shi’ite) and culturally linked. The Iranians have involved themselves in the wars in Yemen and Syria, acting against the interests of Western powers.

Across the Persian Gulf, growing Iranian influence could even result in a full-blown revolt in the east of Saudi Arabia (the Eastern Province) – where lies most of Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves, and in which there has been a history of social unrest. The Eastern Province is home to millions of Saudis of Shi’ite faith, who have been repressed by the despotic nature of the Saudi regime, whose branch of Islam is that of the Sunni faith.

Iranian society remains a somewhat suppressed one, but is appreciably less so than it was under the Shah’s reign. Human rights violations by comparison to Iran are significantly worse in Saudi Arabia.

One of the core reasons behind the invasion of Iraq was not as professed in disarming “weapons of mass destruction”; but rather its aim was to institute an American-friendly government that would allow Washington leverage over Iraq’s great oil wells.

In early April 2003, less than three weeks after the US intervention against Iraq began, America’s National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said in a press conference,

“But I would just caution that Iraq is not East Timor, or Kosovo, or Afghanistan. Iraq is unique”.

Iraq is a major prize, but the US occupation fell to pieces as the country descended into virtual civil war, with sectarian bitterness greatly increasing due to the actions of foreign troops. Following 2003, the Shi’ite majority came to the fore in Iraq, which perfectly suited Shi’ite-dominated Iran to the east. The war in Iraq cost the US government up to $2 trillion dollars, much of it in vain.

Once Saddam Hussein fled Baghdad in the opening days of April 2003, the George W. Bush administration had little inkling of the difficulties that lay ahead. A mere few weeks after the invasion began president Bush said that, “In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed”. Yet it was only the beginning.

Due to emerging popular unrest among the Iraqi population against the occupying powers, Western multinational corporations were unable to invest in Iraq – despite the Bush administration promising in November 2007 that their government was “encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments”. In the face of increasing Iraqi resistance, a couple of months later the Pentagon had to abandon even this central hope.

Considering the difficulties that America experienced in Iraq, a potential war with Iran would be much more arduous. In terms of landmass, Iran is almost four times times larger than Iraq, and it also has a far bigger population now containing over 80 million people.

Iran is also one of the world’s most mountainous countries, with a varying climate ranging from freezing cold in the winter to baking hot in the summer. These factors bring with it a unique set of challenges for any leading power attempting to tackle Iran. The Iranian military is also larger, has superior morale and is better equipped than that which faced America in Iraq.

Iran furthermore has friends in lofty places, such as with regard to China and Russia. Iran’s largest trading partner is the rising China. Approximately 100 major Chinese companies are embedded in Iran’s economy, especially pertaining to the latter’s natural resources and transportation districts.

Amid the decline of Western business in Iran due to growing US financial measures, Chinese corporations have been exploiting Iran’s oil and gas fields. China is defying American sanctions against Iran by continuing to import oil from the Middle East state, and last month China promised to invest almost $300 billion in Tehran’s oil, gas and petrochemical divisions. Iran is also a member of the ambitious Chinese-led programs, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

Tehran has developed lasting ties with Russia too, forming a military understanding with the Kremlin in Syria during recent years, by providing crucial support to president Bashar al-Assad – and working alongside Moscow in restricting US influence in Central Asia and inevitably the Middle East. Russia has for years been an important trading partner of Iran, and investments between the countries is rising again, having grown by almost 25% for the first seven months of 2019, reaching well over a billion dollars.

*

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

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

President Putin gave an extensive interview to Arab media before departing for Saudi Arabia and the UAE, but it’s useful to highlight some of the most relevant parts in case interested observers don’t have the time to watch it in full or skim through the transcript since the Russian leader powerfully refutes the Alt-Media narrative that his country is supposedly “allied” with the Resistance against the GCC and “Israel”.

***

One of the things to admire about our 93-year-old Queen is that she manages to use the same non-committal tone and language regardless of the drivel she is required to read out by her duplicitous government. By any stretch of the imagination, it was little more than a piece of pre-election propaganda by Boris Johnson and, as they say, a legislative agenda the government has no intention to pursue, no majority to pass, and no capacity whatsoever to deliver. The Queen would have known all this in advance but has no choice but to keep up appearances – and she would not have been amused.

Trashed in lightning speed this year, the only thing that most people were concerned about in the Queen’s speech was if there was any news on Brexit. As we already know – Johnson’s Brexit plan, to Leave on October 31st, leaves the UK economy £50bn worse off and every household in the country about £2,000 worse off to pay for it. It’s not as if the experts haven’t hit their calculators hard enough in the last few weeks and told them so. They even said that the best scenario possible was a hit to the economy of £16 billion.

Academics at King’s College London said the current plan that is the subject of intense negotiations between UK and EU officials would be worse for the UK economy than Theresa May’s deal – and that was deemed to be the worst deal of all deals ever – so it was rejected three times over – including by Johnson and his acolytes.

This speech also confirms the end of the union. For Scotland, this is more ammunition to call for independence. War has been declared – Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster:

“Boris Johnson’s toxic Tory agenda would be devastating for Scotland – ripping us out of the EU, single market and customs union against our will, destroying jobs, and inflicting lasting harm on living standards, public services and the economy.

The Tory leader’s time is up. The SNP will do everything we can over the coming days to bring this failed Tory government to an end – and prevent it imposing its tired, damaging policies, including by opposing this hijacked Queen’s Speech if it ever comes to a vote.”

With reference to Brexit, DUP Brexit spokesman Sammy Wilson, when asked about Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg saying is willing to “eat his own words” and back a customs plan he once branded “completely cretinous”, responded:

“Whatever appetite he has for his own words or whatever, we will not be eating our own words. Our position is clear, the government knows what our position is and we will not be dining from a different menu.”

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s former ambassador to the UN, warned that the UK’s position on the world stage had been damaged by Brexit.  “We’ve fallen back in international esteem and we’ve lost an awful lot of ground.”

But here we are all the same.

It true Trumpian populist style – Boris Johnson promised in late July to make the United Kingdom ‘the greatest place on earth’ by leaving the European Union on Oct 31st. We’ll see if we leave but there are no chances of becoming remotely like a great nation again with words and nothing concrete to back it up. For a start, the money is on the United Kingdom breaking up – because the hedge-funds will be aiming their profits at that next. If Scotland’s bid for independence is successful – and it will be, Britain loses a very large chunk of its territory, waters and with the latest oil find – wealth. 

In the surreal world of Brexit Britain, we have to consider the machinations of the driving force behind the Conservative party strategy – keeping their funders happy. If not, there’s no chance at all that they would win the expected snap general election. The reality is that a crazed techno-freak in the guise of Dominic Cummings is playing to the tune of the hedge-funds.

In August, Cummings even bragged to Tories about raising money from “billionaire hedge fund managers” for this election campaign. His ego really does get the better of everything.

It was widely reported that pro-Brexit politicians and investors, including Crispin Odey, Jacob Rees-Mogg, and Nigel Farage, allegedly profited in various ways from Brexit, including short-selling. And this continues to this day. It’s easy, isn’t it? Make a negative announcement and Sterling falls – make a positive announcement and the opposite occurs.

It is plausibly speculated that these and other investors stand to make huge profits from these currency fluctuations, and the big prize, is of course, from a no-deal Brexit.

Donors for Boris Johnson included individuals from companies like Melbury Capital, Montanaro Investment Managers, Perella Weinberg, RK Capital, SRM Global, and Christofferson, Robb & Co – and more. Does anyone really think that they are happy to throw money at a political party that will not transform their investment into handsome returns?

The funding of a ruling government by what can only be described as disaster capitalists raises some pretty serious questions.

Just for starters, would Eurosceptic Tory MPs have been empowered to trigger the Brexit referendum in the first place without help from their banker and hedge fund donors?

And where is this leading? There’s a trajectory that surely even the most ardent of Leave voters must be able to see by now. There is no good news on the horizon, it just gets worse and worse by the day and Britain could easily now stumble from crises to crises that make the poor more vulnerable, the middle class less able to manage and the rich hedge fund owners even richer.

*

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

Featured image is from TP

When the idea of the level playing field emerged from the Brexit talks many environmentalists breathed a sigh of relief.

As Barnier presented this agreement to us in the European Parliament, I remember realising that even if we were to go ahead with Brexit, the inclination of the Brexit regulation burners to trash social and environmental standards would be restrained.

Theresa May agreed to this condition as part of the withdrawal negotiated agreement, but very worryingly Boris Johnson has eliminated it from the proposals he presented to Brussels last week.

Species

It’s a typical piece of Brussels jargon but in simple terms the level playing field means that our future relationship with the EU will be based on the understanding that our environmental standards can only build on those of the EU and not undercut them.

It skilfully eliminates the possibility of Singapore on Thames.

In terms of the environment this really matters. It’s been frequently repeated that 80 percent of our environmental law comes from the EU.

Although the Withdrawal Act translated this into British law, without the level playing field there is nothing to stop GM enthusiast Owen Paterson persuading his friend Theresa Villiers to allow genetically modified crops into Britain.

Or any of the Tories pro-development paymasters removing protections of species under the Habitats Directive and then letting development rip up protected sites.

Damage

There is much talk amongst pro-environment Tories like Zac Goldsmith about the provisions of the Environment Bill that appeared to disappear when prorogation happened. Now it has a new lease of life as a centrepiece of the Queen’s speech.

However, vague long-term plans to deliver environmental improvements, ‘enabling’ local authorities and ‘promoting’ resource efficiency amount to little when compared with the European law it intends to replace.

The proposed Bill seeks to establish new long term domestic environmental governance ‘based on environmental principles’.

But notably absent when it comes to principles is the precautionary principle. This is the basis on which genetically modified organisms are kept out of the European market, for example, as we simply don’t know what harm they might cause and so it is safer to wait until we do.

This principle is problematic in terms of a future trade deal with the US, where the environmental protection works on the principle of waiting for damage to occur and then taking retrospective legal action à la Erin Brockovich.

Inspiration

Given that the corporations who cause environmental destruction are rich and powerful and citizens are not, I know which legal regime I would rather be living under.

Finally, we come to the very important issue of monitoring and enforcement. The budgets of both the Environment Agency and Defra have been slashed under the Conservative government, so who would be able to protect citizens if legal protections on the environment are not upheld?

As European citizens we have access to the European Court of Justice, and in the repeated legal action on air pollution, ClientEarth has shown how effective such cases can be.

The proposed replacement in a British regime would be an Office for Environmental Protection, effectively a part of government even if at arm’s-length. There is no proposal for a separate court or any system of independent arbitration other than judicial review.

Given that the inspiration for Brexit amongst many corporate interests was precisely ripping up the ‘red tape’ that has protected our countryside, waterways, and natural habitats for decades, to have no route to independent legal redress would be a source of considerable concern.

Standards

Indeed, Johnson seemed to confirm exactly this point in his statement about the Queen’s Speech heralding leaving the EU as “a defining opportunity… to tear away bureaucratic red tape”.

As the Brexit rollercoaster rolls on, moving from hope and despair about a deal on an hourly basis, we should not be distracted from the real reasons why any Brexit is worse for the environment than continuing as a member of the EU.

The loss of the level playing field will be a serious blow to those of us who depend on European law to protect our natural places and the other species we share them with.

As an MEP I will be voting on any withdrawal agreement, and rest assured, I and a vast majority of my fellow MEPs will not vote for a deal that does not include the level playing field on environmental standards.

*

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.

Molly Scott Cato is a Green MEP for the South West of England. 

Australian politicians, and the consular staff of the country, are rarely that engaged on the subject of protecting their citizens.  In a couple of notorious cases, Australian authorities demonstrated, not only an indifference, but a consciously venal approach to its citizens in overseas theatres.  

Mamdouh Ahmed Habib (image below), a dual Australian-Egyptian national, was detained in Pakistan in October 2001 and subsequently sent to Guantánamo Bay via Bagram in Afghanistan and Egypt.  His subsequent detention till 2005 in a chapter of that sinisterly framed Global War on Terror was without charge and heavy with speculation.  In April 2002, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation formed the view that Habib had not been involved in the planning of future terrorist attacks, a point deemed insufficient in securing his early release.  On his release, he initiated federal court proceedings against the Australian government over their complicity in the matter.  The case was settled in 2010.

The squalid affair is worth nothing for the essential connivance of Australian officials in the ongoing detention of Habib.  Even intelligence assessments within the intelligence fraternity pointing to his innocence were dismissed.  In a joint media statement from the Attorney-General and the Minister for Foreign Affairs on January 11, 2005, the standard line was reiterated:

“it remained the strong view of the United States that, based on information available to it, Mr Habib had prior knowledge of the terrorist attacks on or before 11 September 2001.” 

What the US suspected, went.

In a wordy and not particularly illuminating report on the case by the Australian Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, it was “found that communication to the Habib family in respect of Mr Habib’s welfare was not adequate and recommends that an apology be made.”  Stress was made that Australian intelligence officials were not directly involved in his rendering to Guantánamo Bay, though it was noted that “ASIO should have made active enquiries about how Mr Habib would be treated in Egypt before providing information which may have been used in his questioning in Egypt.”

An even more notable case of crude, dismissive abandonment can be found in the plight of David Hicks (image below), another Australian who found himself facing an array of charges brought forth by the “war” on terror.  His role in US legal history in fighting that dubious category of “unlawful combatant” and military commissions is assured, but what stood out in the case was an abject refusal on the part of Prime Minister John Howard and his foreign minister Alexander Downer to engage in anything resembling assistance.

In May 2003, with rumours thick that some detainees from Guantánamo Bay were being released, Downer was quick to scratch Hicks from the list.

“After all, remember David Hicks was somebody who was allegedly involved with both al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the Taliban being the political articulation of the view of al-Qaeda.” 

When pressed by ABC Radio on Australian contributory negligence, Downer merely swatted the allegation, insisting on cryptic and inchoate legal categories. 

“He’s being held though, let me just make this clear, he’s being held as an unlawful combatant, as somebody who was detained initially by the Northern Alliance and subsequently by the United States”. 

Amnesty secretary general Irene Khan, in an open letter to Australian prime minister John Howard, made the case that Hicks had been abandoned.  Even after the finding by the US Supreme Court that specifically established military commissions were unconstitutional, the Australian government remained approving of that most curious of aberrations. 

“They have not taken any effort to ensure that he gets a fair trial.”

In every sense, the Australian response to Julian Assange’s detention, both during his time in the Ecuadorean embassy and in Belmarsh, betrays an unhealthy tendency to regard the controversial citizen as a menace best distanced.  Let another country deal with him, and if that country be the United States, all the better.

In recent days, a sense of momentum is gathering suggesting that Australia’s political classes might be tiring of this view.  Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce has been shooting off his mouth for reasons more constructive than usual. 

“Whether you like a person or not, they should be afforded the proper rights and protections and the process of justice, as determined by an Australian parliament, not another nation’s parliament.”

Grounds for extradition to the United States from the UK, argued Joyce, had not been made out.

“If a person is residing in Australia and commits a crime in another country, I don’t believe that is a position for extradition.” 

Independent Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie is also mucking in, hoping to cobble together a coalition of supporters in the Australian parliament to support Assange’s return to Australia. 

“The only party I’m having to work extra hard on getting members of the group is Labor.” 

The more traditional front, however, is being maintained by the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg.

“He [Assange] ultimately will face the justice for what he’s been alleged to have done, but that is a legal process that will run its course.” 

Rather weakly, Frydenberg made a lukewarm concession: that “we will continue, as a government, to provide him with the appropriate consular services.”

If there was a time to fight legal eccentricity and viciousness, it is now.  Just as Hicks and Habib faced complicity and a range of stretched and flexible legal categories, Assange faces that most elastic of instruments designed to stifle publishing and whistleblowing: the US Espionage Act of 1917.  Should he be extradited from the United Kingdom and face the imperial goon squad in Washington, we will be spectators to that most depraved of state acts: the criminalisation of publishing.  Australia’s parliamentarians, never the sharpest tools in the political box, are starting to stir with that realisation.

*

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]

The defense of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) is steadily collapsing under pressure from the Turkish Armed Forces and Turkish-backed militant groups, branded as the National Syrian Army.

Since the start of Operation Peace Spring, Turkey-led forces have captured 42 settlements from the SDF. Most of them were abandoned by Kurdish fighters after a series of artillery and air strikes by the Turkish military. The most intense clashes took place in the towns of Ras al-Ayn and Tell Abyad, and on the chunk of the M4 highway between Aywah and Sahi Ruwaydat.

Turkish forces started a storm of Ras al-Ayn in the evening of October 11. On October 12, the Turkish Defense Ministry announced that its forces got a full control of the town. On the same day, a powerful SDF counterattack forces Turkish-backed militants to withdraw to the southern part of Ras al-Ayn. On October 13, an intense fighting there continued, with the town remaining contested. By October 14, Turkey-led forces had established control of most of it.

Watch the video here.

Another area of heavy clashes was Tell Abyad. The Turkish military and the NSA advanced on the town of October 12 and captured its center on October 13. The success in the area was predetermined by previous advances of Turkey-led forces that besieged the town from the eastern and western directions.

On October 12 and 13, forward units of the NSA were working to cut off the M4 highway stretching along the Syrian-Turkish border. According to photos and videos released online, when Turkish-backed militants first reached the highway they captured and executed a number of civilians, including Hevrin Khalaf, the head of the SDF-linked political party – the Future Syria Party. The SDF tried to push Turkish-backed forces back, but failed to do so.

The shape of the current Turkish military efforts demonstrate that at the first phase of the advance Ankara seeks to capture the border area between Ras al-Ayn and Tell Abyad, and reach the M4. After this, they will likely push towards Kobani and Manbij.

The Turkish Armed Forces already deployed Leopard 2A4 battle tanks on the eastern bank of the Euphrates and floating bridge equipment near the Sajur river, north of Manbij.

According to Ankara, about 500 members of Kurdish armed groups have been neutralized since the start of the operation. At the same time, Turkish sources admit that 6 Turkish soldiers and up to 2 dozens NSA members were killed. Pro-SDF media outlets report about tens destroyed Turkish armored vehicles and dozens of surrendered NSA members. Proofs are barely provided by both sides.

785 ISIS-linked persons fled the SDF-run Ain Issa camp after SDF members had withdrawn from the area. The SDF accused Turkey for the incident and claimed that the prisoners fled thanks to help from ‘Turkish mercenaries’. Meanwhile, Ankara already declared that it’s ready to take responsibility for detention centers with ISIS members and their relatives in northeastern Syria after it takes control of them.

Washington is not going to assist the SDF in repelling the Turkish offensive despite SDF loud statements about their role in the war on ISIS and the US strategy in the region. Defense Secretary Mark Esper told CBS News on October 13 that the US is “preparing to evacuate” about 1,000 troops from northern Syria “as safely and quickly as possible”. The withdrawal of US troops is another sign that the Turkish operation against the SDF was in fact coordinated with and approved by the Trump administration.

The last chance of the SDF to keep control of their remaining areas along the Syrian-Turkish border is to get help from the Syrian Army and Russia. If this is not done anytime soon, the real SDF resistance to the Turkish advance will likely remain only in the few Kurdish-populated areas of northeastern Syria.

On October 13 evening, the SDF announced that it had reached an agreement with the Assad government, and the Syrian Army will enter a large part of its areas, including Manbij and Kobani, and help the Kurdish-led group to limit the further offensive of Turkish forces. The implementation of this agreement may become a turning point in relations between Damascus and the SDF.

*

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

In the annals of bombastic Trump tweets, this one is simply astonishing: here we have a President of the United States, on the record, unmasking the whole $8-trillion intervention in the Middle East as an endless war based on a “false premise.” No wonder the Pentagon is not amused.

Trump’s tweet bisects the surreal geopolitical spectacle of Turkey attacking a 120-kilometer-long stretch of Syrian territory east of the Euphrates to essentially expel Syrian Kurds. Even after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan cleared with Trump the terms of the Orwellian-named “Operation Peace Spring,” Ankara may now face the risk of US economic sanctions.

As Venezuelan Chairman of the Non Aligned Movement, comprising 120 nations and observer states, Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza denounced devious and Machiavellian ploys attempted by the US to force regime change on his country, with efforts to isolate the country, together with vicious unilateral coercive sanctions.

Having failed to force regime change on Venezuela, using the most drastic methods, the latest US connivance attempts to manipulate the United Nations Credentials Committee to evict the legitimate Maduro government of Venezuela from the United Nations, and usurp its place with their puppet, Juan Guaido and his gang.  This newest “ingenious” ploy failed, however, as the majority of UN member states support the Maduro government, despite the bombardment by an obsequious major Western media disinformation campaign.

This connivance actually threatens the sovereignty of all member states of the United Nations, as it is a covert internal method of discrediting any legitimate government which displeases the US, and forcing regime change on any or every independent state.

Arreaza stated:

“In this order, as we have been alerting our sisters and brothers of the Non-Aligned Movement throughout this year, 2019, a minority group of countries, led by the United States of America, intend to instrumentalize our United Nations Organization as a weapon of intervention in matters that are essentially within the internal jurisdiction of our nations, through the promotion of a coup d’etat against the constitutional authorities of Venezuela by challenging their legitimate credentials.”

“This maneuver, which flagrantly violates the UN Charter, the norms of international law and even sentences of the International Court of Justice, is intended to be rehearsed in the afternoon of tomorrow, when it is planned that our Vice President take the floor in the General Debate of the General Assembly.  We are sure that with your valuable support, and from the decisions taken unanimously last July in Caracas, we will overcome together this new attack that seeks to set a negative precedent that would allow third parties to arrogate the right to designate, illegally, the authorities and diplomatic representatives of another independent country, and thus ignore the sovereign will of their peoples.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also highlights this insidious usurpation of control of independent international organizations, and states:

“In order to justify revisionist “rules,” the West resorts to manipulation of public consciousness, dissemination of false information, double standards on human rights, suppression of undesirable media………Instead of equal collective work, closed formats beyond legitimate multilateral framework are being created, and approaches agreed upon behind closed doors by a narrow group of the “select few” are then declared ‘multilateral agreements.’  This is accompanied by the attempts to ‘privatize’ the secretariats of international organizations, to use them in order to advance non-consensual ideas in circumvention of universal mechanisms.”

“We are now facing the attempts to add Venezuela to the list of countries whose statehood was destroyed before our eyes through aggression of coups inspired from abroad.  Like the overwhelming majority of the UN members, Russia is rejecting the attempts to….change from outside regimes in sovereign states, descending to the methods of military blackmail, unlawful coercion and blockade as it happens in relation to Cuba in defiance of the UN resolutions.”

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi concurred, obviously referring to Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.:

“It is not legitimate or justifiable for any country standing from a position of power to impose unilateral sanctions or exercise long-arm jurisdiction over other countries, as such practice has no basis in international law.  To put one’s own interests above the common interests of all other countries is a typical bullying practice that finds no support of the people.”

Wang states further, in a clear reference to the flagrant violation of Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the bulging and increasing nuclear arsenals of the major nuclear weapons states:

“We urge the countries with the largest nuclear arsenals to fully fulfill their special and primary responsibilities in nuclear disarmament.”

The Foreign Ministers of Russia, Venezuela and China share scathing criticism of the egregious predations and corruption of the international order intrinsic to and inevitable within international capitalism.

*

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

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

Featured image is from El Estimulo

On Monday, after a weekend of bloody chaos in northeastern Syrian brought on by Turkey’s cross border military incursion “Operation Peace Spring” which included airstrikes, ISIS prison breaks, and a continuation of the exodus we’ve seen over the past few days of over a hundred thousand civilians fleeing their homes, President Trump signed an Executive Order authorizing sanctions against current and former Turkish government officials and anyone who is contributing to Turkey’s actions in destabilizing northeast Syria.

In a formal statement, published by the White House, President Trump went on to say that steel tariffs will be increased back to 50%, which is the level they were at prior to a reduction in May of this year. President Trump also said negotiations led by the Department of Commerce which include a $100 billion trade deal with Turkey, would cease immediately.

The Order goes beyond sanctions and would also authorize consequences including blocking of property and barring entry into the United States on anyone Washington deems to be involved in serious human rights abuses including obstructing ceasefires, preventing displaced people from returning to their homes, and forcing the repatriation of refugees etc.

President Trump mentioned a few times during the past few days that the United States and their partners are the ones that brought Daesh to their knees and are responsible for eliminating 100% of their territorial caliphate.

Each time I hear this claim, I justify its inaccuracy by saying even though this is categorically false, and the United States has protected and helped Daesh on more than one occasion and the previous administration supported extremist groups which bore Daesh, that if taking credit and feeding his enormous ego means that US troops will withdraw from Syria, then by all means give President Trump all the credit, perhaps even an award, or a trophy, heck add on a Nobel Peace Prize, just as long as he withdraws US troops, which will help end this monstrous western-manufactured war.

President Trump also cautioned Turkey against indiscriminate targeting of civilians, destruction of civilian infrastructure and targeting ethnic or religious minorities. He also mentioned that refugees must be returned in a safe, voluntary and dignified manner. President Trump announced again that he would be withdrawing remaining US service members from northeast Syria and that they will be redeployed while remaining in the region to monitor the situation to prevent a resurgence. Trump stated that a small number of troops will remain in southern Syria at Al Tanf Garrrison to disrupt remnants of ISIS.

Repeating his threat to destroy Turkey’s economy if they continue down this “dangerous and destructive path” could just be more posturing by President Trump and distancing Washington from Ankara’s war crimes.

Vice President Mike Pence on Monday announced he would be leading a delegation to Ankara where they will be discussing with Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan the US’s demands which include an immediate ceasefire and negotiating with the Kurds in Syria.

Just the notion of asking President Erdogan to negotiate with Kurdish militias is preposterous considering their history. Turkey will most likely say that they do not negotiate with terrorists, considering they see the Kurdish militias in Syria as an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in Turkey who they have been at war with for over three decades.

Secondly, the Kurdish militias are now in talks with the Syrian government. It’s a little too late for the US to try to win them back. I would hope that after seeing how many times the United States has left them out in the cold that the YPG/SDF/PYD would know by now not to put their trust in them again.

It’s worth mentioning that corporate media and war hungry politicians have intentionally focused on the “plight of the Kurds” and highlighted their cause above and beyond any other ethnicity in Syria. This begs the question, why is 7-10% of the population given an unequal amount of attention when “the Kurds” are not even a homogenous group of people.

There’s no mention of how Kurds migrated to Syria in waves and sought refuge and stayed for decades. Rather than telling you how they bought property, studied in Syrian schools, received benefits that are awarded to all Syrian citizens regardless of ethnicity and religion, propagandists will try to convince you that they were systematically oppressed.

There’s also little to no mention of the war crimes committed by the Kurdish YPG and the SDF in Syria against the indigenous populations including closing the vast majority of schools, enforcing a non-authorized Kurdish curriculum, forced conscription, theft of property and businesses, kidnapping of children to turn them into soldiers, etc, much like the PKK in Turkey.

Reporting has been very one-sided and portrayed them as the leading fighters against terrorist groups in Syria and although they did play a part  the Syrian Arab Army and their allies are the ones that did the heavy lifting and made the most progress, but they get trashed in the media.

And, many are surprised to learn that there are Syrian Kurds that are in the Syrian Army that categorically reject the notion of establishing a US/Israeli sponsored Kurdistan on sovereign Syrian land. They oppose the wrongdoing of the Kurdish militias and stand with the Syrian government and army.

Celebrations erupted once news was received that the SAA was on their way to northern towns. Even tribal leaders came out in support of the SAA, saying the SAA were the only true protectors of the land.

On Monday the SAA entered Manbij, Tal Tamr and towns in Raqqa’s countryside. Videos showed US armored vehicles exiting the area while Syrian troops were entering, in a peaceful almost poetic re-alignment of power. The American-Israeli backed “Kurdistan” dream was destined for failure from the beginning.

*

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.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research. For media inquiries please email [email protected].  

In early August I traveled to Russia for the first time, partly out of interest in seeing some of the vast country with a tourist’s eyes, partly to do some journalism in the region. It also transpired that while in Moscow I was able to interview Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman of the Foreign Ministry.

High on my travel list, however, was to visit Crimea and Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) — the former a part of Russia, the latter an autonomous republic in the east of Ukraine, neither accurately depicted in Western reporting. Or at least that was my sense looking at independent journalists’ reports and those in Russian media.

Both regions are native Russian-speaking areas; both opted out of Ukraine in 2014. In the case of Crimea, joining Russia (or actually rejoining, as most I spoke to in Crimea phrased it) was something people overwhelmingly supported. In the case of the Donbass region, the turmoil of Ukraine’s Maidan coup in 2014 set things in motion for the people in the region to declare independence and form the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.

In March 2014, Crimeans held a referendum during which 96 percent of voters chose to join Russia. This has been heavily disputed in Western media, with claims that Crimeans were forced to hold the referendum and claims of Russian troops on the streets “occupying” the peninsula.

Because Western media insisted the referendum was a sham held under duress, and because they bandy about the term “pro-Russian separatists” for the people of the DPR, I decided to go and speak to people in these areas to hear what they actually want and feel.

From the Russian mainland to the Crimean Peninsula

From St. Petersburg, where I spent a few touristy days, I booked a flight to Simferopol, the capital of Crimea, and on August 22 I landed at the attractive new airport. A Russian-American friend, Vlad, flies in from Moscow and together we rent a car and drive to Alushta, a tourist-packed seaside area to the south.

As we drive from the airport, Vlad can’t get over the changes in the airport, which had been dank and barely functional when he last visited:

When I came here at the end of 2014, Simferopol Airport was very dated: small and stuffy, low ceilings, small windows; the bathrooms didn’t work, there was a constant stench in the air, and many facilities weren’t working — even the baggage carousels didn’t work properly. There were no restaurants or cafes, and no places to rent taxis. Now, it’s a world-class international airport.”

We drive south along smooth roads, passing endless vineyards on either side, flanked by low mountains. As Vlad drives, he comments on the condition of the roads, which five years prior were so rough “you had to swerve to dodge the potholes.”

Descending to the coast, along cypress tree-lined streets, we arrive in the hub of Alushta, park, and stroll along the seaside. The beach scenes could be anywhere: people sunbathing and swimming, jet-skiing, drinking beer and eating. In the touristy hub before the beach, a carnival sort of feel and smell, a man playing the accordion, children’s rides, upscale restaurants, and fast-food stalls.

Revelers enjoy the pristine Black Sea waters of Alushta. Photo | Eva Bartlett

As it happens, we arrive on Russia’s National Flag Day and while walking we come across a small event celebrating this with singers on stage and a crowd that, when we pass by again some hours later, has grown in size and enthusiasm.

I remark on how kind and gentle people are here, just as in Russia. Vlad replies:

It shouldn’t be surprising — people are people anywhere. But Western media conditions us with stereotypes of Russians as cold and hard, vilifying an entire nation.”

The coastal city of Yalta lies further west along the peninsula. The drive there the following day is more beautiful still, the road flanked by mountains to one side, hills cascading down to the Black Sea on the other, endless wineries and, before Yalta itself, the stunning cliff-top castle known as “Swallow’s Nest.”

In the evening, we stay in the home of Vlad’s friend Tata, a Russian woman who moved to Crimea in 2012.

Since there was so much hype in Western media about a Russian takeover of the peninsula, I ask the burning questions: Were Crimeans forced to take part in the referendum? What was the mood like around that time? Tata replied:

I never saw so many people in my life go out to vote, of their own free will. There was a period before the referendum, maybe about two months, during which there were two holidays: International Women’s Day, March 8, and Defender of the Fatherland Day, February 23.

Normally, people would go away on vacation during these holidays. But that year, Crimeans didn’t go anywhere; they wanted to be sure they were here during the referendum. We felt the sense of a miracle about to happen. People were anxiously awaiting the referendum.

There were military tents in the city, but they were not erected by the military, but by local men. They would stand there every day, and people could come and sign a document calling for a referendum.

I went one day and asked if I could add my name but I couldn’t, because I have a Russian passport. Only Crimean citizens could sign it. This was the fair way to do it.

At that time, my husband was in America. One day, he was watching CNN and got scared and called me because he saw reports of soldiers in the streets, an ‘invasion’ by Russia.

The local navy came from Sevastopol to Yalta and anchored their ships off the coast, made a blockade to ensure no larger Ukrainian or other ships could come and attack.

But I never saw tanks, I never saw Russian soldiers. I never saw any of that in the city.”

Young boys enjoy a local skate park in Sevastopool. Photo | Eva Bartlett

I asked Tata about how life had changed after the referendum:

When I came here in December 2012, everything was dilapidated and run down. The nice roads you were driving on, they didn’t exist when we were a part of Ukraine. I didn’t understand why Crimea was still a part of Ukraine. It was Russian land ever since the Tsars, the imperial time of Russia. This is where the Russian soul is, and the soul of the Russian navy.

After the Soviet Union collapsed, it wasn’t the will of the Crimean people to join Ukraine. People were always Russian here; they always identified as Russian. Ukraine understood this well, and put nothing into Crimea, as punishment. Ukraine didn’t build any hospitals, kindergartens or roads.

In the past four years, the Crimean government has built 200 new kindergartens. This is the most obvious example of how things have improved. They also built the new Simferopol airport.

I worked in aviation. It took three years to build an airport of this standard in Yekaterinburg, Russia. It took half a year in Simferopol.”

International Jazz Festival

On my third day in Crimea, we drive eastward anew, driving for hours through the gorgeous countryside, along winding and rolling roads flanked by jagged mountains, past an exceptionally beautiful church (Nicholas Church Lighthouse) overlooking the coast, and down along the sea through more touristy seaside towns and past lines of day tents along the beach. The local FM radio plays a variety of both Russian and Western songs.

Finally, after night falls, we drive into the city of Koktebel, where an annual Jazz Festival is starting.

Buskers entertain passersby at the annual Koktebel Jazz Festival. Photo | Eva Bartlett

During all these hours of driving, the roads are smooth and well-trafficked, and I don’t see a single Russian military vehicle.

The next day, I walk through Koktebel, taking in the local markets brimming with produce, cheeses, and other goods, and every so often come across a streetside stand laden with fresh fruits. In the late afternoon, I walk along the sea, past packed beaches, and meet with a Crimean woman, Yaroslava, who lives in Austria but every summer returns to her beloved Crimea. She is ardently supportive of the decision to have joined Russia and spends much of her time back in Austria trying to educate people on why Crimeans wanted to be a part of Russia.

These are reasons I hear throughout my travels in Crimea: We wanted to be able to speak our native language [Russian] and be educated in that language; we wanted to be able to practice our cultural traditions; we have always been a part of Russia and we wanted to return.

Yaroslava is busy helping out with the Jazz Festival and wants to use the rest of our short time talking to help me arrange future meetings with people in Crimea. We decided to do a proper interview via Skype in the future when time allows.

I drift on to the Jazz Festival, where a talented pianist and band play beach-side to an enthusiastic crowd. Some songs later, I drift back along the beach, passing numerous musicians busking, and a pulsing nightlife that isn’t going to bed any time soon.

Construction everywhere

On the fifth day, we drive back to Simferopol; Vlad is heading back to Moscow. As we drive, we see road work repeatedly, just as we had when driving from Simferopol south to Alushta: roads being widened, repaved; bridges being repaired or newly built. This is something I observed throughout my travels around Crimea. I remember Tata’s words about “everything being dilapidated” and have a hard time imagining that now with what I see.

Vlad departs for Moscow, and I’m on my own now, traveling from the airport via public bus and minibus. At one point I ask a young couple, using Yandex translate, for directions. They get me on the right minibus and, following my route via Yandex maps, I get myself to Simferopol’s rail station and walk the half-hour to my nondescript hotel. I again need to ask locals for directions, as the unmarked hotel is in some parking lot behind a supermarket.

I retrace my steps to the train station the next day and repeat the routine to buy a ticket for Sevastopol. The ticket is 119 rubles (just under $2). Over the next two hours on a slow train with wooden seats, I watch as more beautiful scenery and construction slide by.

Construction dots the train ride to Sevastopol. Photo | Eva Bartlett

Arriving in Sevastopol, I leave the train station and hope to find some cafe where I can charge my phone, as I need it to navigate to the guesthouse where I’ve theoretically reserved a room online.

As I stand to orient the map route and zoom in to look for any signs of cafes, a woman walks by me and says with a smile something with the word “shto,” which I think means “what.” When I reply in English, she laughs and flags down another woman, Yana, who speaks English well and insists she and her husband drive me.

As we drive, we chat. I ask her about the referendum, mentioning that many in the West have the notion that it was done under duress, with a heavy military presence to influence the vote. She laughs, saying: “There were no troops, no military, around us during the referendum.” She speaks of the joy of Crimeans to vote, says that maybe 98 percent of Sevastopol voters had voted in favor [it was apparently 96 percent, but close enough], and adds, “We are now under the wing of Russia.”

I ask about developments since then. She mentions the improvements in roads, also the modern trolley-buses and regular buses, the opening of kindergartens and schools, and free courses (like music) for children.

We arrive at the remote guesthouse, where we realize that no one is home to give me a room. Yana mentions her parents have a guesthouse just outside the city and overlooking the bay. We drive to it, I meet the owners, charming people who set me up in a little apartment surrounded by fig and pear trees and with a small swimming pool to cool off in.

They invite me for dinner, but I have to politely decline in order to get back to work, though I do take a few minutes to enjoy their pool, the stars, the silence, and the incredible fragrance of some night blossoms.

The stunning view of the bay in Malorichenske. Photo | Eva Bartlett

The next few days, when not working on my laptop, I go for walks in the area, take in Sevastopol Bay, and one day take a minibus into the city and walk for hours around it, seeing some of the key sights.

When I finally need to leave Sevastopol for Simferopol again, the couple refuses to take my money, insists I am their guest, and drives me to the bus station, stopping en route at a market where they search for ten minutes until they find the traditional Armenian treats they want to give me: walnuts covered in the syrup of various fruits (pomegranate, peach, currant, grape), and a box of walnut-stuffed dried figs.

Ukrainians in Crimea

In Simferopol anew, I meet Anastasiya Gridchina, the Chair of the Ukrainian Community of Crimea, an organization formed in 2015 whose main goals, she tells me, “are to have friendly relations between two great peoples: Ukrainians and Russians — not the politicians but the people. The second goal is to preserve inter-ethnic peace in the Republic between different nationalities.”

Gridchina explains that in Crimea there are more than 175 nationalities, just 20 less than in all of Russia, but in a very small territory. Hence the importance of preserving inter-ethnic peace. After Russians, Ukrainians comprise the second largest population in Crimea.

I asked Anastasiya whether she supported, much less participated in the referendum.

I worked very hard in order that we could have a referendum. I live in Perevalne, the last settlement in the mountains above Alushta. There was a Ukrainian military detachment which did surrender. In February 2014, I was among a line of people standing between the Ukrainian and Russian military detachments, to prevent any bloodshed. The fear that prevailed at that time was that nationalists from Ukraine would come here and we would have massacres.

In February, there was a confrontation outside the Parliament here in Simferopol. It was organized by leaders of the Mejlis — the Crimeans Tatars. On the other side, there were some pro-Russia organizations who were protecting the Parliament. They were far less [numerous] than the Mejlis. The Mejlis were armed with sticks and knives. There were clashes and two people were killed, but thankfully it didn’t escalate beyond that.

When the news came that there would be a referendum, people relaxed. They had a chance to express their point of view and 96 percent of the population of Crimea voted for Crimea to return to Russia.”

Since she is Ukrainian, I asked Anastasiya why she wanted Crimea to join Russia:

I’ve lived in Crimea all my life, and my language is Russian. And I know the history of Crimea, which has always been Russian territory, which has a history beginning with the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union. So, it is Russian-speaking territory, first of all. That’s why I believe it should be in the Russian Federation, not in Ukraine.”

Singer entertain a crowd in Alushta on Russia’s National Flag Day. Photo | Eva Bartlett

I asked about the claims that Russian soldiers invaded Crimea:

Whatever they might have said about Russian soldiers forcing people to participate in the referendum, it was all lies, pure lies. We did not see any soldiers on the streets, especially on the day of the referendum.

I gave an interview to foreign journalists before the referendum. But when they published it, they changed my words. I said we were very thankful to the Russian troops that were here, that protected us from the attacks of Ukrainian nationalists prior to the referendum. But they translated it that I said ‘Please, we want Ukrainian soldiers to defend us from those Russian soldiers.’

The Russian troops that were here were not on the streets on the day of the referendum but, at the time in general, they were there to protect civilians from an attack by Ukrainians.

On the day of the referendum, there were no soldiers, no military. The only security were there to prevent any illegal actions. No military people were there, no arms, no armored personnel carriers, no military equipment, nothing. Only members of the election commission and the people voting.”

I asked whether many Ukrainian Crimeans left following the referendum:

There were those who immediately after the referendum left Crimea for Ukraine because it was their personal wish. Nobody prevented them from going. Even the soldiers had an option: to stay and continue military service here, or to leave.

There were also some people who didn’t like that Crimea joined Russia, but didn’t leave for pragmatic reasons. Because the quality of life in Russia is much higher than in Ukraine. So they continue living in Crimea.”

Finally, Anastasiya gave me a message for the people outside of Crimea:

I’d like to tell people around the world, welcome to Crimea, come here yourselves and see and hear with your own eyes and ears, to understand that all the lies you hear about Crimea, that we are oppressed or under pressure from the military…this is all lies, this is all not true.

Also, that we are not allowed to speak Ukrainian is a lie. One of the state languages is Ukrainian. Russian and Tatar are also state languages.”

As she leaves to go to the Ukrainian festival she has helped organize, she notes that the government allotted part of its budget towards financing the festival. She invites me to join. “You can see us singing Ukrainian songs, see our culture and traditions preserved.”

Next, I speak to Yuri Gempel, a member of Parliament, and the chairman of the Standard Commission on Inter-Ethnic Relations of the Parliament of Crimea.

Yuri Gempel gestures to the location of clashes that broke out in 2014 between pro and anti-Russian protesters. Photo | Eva Bartlett

“Crimea, under Ukraine, was robbed,” Gempel says. He continues:

Everything was taken by the government and representatives of the ruling elite of Ukraine. For the 23 years Crimea was a part of Ukraine, they robbed Crimea. Not a single kindergarten was built in Crimea during those years. Kindergartens built during Soviet times stopped functioning.

But the main issue is that during that time, the people still felt themselves to be in Russian territory, not Ukrainian, in language, culture and in spirit. Under Ukrainian rule, Crimeans were made to speak Ukrainian, although Crimeans’ native language is Russian. People were deprived of the right to be in state service if they did not speak Ukrainian.”

I ask Yuri how things changed after the referendum:

After Crimea returned to Russia, an electric line exploded in Ukrainian territory and Crimeans were without electricity. Russia very quickly repaired and improved the electricity situation. We were also cut from water and food supplies immediately after Crimea returned to Russia.

As a result of the water shortage, we had to reform our agricultural production. We don’t produce rice now, because we don’t have enough water. But we grow wheat and other grains. And we introduced modern agricultural technologies, like drip irrigation. Now the economic situation has improved, and in some respects is much better than it was before.”

I then inquire about the 2014 clashes outside the Parliament, which Anastasiya Gridchina had mentioned:

I know the Chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, Refat Chubarov, personally. I was there at the confrontation between the Mejlis people and pro-Russian groups at the entrance of the Parliament. I’m absolutely sure that Chubarov and his colleagues provoked the confrontations in which seventy were wounded and two were killed. It is their fault that anyone was wounded and killed. The main goal of the confrontation was to prevent the session in Parliament from happening; the points of the agenda of that session were about the referendum.”

I ask Yuri about another issue Western media refers to in its Crimea coverage: the alleged discrimination against the ethnic Tatars. Gempel imparts to me a history lesson:

In 1944, 190,000 Crimean Tatars were deported from Crimea; this was the largest ethnic group deported. Also Armenians, Germans, Greeks, Bulgarians.

In the over 23 years Crimea was in Ukraine, the various ethnic groups demanded the government issue a decree to rehabilitate those deported people.

In April 2014, after Crimea joined Russia, President Putin immediately issued a decree regarding the deported people. After the decree was issued, a federal program was adopted, with a budget of 10 billion rubles, which included building multi-storey buildings and improving the infrastructure in the areas returned deportees live in. The amount of money is much more than what was given by Ukraine in the 23 years that Crimea was part of Ukraine.”

Tatars make up around 11 percent of the population, Gempel tells me, but “have representatives in all branches of power in Crimea, including legislative and in the Parliament.” As Anastasiya Gridchina mentioned, Tatar is one of the three state languages, after a resolution on this was adopted by Parliament.

Standing outside the Parliament, where the 2014 clashes occurred, Gempel explains where he was at the time, and says there were no Russian soldiers or tanks. Then laughing, he points toward a tank monument in a park nearby: “There was only that tank. It’s been here since 1944.”

Although I want to stay for the Ukrainian festival, I’m heading to the Donetsk People’s Republic in the coming days, so instead I take yet another bus ride, this one a four-hour-long ride eastward to Kerch, the city from which the next day I am to cross the Crimean bridge back to the mainland.

I decide to use a ride-share program and arrange to join a car going early the next morning from Kerch and on to Rostov-on-Don, from where I will go westward to Donetsk.

We cross the impressive 17 km-long bridge. It is early morning and is also the day before children return to school, so the bridge isn’t busy. However, by early October, 6.6 million tourists have already visited Crimea, said to be a 10 percent increase from last year, and I can see why.

The nearly 11-mile long Crimean Bridge was completed in 2018. Photo | Eva Bartlett

Having spent over a week traveling by car and local transport in this utterly beautiful setting, I know I will be returning to Crimea when the opportunity affords itself.

As for the claims that Russia invaded Crimea and of Russian forces intimidating voters, I believe the many people I met who denounced those claims and articulated very clearly why they wanted to join Russia, or as they say, “return to Russia.”

*

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

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and occupied Palestine, where she lived for nearly four years. She is a recipient of the 2017 International Journalism Award for International Reporting, granted by the Mexican Journalists’ Press Club (founded in 1951), was the first recipient of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism, and was short-listed in 2017 for the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. See her extended bio on her blog In Gaza. 

This term, the Supreme Court will decide whether people can be fired for being transgender or LGBQ, if people brought to the U.S. as children can be deported, whether states can impose restrictions on abortion that disproportionately harm poor women, how firm the separation between church and state is, the scope of the Second Amendment and whether criminal defendants can be convicted by less-than-unanimous juries.

Millions of people will be impacted by the results of these cases.

“The court’s decisions will affect 800,000 ‘dreamers,’ in the DACA case…millions of LGBTQ workers in deciding whether federal discrimination laws protect on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation, and ‘half the country’ in the abortion case,” The Washington Post’s Robert Barnes wrote, summarizing an interview with ACLU legal director David Cole.

These are some of the cases the Court will decide by the end of June 2020:

Dreamers’ Rights

Barack Obama instituted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2012 to protect from deportation people who arrived in the United States as children. They are known as “Dreamers,” a reference to the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, which Congress has failed to pass for nearly 2 decades. Donald Trump rescinded DACA in 2017, in furtherance of his anti-immigrant, anti-Obama agenda. The Trump administration claims that Obama’s establishment of DACA was an “unconstitutional exercise of authority.”

In Department of Homeland Security v. University of California, the plaintiffs — the University of California and a number of states and DACA recipients — argue that Trump’s rescission of DACA was illegal. Trump argues that his decision to rescind DACA is not reviewable by the courts. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with Trump, saying his rescission of DACA was based “solely on a misconceived view of the law.” The appellate court found meritorious plaintiffs’ claims that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious and violated equal protection, due process and the Administrative Procedures Act.

The high court has recently come to different conclusions in two immigration-related cases. In a 5-4 decision, the Court affirmedTrump’s Muslim Ban, holding that the president has broad authority over national security. But Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberal justices on the Court to prevent Trump from adding a citizenship question to the census, calling the administration’s stated reasons “contrived.”

Oral arguments in the case are set for November 12.

LGBTQ Rights

On October 8, the Court heard oral arguments in three cases that test whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination “because of … sex,” protects transgender and LGBQ employees from being fired. Bostock v. Clayton County and Altitude Express v. Zarda were brought by men fired for being gay. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC was filed by a woman fired for being transgender.

These are the first cases involving LGBTQ rights to reach the Court since Justice Anthony Kennedy retired. Kennedy wrote the opinions in four cases protecting gay rights and provided the fifth vote to uphold the right to same-sex marriage.

Three U.S. appeals courts and 22 states prohibit the firing of gay and transgender employees. It seems like a no-brainer.

“Firing someone because they identify with a sex different from their assigned sex at birth is obviously firing them because of their sex,” ACLU lawyer Gabriel Arkles wrote for Truthout. “And firing someone because they are attracted to people of the same sex is also obviously because of sex.”

Ironically, Justice Neil Gorsuch may cast the deciding vote. During argument, he conceded that the text of Title VII was “close.” But Gorsuch wondered whether the justices should consider the “massive social upheaval” if the Court ruled for the plaintiffs.

Gorsuch will hopefully channel his mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia, who authored the 1998 opinion for a unanimous court which held that Title VII covers harassment between members of the same sex. Scalia wrote that although Congress may not have anticipated such harassment when it wrote the law in 1964, “statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed.”

Abortion Rights

The Court will decide a case challenging a Louisiana law which, if upheld, would permit only one doctor in one clinic in the state to perform abortions. This law requires that in order to perform abortions, doctors must have admitting privileges at a local hospital. That restriction, plaintiffs in June Medical Services v. Gee argue, imposes an “undue burden” on the right to abortion forbidden by the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey because it restricts access to abortion without protecting the health of women.

In June Medical Services, the district court made extensive factual findings that closing the other Louisiana clinics would impose a heavy burden on low-income women. It found that those who pursue abortions are disproportionately poor and closure of the clinics would force them to travel long distances.

Roberts joined the four liberal justices to halt Louisiana’s law from going into effect during the pendency of the appeal. That was a curious move, since, in 2016, Roberts had dissented from the majority decision in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt that held unconstitutional a Texas law nearly identical to the one in Louisiana.

June Medical Services will test Roberts’s claimed devotion to upholding precedent, as the Court could use it to overrule Whole Women’s Health. In the three years since Whole Women’s Health was decided, Justice Brett Kavanaugh replaced Kennedy.

“It will reveal probably more than any case this term this emerging role of Roberts as the swing vote,” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told The Washington Post.

The Right to a Unanimous Jury

In 2016, Evangelisto Ramos was found guilty in Louisiana of second-degree murder after 10 of the 12 jurors voted to convict him. He was sentenced to life in prison at hard labor with no possibility of parole. Ramos contends in Ramos v. Louisiana that he had the constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict.

All states except Louisiana and Oregon require that jury verdicts in criminal cases be unanimous. Although Louisiana changed its law to require unanimity in felony trials, it only applies to crimes committed on or after January 1, 2019.

In 1972, the Court held in Apodaca v. Oregon that the Sixth Amendment right to trial by an impartial jury requires that juries in federal criminal cases be unanimous. But the Court did not find that defendants in state cases are entitled to a unanimous jury.

The Court has used the incorporation doctrine to hold that most of the protections of the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the Constitution — apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Indeed, last term, a unanimous Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibition on excessive fines applies in state courts via the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which forbids the states from depriving a person of “life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”

During the October 7 oral argument in Ramos, Kavanaugh asked,

“Do the racial origins of this rule have an impact on how we think about stare decisis [following precedent] in this case?”

Louisiana adopted its non-unanimity rule to make it easier for white jurors to convict Black defendants after it was forced to allow Black Americans to serve on juries. The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund noted in its amicus brief in support of Ramos,

“Up until 2018, when Louisianans voted to remove the non-unanimous jury provision from their constitution, black defendants were more likely to be convicted by non-unanimous juries, and black jurors were more likely than white jurors to be in the dissent.”

The Scope of the Second Amendment

For the first time in over a decade, the Court will hear a case involving the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. The Court will decide in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association. v. City of New York whether New York City’s prohibition against transporting a licensed, unloaded and locked handgun to a home or shooting range outside the city limits violates the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.

Since the five right-wing justices favor an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment, it would seem the result in this case is preordained. But after the Court agreed to hear the case, New York City amended the regulation to allow licensed gun owners to transport handguns to their second homes or shooting ranges outside of city limits.

New York City’s changed regulation should have made the case moot. The justices, however, could use it as a vehicle to establish a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment.

“The court is going to have to decide this question of mootness against the backdrop of several recent highly-publicized episodes of gun violence and heated debate between the two parties about solutions to gun violence,” Irv Gornstein, executive director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown, told The New York Times. “For some, this is a reason to dig in and plunge ahead to decide the case. For others, sitting this one out may be an inviting prospect.”

On December 2, the high court will hear arguments in this case.

Church-State Separation

The First Amendment says,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The Court will decide in Espinoza v. Montana whether a state that gives grants and scholarships to students in private schools must also provide them to students in church schools.

Montana’s constitution, like that of many states, forbids giving tax money to churches. The Montana Department of Revenue prevented a state scholarship fund from providing money to students who attended church-affiliated schools.

This case will test the limits of Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, the 2017 decision in which the Court held that Missouri could not prevent religious schools from receiving funds to replace pea gravel under playground equipment with a rubber surface. The Court found that refusing to provide the church with an otherwise available public benefit on account of its religious status violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Other Cases the Court Might Hear

The Court will continue to accept cases as the term proceeds. Here are some issues the Court may agree to consider.

As Trump obstructs the impeachment inquiry, we will see cases that measure the constitutional impeachment process against unfettered assertions of executive power.

Trump has made unilateral changes to asylum and immigration law, which is within the purview of Congress. Many of those changes have been challenged and will probably be reviewed by the high court. And a federal district judge granted an injunction to halt Trump’s diversion of military funds to the construction of his border wall.

Whether Trump must turn over his tax returns and whether his family’s financial transactions with foreign governments violate the Emoluments Clause will also likely be decided by the Court. A federal district judge ordered Trump to provide his tax returns to New York state prosecutors, and a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Congress has the right to see Trump’s financial records.

The Court may also determine whether cities can prevent homeless people from camping in public places or sleeping on sidewalks. The Ninth Circuit ruled that if no alternative indoor sleeping areas are available, such restrictions would constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Two cases that pit religious rights against civil rights might be reviewed by the Court. One involves a Christian florist charged with violation of Washington’s civil rights law after refusing to sell flowers for a same-sex wedding. The other is an appeal by Catholic Social Services, which was excluded from the foster care system for refusing to place foster children with same-sex couples.

And the high court may have the opportunity to gut the Voting Rights Actonce and for all if the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals weakens the standard for finding discrimination in a case pending before it.

As the Court moves increasingly to the right with the recent additions of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, we can expect the continued evisceration of civil rights and civil liberties. The Court has failed to protect the right to vote by declining to strike down partisan gerrymandering; refused to find that Trump’s Muslim Ban violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause; and held that, notwithstanding the Due Process Clause, immigrants who have been released from criminal custody can be detained without a hearing, even when arrested by immigration agents years after their release. The importance of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s continued vitality cannot be underestimated.

*

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

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

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

Featured image is from Univision

Dennis Bernstein: We are honored to have Daniel Ellsberg here, the man who blew the whistle on the corrupt and illegal Vietnam War and has been blowing whistles and inspiring others ever since. Daniel Ellsberg gained notoriety in the early 1970s by leaking the Pentagon Papers, the Defense Department’s top-secret history of the Vietnam War, and then for outspokenly protesting the war and the government secrecy that sustained it. Yet few know that he has spent most of the previous decade immersed in highly classified studies of the U.S. nuclear war machine. Daniel, welcome. You were just arrested, weren’t you, at Lawrence Livermore Labs? 

Daniel Ellsberg: Yes, I’ve gone there nearly every year, around Hiroshima Day and Nagasaki Day, to send the message that no more weapons should be made in this country without having to arrest people to do it. It is wrong to be doing what Livermore is doing right now – in good conscience, I’m sure. But then I worked on war plans in good conscience. I was conned and so are they. The public was conned about Hiroshima.

Still today, hardly any people know just how much falsehood was fed to them to justify what we did. And when people protest the bomb now, I would say that most Americans would wonder why was it wrong to save a million American lives? After all, wasn’t that the only alternative to an invasion of Japan? That’s what they have heard from people in positions of authority. But in fact, it was not the only alternative. In fact, it was not a serious alternative to invasion.

The American people have believed killing 140,000 people immediately and 300,000 by the end of the year was necessary and therefore justified. If that is justified, what isn’t? What we are doing right now isn’t justified, threatening first use of nuclear weapons and preparing attacks that, if carried out, would destroy most life on earth. But it is not questioned, morally or practically.

Dennis Bernstein: Dan, how would you evaluate the dangers we face now in terms of a nuclear conflagration? Are we worse off now than we were thirty years ago?

Daniel Ellsberg: Well, in 1989-1991, things began to look better. The Cold War was over, the rationale for these weapons had disappeared. That was the time to get rid of them. Russia wasn’t an ideological enemy anymore. The idea that there was this global conflict that required us to arm in an unprecedented way was over. But the notion of a peace dividend passed with the Gulf War.

One of the things I learned today from talks given at Lawrence Livermore Labs was that for the past seven years, each budget for nuclear weapons has increased. In particular it was true in 2015 under Obama, who increased it to over Cold War levels. The peak of Cold War spending was in 1985. Spending went down with the fall of the Soviet Union until the second Bush came into power. We’re back at Cold War levels, $9 billion per year. From 2015 till now, each year the budget has risen. It didn’t start under Trump. But right now, under Trump, we are budgeting 40% higher than in the Cold War. It is obscene, it is crazy, it is wrong.

That money doesn’t go to foreigners, it goes to Americans: Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, Grumman, General Dynamics. They do very well in this process. There is one reason why we are budgeting for a weapon being designed at Lawrence Livermore right now and that is to put it on new ICBMs being made by Boeing. There isn’t a reason in the world for having those except for the jobs in each district that Boeing has distributed around the country. And Lockheed will be a subcontractor. The votes, the campaign contributions and the profits.

Amazingly enough, I learned something today which has made me more hopeful than I have been for a long time. The House defense budget authorization is different from the Senate version. The House version cuts out funding for the new ICBMs and for the new production facilities. The Senate put it all back in, but it has to be coordinated now at a conference, probably in September, and I will be doing everything I can to convince House members and their constituents that they should tell their House members to stand fast on those cuts. Those weapons are dangerous.

Davey D: Is the thinking that if we have the most advanced nuclear weapons, we can win using them and survive? Do people really think that we can use these weapons and win with them?

Daniel Ellsberg: We have always had people who have said that we could win with them. A number of presidents and certainly people in the Air Force. On the other hand, I knew a lot of people while I was in the system who knew that wasn’t possible. But it is only since 1983, when nuclear winter was really discovered, that it became absolutely clear that it didn’t make any difference whether you went first or second and all of our weapons are designed to go first.

Boeing tells us that, however bad that is, it is not as bad as going second. Elizabeth Warren was questioned in the latest debate why she is for no first use. She was then asked whether she wanted our cities incinerated before she will use the nuclear weapons. How to answer that? If she thinks that our cities couldn’t be incinerated if we used them first against Russia, where is she? It’s crazy. In other words, these ICBMs, which are vulnerable and tempt a president under a false alarm, the instinct of the military and the president is, “My ICBMs are about to be destroyed. I’ve got to get them off the ground.”

Dennis Bernstein: Have we been moved closer to a nuclear war by these new generation nukes they say are smaller? Would they be more of a temptation to war planners?

Daniel Ellsberg: To a degree, yes. But these dangers did not start with Trump. Strictly speaking, I don’t think that under Trump the danger is markedly greater. The point is that the danger is not going down. Regarding these low-yield weapons, if Trump could be tempted to use those, the results would be catastrophic. We have low-yield nuclear weapons already. Why would we want new ones? Livermore needs things to do, Lockheed, Boeing, etc. By the way, you wouldn’t have heard me say this a year ago. For the past forty years I’ve focused on the military and government part of the military industrial complex. Only this past year have I been studying the industrial part. It is new for me to see the Cold War as, in large part, a marketing campaign for vast annual subsidies to the aerospace industry.

Dennis Bernstein: One of the bombs that we dropped on Japan was built at Hanford. That program is still exploding in Hanford.

“Fat Man” – The bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, killing 90,000-166,000 people. Many more have died since. [Credit: all-that-is-interesting.com]

Daniel Ellsberg: Unfortunately, my father was chief structural engineer of the buildup at Hanford right after the war, having worked on these problems during the war. He resigned from the program for two reasons, which he told me about some forty years later. He had been asked to work at Savannah River – which, by the way, may now go into the business of making nuclear weapons. It used to make material for it. It was work for the H-bomb, which was going to be a thousand times more powerful than the A-bomb. The first hydrogen bomb we exploded in 1954 was one thousand times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb. The Hiroshima bomb was the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT. That was a thousand times the biggest bombs of World War II. The first hydrogen bomb was 15 megatons. This was three times larger than they predicted.

Daniel Ellsberg (right) blocking the gates with protesters  at Livermore Lab on August 6, 2013. [Credit: youtube outtake]

On Hiroshima Day and Nagasaki Day (August 6 and August 9), it shouldn’t be business as usual at these plants where they continue to build Nagasaki-type bombs which are used to set off an H-bomb. I remember the dates very well because they bracket my wedding anniversary, which is August 8. We couldn’t celebrate because I was always getting arrested. Livermore has found out how to keep these things quiet, by not bringing us to trial, which keeps it out of people’s eyes that something is going on there that other Americans protest.

Dennis Bernstein: You released the secret history of the Vietnam War, but you also had the secret history of the proposed nuclear war and you wanted to release that, too. What happened?

Daniel Ellsberg: It was a great disappointment in my life. I thought I would put out the thousands of pages I had on nuclear threats and dangers after I put out the Pentagon Papers. A friend of mine named Randy Keillor told me at the time that those were more important than the material on the war. It was true but Vietnam was where the bombs were falling then. I would see what I could do to end that bombing and then I would put out the nuclear information. Unfortunately, I gave the thousands of pages on the nuclear program to my brother to keep. He hid them in a trash heap, but it was hit by a hurricane and we could never find those documents.

Dennis Bernstein: What did we lose then?

Daniel Ellsberg: Much of the information we lost then is in my book now, many years later. A lot of it has been declassified. I don’t discuss Hiroshima much in the book because it is such a tangled web for Americans. They have been so brainwashed on “why it was all right” and “why it was necessary” to drop the atom bomb.

The atom bomb came into the world for Americans in the worst possible way for them to understand the implications of the nuclear era. Imagine if Hitler had come out first with the bomb. It would have been recognized as the quintessential Nazi weapon, a weapon of extermination of civilians. That would have been the number-one war crime at Nuremberg. It wouldn’t have won the war for them. It might have destroyed London, Liverpool, but it wouldn’t have won the war. But people would have been hanged for it, and not just the decision makers, all of the scientists. I am not for capital punishment, but I think that trials for war crimes can be very useful. Unfortunately, because we had been doing the bombing, we didn’t charge them with their bombing of civilian centers. In effect, we wrote that off from war crimes. Because we didn’t want to put ourselves in the dock – either for the atom bomb or for what had happened earlier – we didn’t charge them.

Hiroshima leveled with the “Fat Bomb” dropped by the United States on August 6, 1945, killing hundreds of thousands of people in an instant. [Credit: jimsjunket.com]

And we still regard that kind of bombing as available to us. Listen to what our president said the other day: “I could win the war in Afghanistan, but I would have to kill 10 million people.” This goes back to Harry Truman, who did not see the dropping of the atom bombs as a moral issue. That was fairly reasonable in his position because we had been killing as many Japanese civilians as we could for five months before that.

The Hiroshima bomb that was dropped on August 6 was the second largest act of terrorism in human history. Nagasaki three days later was the third largest act of terrorism. The largest one-day act of terrorism in human history was March 9 and 10, 1945, when we burned Tokyo and killed between 80 and 120 thousand people in one night. We did it with napalm, invented at Harvard University. This was used on humans because it sticks to your skin and burns through. It was very good for burning buildings and people. They also used white phosphorus and other incendiaries, with the intent of burning as many people as possible.

The Operation Meetinghouse firebombing of Tokyo on the night of March 9–10, 1945, was the single deadliest air raid in history. [Credit: wikipedia]

We then proceeded to do that to sixty-seven other Japanese cities. All of this was before the atom bomb. We killed something like 900,000 Japanese civilians before the atom bombs, which added another 300,000. This is about equal to the number of Jews gassed at Auschwitz and they didn’t exactly die better than in the gas chambers. When information began to come out about radiation, General Groves said he had heard it was rather a pleasant way to die. Actually, that is not true. But most of the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died from fire. (The people who jumped from the Twin Towers weren’t fools. The alternative was burning to death.)

The charred remains of a victim found near the hypocenter of the Nagasaki blast. [Credit: quora.com]

There wasn’t a moral difference between Tokyo and Hiroshima. The bomb was just more efficient, cheaper. The point is that the American people have scarcely heard of this at all. The Hiroshima decision was not a big decision for Truman. But the rationale that it was necessary is taught to generation after generation of Americans and their allies. If that was all right then, then threatening to do it on a much larger scale is also acceptable.

*

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 version from CovertAction Magazine is an edited transcript of the interview originally broadcast on KPFA on August 6, 2019.

Daniel Ellsberg is a senior fellow of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, author of The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner (2017) and Secrets (2003), the subject of the Oscar-nominated documentary The Most Dangerous Man in America. He is also a key figure in Steven Spielberg’s film about the Pentagon Papers, The Post, and the winner of the of Palme Prize for profound humanism and exceptional moral courage.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

US troops are in the middle of an apparent withdrawal from Syria’s northeast.

This leaves the door open to a variety of possibilities – the most dangerous being Turkey having cut a backroom deal with Washington to occupy eastern Syria.

The most ideal being Turkey having reached an agreement with Moscow and Damascus to create a temporary buffer zone – handing control incrementally over to the Syrian government until Ankara’s security concerns regarding Kurdish fighters are fully addressed.

Which possibility along this spectrum turns out true – time will soon tell.

Background 

The moment Russia intervened in Syria the US proxy war to divide and destroy the nation was effectively derailed. Syrian forces with the backing of Russian air power and under the umbrella of Russia’s political support – first stopped – then rolled back US-Saudi-Turkish backed proxies.

Russia’s military presence in Syria also confined the expansion of US military aggression within and along Syria’s borders. While Russia’s resolve was repeatedly tested, it never broke and thus Washington’s only options were to either wait for its proxy war to fade or trigger a much more serious conflict directly with nuclear-armed Russia itself.

The defeat of the bulk of America’s proxy forces – primarily Al Qaeda, the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS), and their various affiliates – left Washington with only its Kurdish proxies.

The idea of creating a sustainable Kurdish “statelet” in Syria’s sparsely populated east was always unrealistic. The vast majority of Syria’s most populated cities along with their economic power reside either west of the Euphrates or directly on its eastern bank – most of which are fully controlled by the Syrian government.

A Syrian “Kurdistan” would have been an entirely artificial construct, propped up entirely by the US militarily, politically, and economically. Despite the region’s vast resources – a separatist “Kurdistan” would have been cut off from its traditional markets in western Syria – cut off from any prospect of trade via Turkey – and left with unpredictable prospects via Iraq.

Syrian Kurds attempting to carve off Syrian territory would never possess the economic and thus political or  military power required to stand on their own. With Russia’s long-term and very sustainable position to the west of the Euphrates – no US proxy however strong would be able to reverse the outcome of America’s failed regime change war.

Enter Turkey 

A Turkish occupation of Syria’s east would be much more sustainable than a US-backed “Kurdistan.”

Turkey – upon consolidating hordes of leftover extremists from 8 years of US-led proxy war – would possess a sizable mercenary force for controlling large swaths of territory along the Syrian-Turkish border. Moving refugees into these regions could possibly transform regional demographics in Turkey’s favor.

However, this would require vast amounts of resources from Turkey. While it is “more sustainable” than a US-backed “Kurdistan” it still falls short of being sustainable in and of itself. It would also put Turkey at odds with Syria and its allies – including Russia and Iran.

Sustainability is Key 

Syria and its allies have prevailed in this conflict because they pursued a vastly more sustainable strategy – holding together an existing nation-state with existing, functional institutions, along with an existing economy – however tattered by war they may be.

In order to invade and displace the Syrian state – the US and its allies are required to expend vast amounts of resources creating new institutions, rebuilding local economies then connecting them with alternative markets, rebuilding and maintaining infrastructure, and all other matters required to administer territory in the long-term.

Idlib is a case study of just how difficult it is to accomplish all of this – and if Idlib still exists today as a dysfunctional and precarious foothold – with Syrian forces having already worked their way into the governorate – even by-passing Turkish forces along the way – the prospect of Turkey succeeding in any of this east of the Euphrates is less likely still.

Despite the difficulty of administering Idlib, it at least had preexisting demographics that worked in Turkey’s favor. East of the Euphrates, Turkey faces all the challenges it did in Idlib with the addition  of overcoming concentrations of ethnic Kurds.

For Turkey – the vast amount of resources required to transform its border with Syria into a dysfunctional buffer zone may seem like an attractive option to finally solve its “Kurdish problem,” yet removing people is rarely an effective solution to any problem.

The Kurds will simply relocate and continue their perceived struggle from elsewhere. Only a deal – most likely reached in partnership with the Syrian government – can guide Kurdish militants away from armed separatism and toward constructively contributing to whatever country they reside in.

Turkey’s Choice: Ending the War or Taking on the Torch of US Failure 

Ultimately – Turkey faces a conflict that is not concluding in Washington’s favor and efforts by Washington to hand the torch of this failure over to Ankara – either through a backroom deal or through the baited trap of storming the Kurds – come with it only negative consequences.

Russia is in Syria indefinitely – even if after the conflict comes to an end and it reduces the size of its force there. Russia’s investment in Syria is an indefinite and insurmountable wall standing in the way of all future regime change wars. Russia along with Iran have become formidable power brokers in the region – meaning that Turkey’s actions in Syria will always unfold under the scrutiny of not only Damascus but also of Moscow and Tehran.

For Turkey – the most sustainable option is to broker a deal with Damascus and its allies regarding the Kurds. The door of diplomacy has been left wide open by Moscow and Tehran – offering Ankara the same sort of sustainable strategy into the future Syria and its allies used to overcome America’s proxy war.

Only time will tell if Turkey decides to walk through that door.

*

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 Land Destroyer Report.

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from LDR

I have never been able to give much consideration to the Nobel Prize in recent years, but it must be recognized that some assignments have given tasty satisfactions to those who have at heart the independence of human thought.

It is the case of the great and poliedric literary author Peter Handke, playwright, novelist, essayist, poet, but especially intellectual with independent pen and back straight, who repeatedly advocated the need to cancel the Nobel Prize. But today they awarded him, just with the Nobel.

Although the term intellectual was first used by Diderot in the Lettre sur la liberté de la presse, used in Russia as intelligentsia to define the imperial officials of noble origin who occupied public positions, for the purposes of our small controversy, it is useful to remember that the word was spread with Dreyfus affaire.

Georges Clemenceau – journalist at that time, then future prime minister – used it to define all those who – like Zola – sided for the innocence of Dreyfus. From Clemenceau, the vulgate of the French Catholic Right of the time identified in the intellectuels  “presumptuous pedants, who consider themselves the aristocracy of the spirit and who have lost all, who more or less, the national mentality”[1].

It became fashionable, therefore, for certain power factions, to cling this despicable narrative to all those awkward intellectuals who stood up to independently contradict the dominant narrative.

Even today, the voice of the same is ready to accuse of pedantry all those who deviate from the common sense of Western public official morality.

If so, this definition of intellectual constitutes a real decoration to merit, for men of culture who do not bend to what in our days is called mainstream : that toxic narrative, that catalogues good and bad according to the needs of power.

In this sense, in his acts and writings, Peter Handke was an intellectual, with full credit.

I am certainly not able to discuss his literary merits, but I know Peter Handke for being one of the few voices that stood up against the planned disintegration of former Yugoslavia, promoted by the West through the systematic persecution and defamation of the Serbian population.

He was an Austrian citizen. His mother, who belonged to the Slovenian minority in Carinthia, committed suicide when Handke was still a little boy. The writer paid tribute to her memory in the almost autobiographical novel Wunschloses Unglück, Unhappiness Without Desires, of 1972. Perhaps also for this reason, Handke maintained an almost physical and sentimental bond with the Karst and Balkan lands and their peoples.

He dedicated three long reports to the situation in former Yugoslavia, and refused the Buchner Prize for solidarity with the Serbian people, who were experimenting criminal bombings on civilian population by the West Coalition.

On 18 March 2006, Peter Handke went to the funeral of Slobodan Milosevic.

To his straight back I want to dedicate his speech, transmitted by himself to the German newspaper Focus and here taken from the website of the Italian National Coordination for Yugoslavia [2].

“I wish I hadn’t been the only writer here in Pozarevac. I would have liked to have been at the side of another writer, for example Harold Pinter.  That would have been strong words. I have nothing but words of weakness. But weakness prevails today, in this place. It is a day not only for strong words, but also for words of weakness.

“(What follows has been pronounced in Serbocroato – text drafted by myself! – and I later retract myself in German). The world, what is called the world, knows all about Yugoslavia, on Serbia. The world, what is called the world, knows everything on Slobodan Milosevic. What is called the world knows the truth. That’s why what is called the world today is absent, and not only today, and not only here. What comes called the world is not the world. I know I do not know. I do not know the truth. But I look. I listen. I hear. I remember. I ask. That is why I am present today, with Yugoslavia, with Slobodan Milosevic.”

That final spike on the expression “That’s why what is called the world today is absent, and not only today, and not only here” contains all the feel of Handke towards the dominant narrative of contemporary society. The globalization of the market imposes a globalization of thought, an equal feeling of all those who are subject to it. In the logic of standardization, there can be no room for real critical thinking. This world accepts  well those who repeat the various polemics customs-cleared and diffused by the mainstream, good for the fans of the trained theatres, but all false. This world does not accept those who rise up to protect doubt, navigating the uncomfortable route of objectivity, facts, political, economic and social relations.

For Handke, it is precisely the words of the Power that are“journalistic language”, “dominant language”, we might add ourselves: defamatory language. The language of the man of culture, conversely, becomes “non dominant language”, when uncomfortable and because inconvenient, when true and as true.

In place of the contemptuous definition of Clemenceau’s Times, Aristotle defined intellectual virtues as science, wisdom, intelligence and art, which allowed the intellectual soul to reach the truth. Kant instead reminded that the student should not learn thoughts, but to think. You should not carry him, but drive him, if you want later he will be able to walk alone”[3].

Peter Handke was certainly a good captain, because he followed these virtuous routes.

To this uncommon courage, to this straight back, I pay tribute today, on the occasion of the award of that prize, Handke wanted to delete, perhaps because he felt it as a “dominant prize”.

The conformists stand up against this Nobel Prize award.

This is what really makes it a real award.

*

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

Notes

[1] Maurice Paleologue, Journal de l’affaire Dreyfus, Plon, 1955, p. 236.

[2] http://www.cnj.it/CULTURA/handke.htm#milos

[3] I. Kant, Antologia di Scritti Pedagogici, Il Segno dei Gabrielli, Verona 2004, p. 152 e ss.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

Lenin Moreno: aka Neocon Moreno

A popular insurrection is unfolding against the adoption of sweeping IMF reforms imposed by the “centre left” government of President Lenin Moreno.

In March 2019, a 4.2 billion dollar IMF loan was granted to Ecuador.

“We are here to help you” says the IMF. Our objective is to help Ecuador “modernize its economy and pave the way for strong, sustained, and equitable growth.”

Nonsense

This loan agreement initiates a process of economic and social destruction. What is at stake is an engineered economic depression.

The Neocons in Washington are firmly behind the IMF’s deadly economic medicine.

Meanwhile, president Lenin Moreno, an alleged  socialist  and  “Leninist” inspired by Russian Revolutionary Vladimir Lenin has fully endorsed the neoconservative agenda.

While President Lenin Moreno leads the centre-left Movimiento Alianza PAIS (Patria Altiva I Soberana), he is a “Neocon” in disguise, a US proxy: nicknamed President NeoCon Moreno. in Spanish Señor presidente Neo-coño Moreno. 

Mike Pompeo and Moreno are buddies.

(image right, Quito, July 2019)

In Quito in July, Secretary of State Pompeo welcomed “new” relations with Ecuador. ” A new era has begun”, not to mention the arrest of  Julian Assange by British authorities in April.

The IMF’s Deadly Economic Medicine

It’s the standard IMF economic medicine, the so-called “economic package” (paquetazo)  imposed on indebted countries. It sets  the stage for a major dislocation of Ecuador’s national economy.

Quite deliberately, the policies of the IMF are intended to impoverish an entire country, take over Ecuador’s oil economy. The IMF acts on behalf of Wall Street and the “Washington Consensus”.

While the IMF policy conditionalities are couched in technical jargon, the objectives are crystal clear (emphasis added):

What is the meaning of

“A combination of a wage bill realignment, a careful and gradual optimization of fuel subsidies”

Answer: Massive layoffs in the public sector, dramatic hikes in fuel prices, reduction in real wages, the privatization of pension funds, the privatization of health and education.

The price of diesel more than doubled overnight leading to the paralysis of public transportation. Gasoline prices increased by 29%.

The media will say that gasoline was subsidized. This is a misleading statement. Ecuador is the largest oil economy in South America after Venezuela. It has ample surpluses of crude oil. It sells oil locally at a price which is lower than the export price also with a view to supporting local industries.  This is a standard practice in many oil producing economies.

These dramatic hikes in fuel prices contribute to destabilizing all major sectors of the national economy. They immediately trigger inflation and a collapse in purchasing power, the contribute to the paralysis of public transport as well as internal commodity trade.

Ecuador Protests, October 2019

Fake IMF Loan

The dollar denominated external debt of Ecuador has skyrocketed.

The $4.2 billion loan does not contribute to an increase in financial resources for Ecuador. Quite the opposite. The IMF loan is tagged for the reimbursement of Ecuador’s external debt obligations. It comes in and it goes out. New loans to pay back old debts. It is fake loan. What it does is to “subsidise” Ecuador’s external creditors.

We cannot pay our debt servicing obligations. No problem says the IMF: we will lend you the money and with that money you will pay us back, namely the IMF loan is a “safety net” for Ecuador’s external creditors, namely Wall Street.

Ecuador no longer has control over its fiscal and monetary policy.

It’s central bank has been transformed into a colonial style currency board.

The entire financial system is dollarised, namely the US Federal Reserve and Wall Street ultimately call the shots.

In a dollarised economy, internal debts become external debts expressed in US dollars.

An entire nation has been impoverished.

The external debt goes fly hight. Macro-economic policies are controlled by the creditors.

The IMF Report 

click to read full report.

emphasis and comments in brackets added by Global Research

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Context: The authorities face a difficult situation. Wage increases have outpaced productivity growth [IMF calls for a reduction in real wages] over the past decade which, has led to a deterioration in competitiveness. This has been exacerbated by a strong U.S. dollar—Ecuador’s economy is fully dollarized—leaving the real exchange rate overvalued. [engineered by Wall Street]

Public debt is high and rising, the government faces sizable gross financing needs, and international reserves are precariously low. The recent volatility in oil prices and tighter global financial conditions have exacerbated these strains.

Article IV: The Article IV discussions focused on diagnosing the nature of the imbalances facing Ecuador and the policy changes that will be needed to address them. At the center of the discussion was the proper calibration of the size, pace, and composition of the reduction in the fiscal deficit that will be needed in the coming years. [implementation  of drastic austerity measures] In addition, there was broad agreement that fundamental supply-side efforts will be needed to foster competitiveness, create jobs, rebuild institutions, and make Ecuador a more attractive destination for private investment. Finally, improving the social safety net and increasing the effectiveness of public spending, particularly on health and education, will be essential to achieving strong, sustained, and socially equitable growth.

Program Objectives: Consistent with the findings of the Article IV, the authorities’ policy plan seeks to decisively address the systemic vulnerabilities facing Ecuador. The goals of these policies are to boost competitiveness and job creation, protect the poor and most vulnerable, fortify the institutional foundations for dollarization, [denies Ecuador to have an independent and sovereign monetary policy] and to improve transparency and good governance to public sector operations while strengthening the fight against corruption.

Program Modalities: The proposed program would be a 36-month Extended Fund Facility with access of US$4.209 billion (SDR 3.035 billion, 435 percent of quota) [New loans to pay back outstanding foreign debts, harsh policy conditionalities imposed by creditors].

The program has quarterly reviews and the full amount of Fund resources would be made available for direct budget support. Performance criteria have been established on the non-oil primary balance of the nonfinancial public sector (including fuel subsidies), net international reserves (excluding bank deposits held at the central bank), and on social assistance spending. There are continuous performance criteria to prevent new external payment arrears and to prohibit central bank financing of the nonfinancial public sector (both directly or indirectly through public banks). The program also includes a quarterly indicative target on the overall balance of the nonfinancial public sector.

The recent military-driven reinvigoratation of the US-Greek Strategic Partnership is motivated by their shared interests in ensuring the security of a prospective Greek-“Israeli”-Cypriot (GRISCY) pipeline from Turkish claims to the last-mentioned island’s exclusive economic zone through which this project must traverse en route to Europe.

***

The Kurds in Northern Syria have been abandoned by the United States military and left to the mercy/mercilessness of the invading Turks.

.

.

.

This is what’s happening in N. Syria now. Most stable part of the country is being ruined. These armed groups are executing people on M4 Highway earlier today pic.twitter.com/kw7s29NvlW

— Mutlu Civiroglu (@mutludc) October 12, 2019

Is it a surprise?

Tibet expert Thomas Laird tells of an old Tibetan guerrilla who had supplied intelligence about Chinese atomic testing that was, according to CIA sources, “dollar for dollar, some of the most valuable intelligence of the Cold War.” [1] Yet, according to Laird, the guerrilla cum-invaluable intelligence asset was subsequently left to languish in poverty and anonymity.

In the 1960s, the CIA promised the Tibetan guerrillas that the United States wanted to help expel the Chinese from Tibet. However, in the 1970s, support to the Tibetan guerrillas was suddenly cut off. [2]

The result was hundreds of guerrillas killed, left-behind American ordnance killed children, and former allies were left in poverty.

It is not an unusual story of the US abandoning an ally. South Vietnam was quickly left to fend for itself as Americans scurried to rooftops and clambered onto helicopters to escape. [3]

There is also the little known history of Korea which shared an enemy with the US during WWII: imperialist Japan. At the war’s end, the general of the defeated Japanese, Abe Endo, surrendered the reins of self-government to Yo Un Hyung, a politician well regarded in both the south and north of Korea. Yo participated in the forming of People’s Committees in all Korean provinces and the Korean People’s Republic arose. However, Japanese general Kozuki Yoshio convinced his American counterpart, general John Hodge, that the new government in Korea was communist. Consequently, the communist-phobic US abolished the government of the Korean People’s Republic, and the United States Army Military Government was installed in the south of a truncated Korea. [4]

The abandonment of the Kurds is not a phenomenon attributable solely to president Donald Trump.

The US should never have been there in Syria in the first place. The Syrian government never granted the US permission to enter sovereign Syrian territory. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad had made it known,

“Any foreign troops coming to Syria without our invitation or consultation or permission, they are invaders, whether they are American, Turkish, or any other one.”

The Kurds — vulnerable, desperate, and longing as they may be for sovereignty over claimed lands — decided to align with the US. Still, this begs the question: given the history of the US abandoning erstwhile allies, why would anyone trust the US to uphold its end of an alliance?

Consider whence Americans came to be. Were they not originally Europeans, for the most part ex-pat Brits, who fought against their mother country for greater control over their own affairs in the 13 colonies? And how was it that the 13 colonies transformed into a continent-wide 50 states? Wars of extermination against the Indigenous peoples, broken treaties, war with Mexico, the annexation of Hawai’i, the enslavement of Africans — what sort of national psyche would be expected to emerge from such a historiography? [5] The US Establishment seeks to depict the US as a beacon on the hill, an indispensable nation, and the land of the free. Yet the beacon’s light illuminates an undeniable history of genocide, [6] unremitting racism, unremitting wars, and class war on its own citizenry.

Now, the Kurds have set aside any possible concerns about losing face and asked the Syrian government to intervene.

The lesson: beware of forging alliances with dubious allies.

*

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.

Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Twitter: @kimpetersen.

Notes

1. Thomas Laird, Into Tibet: The CIA’s First Atomic Spy and His Secret Expedition to Lhasa, location 160.

2. Laird, loc. 163.

3. See Earl Tilford, “Abandoning Vietnam: How America Left and South Vietnam Lost Its War (Book Review),” HistoryNet.

4. Young Park, Korea and the Imperialists: In Search of a National Identity, (AuthorHouse, 2009): 188-192.

5. The historical list of US acquired “possessions” is much longer and includes Puerto Rico, Guam, and Philippines from the US-Spanish War, the Canal Zone in Panama, and several Pacific Ocean islands, and the military occupation of the ethnically cleansed Chagos archipelago.

6. “Somehow, even ‘genocide’ seems an inadequate description for what happened, yet rather than viewing it with horror, most Americans have conceived of it as their country’s manifest destiny.” Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States, (Beacon Press, 2014): 79. Review.

In spite of online censorship efforts directed against the independent media, we are happy to say that readership on globalresearch.ca has recently increased. We wish to thank all of you who share our articles far and wide.

We cover a diversity of key issues you would be hard pressed to find on any other single online news source. This is truly independent news and analysis, a dying breed.

Our costs have increased and our revenue has gone down over the past year. We are running a monthly deficit. Help us keep the independent voice alive by becoming a member or making a donation today!

*     *     *

Kurds Ally with Damascus Against Turkish Aggression

By Stephen Lendman, October 14, 2019

After Turkish forces launched cross-border aggression last week, things greatly escalated — Kurdish YPG fighters outgunned and outmatched against the onslaught. Their only option was seeking accommodation with Bashar al-Assad against a common Turkish foe, President Erdogan hell bent to annex northern Syrian territory, especially its oil-producing areas.

Erdogan War Crimes, SDF Atrocities, No Reconciliation

By Miri Wood, October 13, 2019

Erdogan has accelerated his war crimes against Syria, in Day 2 of Turkey’s new military aggression. His regime thug troops again bombed the electrical cables of the Alouk Water Station in Ras al-Ain, bombed on Day 1, and immediately repaired by the Syrian government. This water plant meets the daily needs of almost 2 million Syrians and remains out of service at the time of this writing. The Industrial Region of Ras al-Ain has also been targeted.

Turkey’s “Operation Peace Spring” Rages on Creating a Chaotic Battlefield in Northeastern Syria

By Sarah Abed, October 13, 2019

Turkey has stated that “Operation Peace Spring” is directed at safeguarding its border security, preventing the formation of a terror corridor, preventing the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) and its Syrian offshoots the People’s Protection Units (YPG), Democratic Union Party (PYD) and Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) from disrupting the demographic structures of the region, protecting Syria’s territorial integrity, resettling Syrian refugees in terror-free safe zone, terminate the PKK/YPG/PYD drug trade including production and sales, and preventing these militias from recruiting child soldiers.

Video: Turkish Forces Confront Kurdish Armed Groups in Northeastern Syria

By South Front, October 13, 2019

The main Turkish efforts were focused on the towns of Ras al-Ayn and Tell Abyad. Turkey-led forces captured several villages surrounding the towns and event entered Tell Abyad. Nonetheless, the situation in the area remains unstable. It is expected that the Syrian Democratic Forces, a brand used by mainstream media to describe the YPG and the YPJ, will be able to defend fortified urban areas until they are not encircled.

Cynical Enterprises: The Kurds Await Their Fate, Betrayed by the US

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, October 11, 2019

The United States has gone the way of other powers in this regard.  On Monday, the White House announced that US troops would be withdrawn from the Syrian-Turkish border.  At a press conference, President Donald Trump explainedthat the US had been in Syria “for a long time”.  The stint was intended to be short; and besides, the US had, by and large, “defeated ISIS.  One hundred percent of the caliphate.” (This point is confutedby the US Defence Department Inspector General.)  Distinctly un-imperial sentiments were expressed.  “We want to bring our soldiers home.  These are the endless wars.”

Is “Operation Peace Spring” a Trap Sprung by Trump on Turkey?

By Andrew Korybko, October 11, 2019

It’s worthwhile to wonder whether “Operation Peace Spring” is a trap sprung by Trump on Turkey after the US created the conditions for Ankara’s invasion but then proceeded to threaten punitive measures against the country after its nominal NATO “ally” bit the bait and conventionally invaded Syria for the third time.

US Forces Will Not Likely Withdraw from Syria this Year. The Kurds Remain the Biggest Losers

By Elijah J. Magnier, October 10, 2019

Notwithstanding President Donald Trump’s announcement of the deal with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan to tactically withdraw US forces from specific locations in occupied north-east Syria- and in consequence to leave the Syrian Kurds to their fate- the departure of US forces from Syria is highly implausible. These US forces have established several military bases and airports, offering logistic and operational support to US forces in Iraq and to the Israeli Air Force. Abandoning the occupation of north-east Syria would result in giving up a strategic location in the Middle East, a move that the US administration is not expected to take this year.

*

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

The UK Ivory Act was passed with overwhelming popular support and cross-party Parliamentary backing.

It introduces tough regulations on the buying and selling of ivory from, to and within the UK and received Royal Assent in December 2018.

But the landmark Act – for which we and our NGO partners effectively campaigned – will now be subject to Judicial Review at the High Court on Wednesday (16 October).

Mary Rice, our Executive Director, said:

“The UK Ivory Act has been welcomed globally as an important step in stifling a demand for ivory which threatens elephants in the wild.

“We’re extremely concerned about attempts by British antiques dealers to have the UK ban quashed.”

The antiques lobby group – a company of antiques dealers and collectors called the Friends of Antique Cultural Treasures Ltd (FACT) – argues that the Ivory Act is incompatible with EU law, which allows trade in pre-1947 ‘antique’ ivory. It also claims the act infringes antiques dealers’ human rights by not letting them buy or sell ivory.

However, the European Commission is currently considering new restrictions on ivory trade across Europe which are based in part on the UK Ivory Act and even use similar language.

Other countries, such as Singapore, Australia and New Zealand, have introduced, or are in the process of introducing, similar legislation also based on the Act.

While the antiques trade claims the UK Ivory Act will result in “substantial economic damage” to the industry, ivory accounts for less than one per cent of annual sales in many UK auction houses.

The Act does not prevent individuals from owning ivory, from passing items on as family heirlooms or donating it to museums and includes a number of carefully crafted exemptions.

The UK Ivory Act also has the support of many African countries with significant elephant populations, which are calling for stricter controls on the sale of ivory abroad as they struggle to control poaching at home.

Thirteen African governments belonging to the Elephant Protection Initiative (EPI) signed a statement hailing the passing of the Act in 2018:

“We believe the UK’s new law will … support and encourage enforcement efforts and initiatives to reduce ivory trafficking in Africa, and around the world.”

A decision from the High Court is expected before the end of the year.

*

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

Featured image is from The Ecologist

Even before Rep. Tulsi Gabbard threatened to boycott the upcoming Dem debate as the DNC usurps the role of voters in the Democratic primacy 2020 election and with an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump on the table, the Swamp was stirred and its slimy muck may be about to come to the surface as never before.  If so, those revelations are long overdue.

It is no secret to the observant that since the 2016 election, the Democratic Party has been in a state of near-collapse, the victim of its own hubris, having lost their moral compass with unsubstantiated Russisgate allegations; those accusations continue as a futile exercise of domestic regime change.   Today’s Dems are less than a bona fide opposition party offering zero policy solutions, unrecognizable from past glories and not the same political party many of us signed up for many years ago.  Instead, the American public is witnessing a frenzied, unscrupulous strategy. desperate in the denial of its demise, confronting its own shadow of corruption as the Dems have morphed into a branch of the CIA  – not unlike origins of the East German Stasi government.

It should not be necessary to say but in today’s hyper volatile political climate it is: No American should be labelled as anything other than a loyal American to be deeply disturbed by the Democrat/CIA collusion that is currently operating an unprecedented Kangaroo Court in secret, behind closed doors; thus posing an ominous provocation to what remains of our Constitutional Republic.

As any politically savvy, independent thinking American might grasp, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and their entire coterie of sycophants always knew that Russiagate was a crock of lies.  They lied to their willing Democratic rank n file, they lied to American public and they continue to lie about their bogus Impeachment campaign.

It may be that whistleblower Ed Snowden’s revelations about the NSA surveillance state was the first inkling for many Americans that there is a Big Problem with an out-of-control intelligence community until Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned that Trump was being ‘really dumb” in daring to question Intel’s faulty conclusion that Russia hacked the 2016 election.

“Let me tell you.  You take on the intelligence community = they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

Inescapably, Schumer was suggesting  that the Congress has no oversight, that there is no accountability and that the US has lost its democratic roots when a newly elected President does not have the authority to question or publicly disagree with any of the Intel agencies. 

Since the 2016 election, there has been a steady drumbeat of the US Intel’s unabashed efforts to undermine and otherwise prevent a newly elected President from governing – which sounds like a clear case of insubordination or some might call it treasonous.  The Intel antipathy does not appear to be rooted in cuts to a favorite social services program but rather protecting a power, financial and influence agenda that goes far deeper and more profound than most Americans care to contemplate.

Among a plethora of egregious corporate media reactions, no doubt stirred by their Intel masters, was to a July, 2018 summit meeting between Russian President Putin and Trump in Helsinki emblematic of illegitimate censures from Intel veterans and its cronies:  “Trump sides with Putin over US Intelligence” CNN,  “Did Trump Commit Treason at Putin Meeting?” Newsweek, and “Trump Slammed Over Disgrace, Disgusting Press Conference with Putin” Newsweek.  Not one praised Trump for pursuing peace with Russia.

And yet, fellow Americans, it is curious to consider that there was no outrage after the 911 attacks in 2001 from any member of Congress, President Bush or the Corporate Media that the US intelligence community had utterly failed in its mission to keep the American public safe.  There was no reckoning, not one person in authority was held accountable, not one person who had the responsibility to ‘know’ was fired from any of the Intel agencies.  Why is that?

As a result of  the corrupt foundation of the Russiagate allegations, Attorney General Bob Barr and Special Investigator John Durham appear hot on the trail with law enforcement in Italy as they have apparently scared the bejesus out of what little common sense remains among the Democratic hierarchy as if Barr/Durham might be headed for Obama’s Oval Office.  Barr’s earlier comment before the Senate that “spying did occur’ and that ‘it’s a big deal’ when an incumbent administration (ie the Obama Administration) authorizes a counter-Intelligence operation on an opposing candidate (ie Donald Trump) has the Dems in panic-stricken overdrive – and that is what is driving the current Impeachment Inquiry.

With the stark realization that none of the DNC’s favored top tier candidates has the mojo to go the distance, the Democrats have now focused on a July 25th phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump allegedly ‘pressured’ Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden’s relationship with Burisma, the country’s largest natural gas provider.

At issue is any hanky panky involving Burisma payments to Rosemont Seneca Partners, an equity firm owned by Joe’s errant son, Hunter, who served on Burisma’s Board for a modest $50,000 a month.  Zelensky, who defeated the US-endorsed incumbent President Petro Poroshenko in a landslide victory, speaks Russian, was elected to clean up corruption and end the conflict in eastern Ukraine.  The war in the Donbass began as a result of the US State Department’s role in the  overthrow of democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.

Trump’s first priority on July 25^th was Crowd Strike, a cybersecurity firm with links to the HRC campaign which was hired by the DNC to investigate Russian hacking of its server. The Dems have reason to be concerned since it is worth contemplating why the FBI did not legally mandate that the DNC turn its server over to them for an official Federal forensic inspection.  One can only speculate…those chickens may be coming home to roost.

Days after an anonymous whistleblower (not to be confused with a real whistleblower like Edward Snowden) later identified as a CIA analyst with a professional history linked to Joe Biden, publicly released a Complaint against Trump.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the initiation of an ambiguous Impeachment Inquiry campaign with little specificity about the process.  The Complaint is suspect since it reads more like a professionally prepared Affidavit and the Dems consider Pelosi’s statement as sufficient to initiate a formal process that fails to follow the time-honored path of a full House vote predicating a legitimate impeachment inquiry on to the Judiciary Committee.

Of special interest is how the process to date is playing out with the House Intelligence Committee in a key role conducting what amounts to clandestine meetings, taking depositions and witness statements behind closed doors with a still secret unidentified whistleblower’s identity and voice obscured from Republican members of the Intel Committee and a witness testifying without being formally sworn in – all too eerily similar to East Germany.

The pretense of shielding the thinly veiled CIA operative as a whistleblower from public exposure can only be seen as an overly-dramatic transparent performance as the Dems have never exhibited any concern about protecting real whistleblowers like Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Bill Binney, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Julian Assange, Jeffrey Sterling and others who were left to fend for themselves as the Obama Administration prosecuted more true, authentic whistleblowers than any other administration since the Espionage Act of 1917.

As the paradigm shift takes its toll on the prevailing framework of reality and our decayed political institutions, (the FBI and DOJ come to mind as the Inspector General’s report is due at  week’s end), how much longer does the Democratic Party, which no longer serves a useful public purpose, deserve to exist?

*

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.

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

For close to 40 years the IMF has weaponized its handle on the western economy through the dollar-based western monetary system, and brutally destroyed nation after nation, thereby killed hundreds of thousands of people. Indirectly, of course, as the IMF would not use traditional guns and bombs, but financial instruments that kill – they kill by famine, by economic strangulation, preventing indispensable medical equipment and medication entering a country, even preventing food from being imported, or being imported at horrendous prices only the rich can pay.

The latest victim of this horrifying IMF scheme is Ecuador. For starters, you should know that since January 2000, Ecuador’s economy is 100% dollarized, compliments of the IMF (entirely controlled by the US Treasury, by force of an absolute veto). The other two fully dollarized Latin American countries are El Salvador and Panama.

The Wall Street Journal recently stated that Ecuador “has the misfortune to be an oil producer with a ‘dollarized’ economy that uses the U.S. currency as legal tender.” The Journal added,

“the appreciation of the U.S. dollar against other currencies has decreased the net exports of non-oil commodities from Ecuador, which, coupled with the volatility of oil prices, is constraining the country’s potential for economic growth.”

Starting in the mid 1990’s, culminating around 1998, Ecuador suffered a severe economic crisis, resulting from climatic calamities, and US corporate and banking oil price manipulations (petrol is Ecuador’s main export product), resulting in massive bank failures and hyper-inflation. Ecuador’s economy at that time had been semi-dollarized, like that of most Latin American countries, i.e. Peru, Colombia, Chile, Brazil – and so on.

The ‘crisis’ was a great opportunity for the US via the IMF to take full control of the Ecuadorian (petrol) economy, by a 100% dollarizing it. The IMF propagated the same recipe for Ecuador as it did ten years earlier for Argentina, namely full dollarization of the economy in order to combat inflation and to bring about economic stability and growth. In January 2000, then President Jorge Jamil Mahuad Witt, from the “Popular Democracy Party”, or the Ecuadorian Christian Democratic Union (equivalent to the German CDU), declared the US dollar as the official currency of Ecuador, replacing their own currency, the Sucre.

Adopting another country’s currency is an absurdity and can only bring failure. And that it did, almost to the day, 10 years after Argentina was forced by the same US-led villains to revalue her peso to parity with the US-dollar, no fluctuations allowed. Same reason (“economic crisis”, hyper-inflation), same purpose: controlling the riches of the country – absolute failure was preprogrammed. Did Ecuador not learn from the Argentinian experience and converted her currency at the very moment the Argentinian economy collapsed due to dollarization, into the US dollar? – That is not only a fraud, but a planned fraud.

Ecuadorian goods and services quoted in dollars, became unaffordable for locals and uncompetitive for exports. This led to social unrests, resulting in a popular ‘golpe’. President Mahuad was disposed, had to flee the country, and was replaced by Gustavo Noboa, from the same CDU party (2000 – 2003). Ever since the dollar remained controversial among the Ecuadorian population. President Rafael Correa’s quiet attempt to return to the Sucre, was answered by a CIA-inspired police coup attempt on 30 September 2010.

In 2017, the CIA / NED (National Endowment for Democracy) and the US State Department have brought about a so-called “soft” regime change. They urged (very likely coerced) Rafael Correa to abstain from running again for President, as the vast majority of Ecuadorians requested him to do. This would have required a Constitutional amendment which probably would have been easily accepted by Parliament. Instead they had Correa endorse his former Vice-President (2007-2013) Lenin Moreno, who run on Correa’s platform, the socialist PAIS Alliance. Therefore, expected to continue in Correa’s line with same socioeconomic policies.

Less than a year later, Moreno turned tables, became an outright traitor to his country and the people who voted for him. He converted Ecuador’s economy to the neoliberal doctrine – privatization of everything, stealing the money from the social sectors, depriving people of work, drastically reducing social services and converting a surplus economy of tremendous social gains into one of poverty and misery.

President Correa left the country a modest debt of about 40% to GDP at the end of his Presidency in 2017. A debt-GDP ratio that would be no problem anywhere in the world. Compare this to the US debt vs. GDP – 105% in current terms and about 700% in terms of unmet obligations (net present value of total outstanding obligations). There was absolutely no reason to call the IMF for help. The IMF, the long arm of the US Treasury – ‘bought’ its way into Moreno’s neoliberal Ecuador, coinciding with Moreno evicting Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

The IMF loan of US$ 4,2 billion increases the debt / GDP ratio by 4% and brings social misery and upheaval in return, and that as usual, at an unimaginable cost, by neoliberal economists called “externalities”. It was practically a US “present” for Moreno’s treason, bringing Assange closer into US custody. What most people are unaware of, is that at the same time, Moreno forgave US$ 4.5 billion in fines, interest and other dues to large corporations and oligarchs, hence decapitalizing the country’s treasury. The amount of canceled corporate fiscal obligations is about equivalent to the IMF loan, plunging large sectors of the Ecuadorian population into more misery.

Besides, under wrong pretexts it allowed Moreno to apply neoliberal policies, all those that usually come as draconian conditions with IMF loans and that eventually benefit only a small elite in the country – but allows western banking and corporations to further milk the countries social system.

According to a 2017 report of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), an economic thinktank in Washington, Ecuador’s economy has done rather well under Rafael Correa’s 10-year leadership (2007 – 2017). The country has improved her key indicators significantly: Average annual GDP growth was 1.5% (0.6% past 26 years average); the poverty rate declined by 38%, extreme poverty by 47%, a multiple of poverty reduction of that in the previous ten years, thanks to a horizontally distributive growth; inequality (Gini coefficient) fell substantially, from 0.55 to 0.47; the government doubled social spending from 4.3% in 2006 to 8.6% in 2016; tripled education spending from 0.7% to 2.1% with a corresponding increase in school enrollments; increased public investments from 4% of GDP in 2006 to 10% in 2016.

Now, Moreno is in the process of reversing these gains. Only six months after contracting the IMF loans, he has already largely succeeded. The public outcry can be heard internationally. Quito is besieged by tens of thousands of demonstrators, steadily increasing as large numbers, in the tens of thousands, of indigenous people are coming from Ecuador’s Amazon region and the Andes to Quito to voice their discontent with their traitor president. Government tyranny is rampant. Moreno declared a 60-day state of emergency – with curfew and a militarized country. As a consequence, Moreno moved the Government Administration to Guayaquil and ordered one of the most severe police and military repressions, Ecuador has ever known, resulting within ten days to at least 7 people killed, about 600 injured and about 1,000 people arrested.

Source: Workers’ Voice

The protests are directed against the infamous Government Decree 883, that dictates major social reforms, including an increase in fuel prices by more than 100%, reflecting directly on public transportation, as well as on food prices; privatization of public services, bringing about untold layoffs, including some 23,000 government employees; an increase in Aggregated Value Taxes – all part of the so-called “paquetazo”, imposed by the IMF. Protesters called on Moreno, “Fuera asesino, fuera” – Get out, murderer, get out! – Will they succeed?

The IMF’s guns are needlessly imposed debt, forced privatization of social services and public assets as railways, roads, and worst of all, health, education, water supply and sewerage services. Unemployment rises, extreme poverty skyrockets, public service tariffs – water, electricity, transportation – increase, often exponentially, depriving people from moving to work or look for new employment elsewhere. Diseases that otherwise may have been curable, like cancers, under the new regime lack medication. Patients die prematurely. Depression brings about rapidly rising suicide rates, as the British medical journal Lancet has observed in many IMF oppressed countries, but especially in Greece.

Targeted are primarily those nations that do not want to bend to the dictate of Washington, and even more so those with natural resources the west covets, or countries that are in strategic geographic locations, where NATO wants to establish itself or get a stronger foothold, i.e. Greece. The IMF is often helped by the World Bank. The former providing, or rather coercing, a ‘debt-strapped’ country into accepting so-called rescue packages, billions of dollars of loans, at exorbitant “high-risk” interest rates, with deadly strings attached.

The latter, the WB, would usually come in with loans – also euphemistically called “blank checks” – to be disbursed against a matrix of fulfilled conditions, of economic reforms, privatizations. Again, all usually resulting in massive government layoffs, unemployment, poverty. In fact, both the IMF and the WB approaches are similar and often overlapping – imposing “structural adjustment” (now in disguise given different names), to steal a countries resources, and sovereignty, by making them dependent on the very financial institutions that pretend to ‘help’ them.

The three most recent and flagrant cases of IMF interference were Greece, Ukraine and Argentina. Greece was doubly destroyed, once by her brothers and sisters of the European non-Union that blackmailed them into staying with the euro, instead of exiting it and converting to their local currency and regaining financial sovereignty.

Ukraine, possibly the richest country in terms of national resources and with an enormous agricultural potential due to her fertile soil, was “regime changed” by a bloody coup, The Maidan massacre in February 2014, instigated and planned by the CIA, the EU and NATO and carried out through the very US Embassy in Kiev. This was all long-term planning. Remember Victoria Nuland boasting that the US has spent more than 5 billion dollars over the past five year to bring about regime change and to convert Ukraine into a fully democratic country and making it ready to enter the European Union?

The western allies put a Nazi Government into Kiev, created a “civil war” with the eastern Russia-aligned part of Ukraine, the Donbass. Thousands of people were killed, millions fled the country, mostly to Russia – the country’s debt went through the roof, and – in comes the IMF, approving in December 2018a 14-month Stand-By Arrangement for Ukraine, with an immediate disbursement of US$ 1.4 billion. This is totally against the IMF’s own Constitution, because it does not allow lending to a country at war or conflict. Ukraine was an “exception”, dictated by the US. Blamed for the ever-changing and escalating Ukraine fiasco was Russia.

Another IMF victim is Argentina. In December 2015 through fraudulent election, Washington put a neoliberal henchman into the Presidency, Mauricio Macri. He carried out economic and labor reforms by decree and within the first 12 months in office, increased unemployment and poverty from about 12% he inherited from his predecessor, Christine Kirchner, to over 30%.

Within 15 years of Kirchner Governments, Argentina largely recovered from the collapse of 2000 / 2001 / 2002, accumulating a healthy reserve. There was no need to call the IMF to the rescue, except if it was a pre-condition for Macri to become president. In September 2018, Argentina contracted from the IMF the largest ever IMF loan of 57.1 billion dollars, to be disbursed over a three-year period, plunging Argentina in an almost irrecoverable debt situation.

The Bretton Woods Organizations – World Bank and IMF, were created in 1944 precisely for that reason, to enslave the world, particularly the resources-rich countries. The purpose of these so-called international financial institutions, foresaw an absolute veto power of the United States, meaning they are doing the bidding of the US Treasury. They were created under the UN Charter for good disguise, and are to work hand-in-glove with the fiat monetary system created in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Act. The pretext was to monitor western “convertible” currencies that subscribed to the also newly modified gold standard (1 Troy ounce [31.1 grams] of gold = US$ 35) , also established during the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944.

Both organizations started lending money – the Marshall Fund, managed by the world Bank in the 1950s – to war devastated Europe, moving gradually into economic development of “Third World” countries – and, eventually, in the 1980s showing their evil heads by introducing the neoliberal doctrines of the Washington Consensus worldwide. It is a miracle how they get away with spewing so much misery – literally unopposed for the last 30 – 40 years – throughout the world. Why are they not be stopped and dismantled? – The UN has 193 members; only a small proportion of them benefit from the IMF-WB financial crimes. Why does the vast majority – also potential victims, remain silent?

*

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

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

Introduction

Opera productions depend on much state support, which is in decline, as states themselves go further and further into debt. To try and overcome these problems there have been many attempts at changes in form and content and even transmission in recent years. But these changes do not solve cost or accessibility issues especially in an era where it is difficult to get people to go out to the much cheaper cinema house, let alone a phenomenally expensive opera production. Although nowadays one is more likely to experience opera as cinema than theatre. Can such an expensive medium become popular again? What makes an opera popular? Can opera be relevant to people’s struggles today?

Here I will look at the origins and history of opera from the late 1590s until today. Like other forms of culture, opera was initially influenced by Enlightenment ideas in its Baroque (1590-1750) and Classical periods (1750-1820), while the Romantic (1800-1914) reaction predominated in the early nineteenth century up to the early twentieth century. Enlightenment and Romantic influences could still be seen throughout the twentieth century with Verismo (c1890-1920) and Modernism respectively. The twenty-first century has brought interesting changes in form and content and a global appreciation of opera but it remains an essentially elite form of entertainment in terms of cost and audiences.

Early opera – ‘did not normally furnish half the expense’

Jacopo Peri is credited with developing the first operas. His earliest surviving opera Dafne exists mainly as a libretto and fragments of music. The earliest surviving full opera is Peri’s Euridice which was first performed in 1600. Peri worked with Jacopo Corsi, also a composer of the time, both of whom were influenced by classical Greek and Roman works. They worked with the poet Ottavio Rinuccini, a member of the Florentine Camerata, who wrote the texts. The Camerata were a group of humanists, poets and musicians in late Renaissance Florence who sought to produce new works more in keeping with the spirit of humanism in the form and style of the ancient Greeks.

Renaissance humanism was a revival in the study of classical antiquity, at first in Italy and then spreading across Western Europe from the 14th to the 16th centuries. Their aim was educate people and create a participatory citizenry through the study of the studia humanitatis, today known as the humanities: grammar, rhetoric, history, poetry, and moral philosophy. The Renaissance contributed heavily to the spread of Enlightenment ideas which was a much broader movement.

In France, the Enlightenment is traditionally dated from 1715 to 1789, i.e., from the beginning of the reign of Louis XV until the French Revolution. Enlightenment ideas focused on reason as the main source of knowledge and propagated ideals of liberty, progress, toleration, constitutional government, and separation of church and state in opposition to absolute monarchy and the dogmas of the Catholic church.

The intellectuals of the Enlightenment believed that “humanity progressed through the rational acquisition and organization of knowledge, and that real knowledge resulted from observation and logic rather than tradition, speculation, or divine inspiration.”

Elightenment ideas also had a profound affect on different forms of culture, particularly in the creation of opera.

The Florentine Camerata were influenced by the historian and humanist Girolamo Mei who believed that ancient Greek drama was mainly sung rather than spoken as the Greek Aristoxenus had written that speech should set the pattern for song. The Camerata were also critical of contemporary polyphony which was felt to be overused and obscured the words and their meanings. Therefore:

“Intrigued by ancient descriptions of the emotional and moral effect of ancient Greek tragedy and comedy, which they presumed to be sung as a single line to a simple instrumental accompaniment, the Camerata proposed creating a new kind of music. Instead of trying to make the clearest polyphony they could, the Camerata voiced an opinion recorded by a contemporary Florentine, ‘means must be found in the attempt to bring music closer to that of classical times.'”

These musical experiments were called monody and Peri’s operas had the entire drama sung in monodic style with gambas, lutes, and harpsichord or organ for continuo as the main instruments. Thus we see a radical development in musical form along with content coming from Greek mythology. This new ‘music drama’ was called ‘opera’ (work). Over time other composers took up these new ideas and eventually synthesised monody and polyphony.

Peri’s opera Euridice tells the story of Orpheus (Orfeo), a great musician, who journeyed to the underworld to plead with the gods to revive his wife Euridice after she had been fatally injured. Orpheus uses his legendary voice to convince Pluto the god of the underworld to return Euridice to life. He is successful and they return from the underworld and rejoice.

The use of this particular story from Greek mythology in 1600 showed the growing divide between the humanist intellectuals and the church. This was at a time when “the persecution of witches was the official policy of both the Catholic and Protestant Churches.” According to Helen Ellerbe in The Dark Side of Christian History:

The fear of the devil and hell had reached terrible proportions and any reasonable call for mercy or reconsideration, like the theme of Euridice, most likely would have been dangerous at that time, except in allegorical forms.

Not long after, the Italian composer Claudio Monteverdi (with a libretto by Alessandro Striggio) brought out an opera based on the same story in 1607 entitled L’Orfeo, an opera which is still regularly performed.

Monteverdi constructed the opera score out of a daring use of many different existing forms – the aria, the strophic song, recitative, choruses, dances, dramatic musical interludes. While there was an actual written score, instrumentalists were allowed freedom to elaborate musically and singers to embellish their arias. While the work was admired up to the 1650s it was soon forgotten until the 19th century due to changing styles and tastes. When first performed it was in front of a a courtly audience of nobility and intellectual aristocrats. However, with the spread of interest in opera throughout Europe, public opera houses were built to hold larger and larger audiences by the end of the seventeenth century. Yet the expense of producing opera was becoming apparent as a French commentator noted in 1683:

“the nobility of Venice patronized the great opera theatres more for their divertissement particular that for any financial profit that might accrue, since income from opera did not normally furnish half of the expense’.” [2]

Thus we can see that opera was born in a time of church hierarchy and power, determined to wipe out dissent resulting in widespread fear and danger while Renaissance humanists were focusing on ancient Greek ideas of democratic society, and values like mercy.

Classical – ‘divesting the music entirely of abuses’

It was the German classical composer, Christoph Willibald Gluck who reformed opera in the 1700s as the freedom allowed to musicians and singers to extrapolate was seen to have gotten out of hand. His first reform opera, Orfeo ed Euridice, was premiered in Venice in 1762 and then in Paris, in a revised French-version, in 1774. In his own words, Gluck sets out his reasons:

“When I undertook to set this poem, it was my design to divest the music entirely of all those abuses with which the vanity of singers, or the too great complacency of composers, has so long disfigured the Italian opera, and rendered the most beautiful and magnificent of all public exhibitions, the most tiresome and ridiculous. It was my intention to confine music to its true dramatic province, of assisting poetical expression, and of augmenting the interest of the fable; without interrupting the action, or chilling it with useless and superfluous ornaments; for the office of music, when joined to poetry, seemed to me, to resemble that of colouring in a correct and well disposed design, where the lights and shades only seem to animate the figures, without altering the out-line.”

Gluck, like other classical period composers sought to simplify music emphasizing “light elegance in place of the Baroque’s dignified seriousness and impressive grandeur. […] Composers from this period sought dramatic effects, striking melodies, and clearer textures. One of the big textural changes was a shift away from the complex, dense polyphonic style of the Baroque, in which multiple interweaving melodic lines were played simultaneously, and towards homophony, a lighter texture which uses a clear single melody line accompanied by chords.”

Gluck, Franz Joseph Haydn and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart were all major composers of the classical style. These composers were on the cusp of a major change in society with burgeoning capitalism changing the balance of power in the feudal aristocratic societies of Europe.

In the past the role of music was to entertain the wealthy and powerful in their mansions and castles while praising the glory of God in the churches. Composers, if they were lucky, had the job of Kapellmeister, or church composer who worked as artisans producing mainly hymns and oratorios or in-house for a noble patron.

Mozart sought to move away from this life to compose for a more bourgeois audience and become an independent contributor to intellectual life. This was a developing attitude of the intellectuals of Enlightenment Europe who believed in the improvement of humanity and civil society through increased secular knowledge.

Portrait of Francisco D’Andrade in the title role of  Don Giovanni by Max Slevogt, 1912

The only way Israelis can be made to sit up and take note of the disaster unfolding next door in Gaza, it seems, is when they fear the fallout may spill out of the tiny coastal enclave and engulf them too. Environmental experts from two Israeli universities issued a report in June warning that the imminent collapse of Gaza’s water, sewage and electricity infrastructure would soon rebound on Israel.

Gideon Bromberg, the Israeli director of EcoPeace Middle East, which commissioned the report, told journalists:

“Without urgent, vigorous action, plagues and infections will break out that could cost a great many lives, both in Israel and in Gaza, and no fence or Iron Dome [Israel’s missile interception system] can thwart them.”

Israel’s liberal Haaretz newspaper paraphrased another of Bromberg’s comments:

“If something isn’t done, the upshot could be political horror in the form of hundreds of thousands of Gazans fleeing for their lives toward Israel – for fear of catching disease.”

Bromberg and others on Israel’s left are well aware that Gaza’s 2 million Palestinians were long ago dehumanized in the eyes of most Israeli Jews, who think of them as nothing more than terrorists or terrorist sympathizers who deserve their sorry fate. Stories of Gaza’s endless suffering a short distance from Israelis’ homes are unlikely to shame them into action. They can be roused only out of self-interest – a fear for their own safety and the wellbeing of their loved ones.

Gaza’s problems, however – the fact that it is one of the most densely populated, poorest and polluted places on the planet – are not an accident, or the consequences of some natural cataclysm. The crisis there is entirely man-made – and one that has been engineered over decades by Israel.

Israel effectively treated the Strip as a dumping ground – a holding pen – for the mass of refugees it created by dispossessing the Palestinians of their homeland in 1948. Nearly three-quarters of Gaza’s inhabitants are descended from the refugees of that war, Palestinians who were forced off their lands in what is now Israel and denied the right ever to return to their homes.

Having exiled them, Israel was nonetheless prepared to use the Palestinians of Gaza as a cheap labor force – for a time. It was possible until the 1990s to exit Gaza relatively easily to work in Israel’s dirtiest and lowest-paying jobs. But as the occupation entrenched, Israel was forced into a rethink by two developments.

Israel was forced into a rethink by two developments.

First, Palestinians under occupation, including in Gaza, launched a lengthy campaign of mass civil disobedience against their occupiers in the late 1980s, known as the first intifada, that included general strikes, a refusal to pay taxes, boycotts of Israeli goods and stone-throwing. And second, Gaza’s population has grown exponentially, at a pace that outstripped the capacity of this tiny territory – measuring just 25 miles in length and some 5 miles across – to accommodate them.

In response, Israeli leaders pushed for a more clear-cut physical separation from Gaza. The rallying cry of politicians of the time was: “Us here, them over there.”

Israel’s out of sight, out of mind approach was soon given diplomatic sanction in the Oslo Accords of the mid-1990s.  Israel surrounded Gaza with high-security fences and armed watchtowers, established an exclusion zone along its sea coast, and revoked the general exit policy.

Ariel Sharon’s disengagement of 2005, when the last remaining Jewish settlers were pulled out of the enclave, marked the completion of Israel’s separation policy. The occupation did not end, however. Israel still controlled Gaza’s airspace, its land perimeters and coastal waters. Israel soon imposed a blockade, preventing goods as well as people from entering or leaving, a blockade it tightened dramatically when the Palestinian faction Hamas won elections in the occupied territories in 2006.

Since then, Israel has transformed the holding center into a super-max prison. This year it finished a submarine barrier with sophisticated sensor systems along the coast. Israel is currently enlarging the perimeter fence to make it 20 feet high and fortifying it with remotely controlled gun towers, while all-seeing drones patrol the skies above Gaza.

The first dire warning about conditions in Gaza was issued in 2015, a year after Israel’s massive attack on the enclave known as Protective Edge, in which more than 2,200 Palestinians were killed, including over 550 children, and 17,000 families left homeless. A report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) argued that Gaza would be “uninhabitable” by 2020 if the trends then current continued. None of those trends has been halted or reversed. Which means Gaza is about to slide into a fully fledged humanitarian catastrophe entirely created by Israel, and implicitly supported by the silence and inaction of western states.

But while Israel has managed to keep the Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza cooped up like underfed and abused battery chickens, it is starting to find it is much harder to contain the various crises – social, economic, political and humanitarian – unfolding in the enclave. Slowly Israel is waking up to the fact that Palestinians don’t behave like chickens.

Rockets, Kites, and Marches

Inevitably Gaza’s inhabitants have reacted to Israel slowly tightening its chokehold on their enclave. But by the time of the Palestinians’ second uprising, which began in late 2000, the kind of mass civil disobedience of the first intifada was no longer possible. By then, Gaza’s population was imprisoned behind a fence. The factions, especially Hamas, instead tried to break free of their confinement by launching primitive Qassam rockets into Israel.

Largely ineffective as a weapon of death or destruction, the rockets have nonetheless spread fear in Israeli communities close to the enclave. But their use has had mostly negative repercussions for Gaza. Israel responded with extra-judicial executions of Palestinian leaders in Gaza that typically killed many more bystanders, and used the rockets to justify ever-more severe forms of collective punishment that culminated in the blockade. What little western sympathy there had been for Gaza drained away as Israel, assisted by the western media, edited out the context for the rockets – Gaza’s imprisonment by its occupier – and presented a simplistic, ahistorical narrative of terror attacks on innocent Israelis driven, it was implied, only by the Jew hatred of Islamic extremists.

While popular support in Gaza for the rocket attacks has ebbed over time, Palestinians there have learned the hard way that they cannot afford passivity. As soon as the rockets fall silent, Israel and the world forget about Gaza. The west’s hypocrisy has been plain: it condemns the inhabitants of Gaza for struggling against their imprisonment by firing rockets, but then ignores their plight when they play according to diplomatic rules.

Over the past year and a half, the rockets have been largely replaced by a couple of popular initiatives that were launched with two aims in mind: to make Gaza’s suffering visible again, and to challenge Israeli and western prejudices about the enclave. Both initiatives mark a return to the type of mass civil disobedience exemplified by the first intifada, but recast for an era in which the Palestinians of Gaza have limited opportunities to confront their oppressor directly.

The first are incendiary kites and balloons – Israel inevitably adds the label “terror” to these balloons and kites – sent over the perimeter fence to set fire to the agricultural lands of the Israeli communities that prosper close by at Gaza’s expense. The damage caused to Israel’s local economy is intended to serve as a pale mirror of the massive economic destruction Israel has inflicted on Gaza’s economy over many decades, including, as we shall see, to its farmland. The balloons are a way, like the rockets, to remind Israelis that Palestinians are suffering out of sight, on the other side of the fence, but do so without risking the civilian deaths entailed by the rockets’ use.

The second popular initiative has been a weekly mass, largely non-violent protest, called the Great March of Return, close to the perimeter fence. The title is meant to remind observers that most Palestinians in Gaza are denied the right to return to the hundreds of villages their families were expelled from by Israel in 1948 and that are now located on the other side of the fence. Tens of thousands of marchers regularly defy Israeli restrictions that have declared hundreds of meters of Gaza’s land inside the fence as a “no-go zone.”

The protesters’ goal is to ensure that Israel and the west cannot overlook Gaza’s suffering and desperation, or shirk their responsibility for the catastrophe unfolding there, or continue to erase the deeper historical injustice caused by Israel when it dispossessed the Palestinians of their homeland in 1948. The protests are a potent reminder that this crime against the Palestinians has to be addressed before any lasting resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can occur.

Israeli officials have every reason to want the very opposite for Gaza. They need its suffering overlooked; the Palestinians there mute, or at least violent in ways that Israel can re-characterize as terrorism; and the historical injustices forgotten. They have therefore worked hard to suggest that the protests are not a natural expression of Gaza’s anger, frustration and desperation in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe engineered by Israel, but a new, veiled terror strategy organized by Hamas. The marchers are not civilians, Israel argues, but hardcore Hamas activists who want to destroy Israel.

That has rationalized Israel’s extremely violent response, with snipers using live fire against the protesters. Those shot include large numbers of children, wheelchairs users, as well as paramedics and journalists identifiable by their clothing. Israel has executed more than 200 protesters, nearly a quarter of them children. A further 32,000 have been injured – an average of 500 a week.

One of the investigators in a UN commission of inquiry into Israel’s handling of the protests concluded that its military forces “have intentionally shot children, they’ve intentionally shot people with disabilities, they’ve intentionally shot journalists.” That was confirmed in July when the Israeli media revealed that snipers had been ordered to routinely shoot the protesters in the upper leg, in an apparent effort to deter people from attending. This order continued even when it became clear that a significant proportion of those shot were dying from their wounds or needed a leg amputated. Only very belatedly did commanders order that protesters be shot in the ankle to reduce the number of deaths.

Zionism and the Logic of Settler Colonialism

Israelis’ widespread indifference to the fate of Palestinians, most especially in the case of Gaza, is deeply entangled in the ideology Israel embodies.  Zionism is viewed in much of the west simplistically: as purely a salvation movement, one that created a “lifeboat” for Jews – in the shape of Israel – at a time of profound need as the Nazi Holocaust ravaged large parts of European Jewry. But Zionism, in both its Christian and Jewish forms, long predates that genocide. Its roots are to be found in European settler colonial ideologies that emerged from the 17th century onwards.

Settler colonialism is markedly different from traditional colonialism. The latter, illustrated by Britain’s relationship with India, is characterized by colonists arriving in another land to exploit the resources and labor of the native people. Whatever treasure was unearthed in the colonies – rubber, tea, tulips, sugar, diamonds, oil – was shipped back to the motherland, where it helped to support the lavish lifestyles of an elite. Great amounts of violence were needed to force the native population to submit. The colonists also tried to rationalize the resource grab, both to themselves and to the indigenous population, traditionally through religion and ideas of improvement – the “white man’s burden.” Colonists prospered until the native population found a way to expel them.

Settler colonialism, by contrast, has a different rationale – what scholars have termed the “logic of elimination.”  Settler societies are not there primarily to exploit the natives, though they may in part do that too for a time. They are there to replace them. And there are three possible routes by which that ambition can be achieved.

The first – what might be termed the Americas model – is to exterminate the natives, to wipe them out so there can be no local challenge to the settler colonial project. The second – what might be called the Israel model – is to ethnically cleanse the natives, to drive them out of the coveted territory to another place. And the third – what might be termed the South Africa model – is resorted to chiefly when it has not been possible to fully realize the first or second models. Apartheid regimes herd the natives out of sight into ghettoes – often called homelands, reservations or, in South Africa’s case, Bantustans – where they can be largely ignored, deprived of their rights and access to resources.

Settler societies can adopt more than one model over time, or they may experiment with different models. In the United States, for example, settlers exterminated much of the Native American population and then drove the remnants into reservations. In South Africa, apartheid also required ethnically cleansing the black population from lands coveted by white settlers.

Israel too has adopted a mixed model. In 1948, and then again in 1967, it carried out mass ethnic cleansing operations. During the 1948 Nakba,  literally catastrophe, Zionists expelled more than 80 per cent of Palestinians living inside the borders of what was about to become the Jewish state of Israel. Afterwards, Israel adopted a system of apartheid against the remnants of the native population, first inside its recognized borders (as I outlined in a previous edition of the Link) and later in the occupied territories.

In Israel today, some 93 per cent of territory has been “nationalized” exclusively by the state on behalf of Jewish people around the world, while Palestinian “citizens,” a fifth of Israel’s population, have been penned into little more than 2 per cent of Israeli territory. In the occupied territories, meanwhile, the settlers have directly seized 42 per cent of the West Bank for themselves, while the Israeli government directly controls more than 60 per cent of the territory, what was declared “Area C” in the Oslo Accords.

Israel’s Monstrous Vision

Ethnic cleansing and apartheid have been the mainstays of Israel’s approach to the Palestinians inside Israel, in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. But over the past 15 years its policy towards Gaza appears to have moved in an additional direction – towards elements of what might be called a model of incremental genocide.

“Genocide” is an emotive term, and one few people wish to use in relation to Israel, given the extermination of many millions of European Jews at the hands of the Nazis. But it is a term that exists outside of, and apart from, the Holocaust. It has a meaning clearly defined in international law, and one that is key to analysing and evaluating political situations and their likely future trajectories. The term was coined precisely to offer tools for early detection so that genocides could be prevented from taking place, not simply labeled once the atrocity was over. To preclude genocide as a possible explanation for Israel’s behavior in Gaza is to prioritize the historic sensitivities of some Jews over the current, urgent and existential threats to a substantial part of the Palestinian people.

The United Nations adopted a Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948, the year of Israel’s creation. It defined genocide as:

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to an other group.”

Genocide is confirmed by only one of these five acts, and there should at least be a suspicion – as we shall see – that Israel is effecting the second and third in Gaza.

Israeli academics too have noted the need for another term – in addition to ethnic cleansing and apartheid – to describe Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians, especially in Gaza. The late Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling, one of the country’s foremost scholars of Israeli and Palestinian nationalism, invented a word – politicide – to avoid the term genocide. In 2003, years before Israel’s blockade and repeated attacks on Gaza had begun, he defined politicide as having two effects:

“The first is the destruction of the Palestinian public sphere, including its leadership and social and material infrastructure. The second effect is to make everyday life for the Palestinians increasingly unbearable by destroying the private sphere and any possibility of normalcy and stability. … All of these conditions are … designed to lower Palestinian expectations, crush their resistance, isolate them, make them submit to any arrangement suggested by the Israelis, and eventually cause their voluntary mass emigration from the land.”

It hardly matters whether we describe the Israeli plan outlined by Kimmerling as incremental genocide or politicide; he accurately presents Israel’s monstrous vision of a half-life for Palestinians in the occupied territories in which they are stripped not only of their rights but also of their humanity. On this view, Palestinians are conceived of not so much as lesser beings but as non-beings whose fate should not trouble us.

Putting Gaza on a Diet

There have been three clear signals from senior Israeli officials of the strategic shift in thinking about Gaza – of how the limits of what is imaginable – have been gradually shifting.

The first was articulated in 2006 by Dov Weissglass, an adviser to the Israeli prime minister of the time, Ehud Olmert. He alluded to Israel’s new approach to Gaza during an interview with the Haaretz newspaper. “It’s like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won’t die,” he said, referring to Israel’s recent imposition of an economic blockade on Gaza, backed by an aid boycott by western governments. Most observers at the time dismissed his comment as hyperbolic. But later it emerged that Weissglass had actually been describing a policy that was about to be implemented by the Israeli army.

In 2012, after a three-year legal battle by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, Israel was forced to disclose a document called “Red Lines” that had been drafted in early 2008. At that time, as the blockade was tightened still further, the Israeli defense ministry requested calculations by health officials of the minimum number of calories needed by Gaza’s inhabitants to avoid malnutrition. Those figures were then translated into truckloads of food Israel was supposed to allow in each day at the crossings.

But in practice the military authorities ignored the advice of the government’s own calorie-counters. While the health ministry determined that Gazans needed daily an average of 2,279 calories each to avoid malnutrition – requiring 170 trucks a day – military officials found a host of pretexts to whittle down the trucks to a fraction of the original figure. An average of only 67 trucks – much less than half of the minimum requirement – entered Gaza daily. This compared to more than 400 trucks that had been entering before the blockade began.

Israeli officials had deducted trucks based both on an over-generous assessment of how much food could be grown locally and on differences in what they termed the ”culture and experience” of food consumption in Gaza, a rationale that was never explained. Gisha, which fought for the document’s publication, observed that Israeli officials had ignored the fact that, as we shall see, the blockade had severely impaired Gaza’s farming industry, with a shortage of seeds and chickens that had led to a dramatic drop in food output.

Further, the UN noted that Israel had failed to factor in the large quantity of food from each day’s supply of 67 trucks that never actually reached Gaza. That was because Israeli restrictions at the crossings created long delays as food was unloaded, checked and then put on to new trucks. Many items spoiled as they lay in the sun.

And on top of this, Israel adjusted the formula so that the number of trucks carrying nutrient-poor foods like sugar were doubled while the trucks carrying nutrient-rich food like milk, fruit and vegetables were greatly reduced, sometimes by as much as a half. Robert Turner, director of the UN refugee agency’s operations in the Gaza Strip, observed at the time: “The facts on the ground in Gaza demonstrate that food imports consistently fell below the red lines.”

The question was why, if the politicians and generals were advised by health experts that Gaza needed at least 170 trucks a day, did they oversee a policy that allowed in only 67? How could such a policy be described?

A Return to the Stone Age

Another clue to Israel’s thinking was provided in early 2008, at about the time defense officials were putting Gaza on a diet. Matan Vilnai, a former army general and at that point Israel’s deputy defense minister, discussed on Israeli radio a vicious bout of bloodletting that had killed more than 100 Palestinians, on one side, and an Israeli student, on the other. For the first time Qassam rockets fired from Gaza had hit the center of the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon.

Vilnai told the interviewer: “The more Qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they [the Palestinians of Gaza] will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves.” The comment was picked up by the news agency Reuters because the Hebrew word “shoah” – literally “disaster” – was long ago reserved to describe the Holocaust, in which millions of European Jews were murdered by the Nazis. Its use in any other context had become virtually taboo. Appreciating the potential damage the remark could do, Israel’s foreign ministry immediately launched a propaganda offensive to persuade the world’s media that Vilnai was only referring to a general “disaster”, not a holocaust.

Few Israelis were deceived. Haaretz’s cultural commentator, Michael Handelzalts, noted that “whatever connotations the word [shoah] had before the Nazis embarked on their systematic extermination of the Jews, today it means – with quotation marks or without them, with “the” preceding it or without it – just that.” Why would Vilnai select this extremely provocative and troubling word to frame his threat to the Palestinians?

At the time, few could have understood that Vilnai’s “shoah” comment would take physical form a few months later in the first of a series of horrifying military rampages by Israel in Gaza. In late 2008-09, and again in 2012 and 2014, Israel wrecked Gaza, destroyed many thousands of homes and its key infrastructure, including its power plant, and left many thousands dead and many tens of thousands wounded and disabled. Tens of thousands more found themselves homeless.

The first of these attacks, in winter 2008, came under close scrutiny from the UN through a fact-finding mission led by a South African jurist, Richard Goldstone. The panel’s report suggested that the Israeli army – as well as Hamas – had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during Israel’s three-week Operation Cast Lead. It noted Israel’s use of unconventional weapons such as white phosphorus, the destruction of property on a massive scale, and the taking of civilians, including young children, as human shields. And significantly it concluded that Israel had targeted civilians “as a matter of policy”.

After the report’s publication, Goldstone, who is Jewish, faced an immense backlash from Jewish communities in the US and South Africa that painted him as a traitor. Jewish leaders in South Africa even prevented him from attending his grandson’s bar mitzvah. Though his jurist colleagues did not, Goldstone eventually retracted his support for parts of the report, most importantly the reference to Israel targeting civilians as policy.

However, there were plenty of reasons to conclude that this was exactly what Israel had done – as would be confirmed by Israel’s subsequent attacks, including the even more savage Protective Edge of 2014. Breaking the Silence, an organization of whistle blowing Israeli soldiers, collected many testimonies from soldiers indicating that they received orders to carry out operations with little or no regard for the safety of civilians. Some described the army as pursuing a policy of “zero-risk” to soldiers, even if that meant putting civilians in danger.

Similarly, leaflets produced by the military rabbinate – apparently with the knowledge of the army top brass – urged Israeli ground troops, an increasing number of whom are religious and from the settlements, to show no mercy to Palestinians. It characterized the Palestinians as the Philistines, the Biblical enemy of the Jews, and told them Israel was waging “a war on murderers.” In a sign of the extent to which the army is being taken over by such religious extremists, Ofer Winter, who extolled his troops in 2014 to attack Palestinians in Gaza as “blasphemers,” was appointed commander of the 98th Division, Israel’s most elite combat troops, in July 2019.

But even more significantly, in October 2008, a few months after Vilnai’s “shoah” comment and two months before the launching of Cast Lead, the Israeli army formally divulged a new military policy known as the Dahiya Doctrine. In fact, it had first been field-tested during the 2006 summer offensive on Lebanon that had left much of that country in ruins after waves of missile strikes. Gadi Eisenkot, the general widely credited with developing the doctrine, clarified its goal: “We will apply disproportionate force on [any area resisting Israel] and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. This is not a recommendation. This is a plan.”

A short time later, the Israeli commander overseeing the Cast Lead attack on Gaza, Yoav Galant, echoed Eisenkot, saying the aim of the military operation was to “send Gaza decades into the past.”  Israel’s intention was to lay waste to Gaza’s infrastructure, forcing survivors to eke out a bare existence rather than resist Israel.

In early 2019, Benny Gantz, who had overseen the even more brutal Operation Protective Edge of 2014, fought a general election as head of a new party named Blue and White. He and the other generals who led the faction played up their military credentials with a series of campaign videos. One showed the wastelands of Gaza after the 2014 attack, a camera hovering over a sea of rubble as far as the eye could see. Alongside these images, the video boasted: 6,231 targets destroyed and 1,364 terrorists killed, and it concluded: “Parts of Gaza have been sent back to the Stone Age.”

An Economy in Collapse

For more than a decade Israel has pursued a consistent and barely veiled double policy: destroying Gaza’s infrastructure with massively violent military attacks – laying waste to tens of thousands of homes, the enclave’s only power station, farms, schools, universities, hospitals, factories – while at the same time putting the population on a near-starvation diet through a punishing, long-term blockade. This has been rationalized by both rabbis and army commanders using language designed to degrade the humanity of Palestinians, characterizing them as “murderers” and their communities as “military bases”.

And behind the scenes, Israel has also assisted in a third, wider strategic approach toward Palestinians under its rule that has impacted Gaza in ways that have intensified the effects of the two other policies.

Ariel Sharon pulled the settlers from Gaza in 2005 without an agreement with, or handover to, Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority, the Palestinians’ supposed government-in-waiting. Denied the chance to take credit for Israel’s disengagement, the PA was forced on to the back foot. Its Hamas rivals presented Israel’s withdrawal as a victory for its strategy of violent resistance, in contrast to the ineffectiveness of the PA’s diplomatic approach and security coordination with Israel. Hamas leaders argued that it was they who had chased Israel out of Gaza, the occupier’s tail between its legs.

That, in part, set up Hamas for its win in the Palestinian legislative elections, as well as for its violent confrontation in Gaza with Abbas’s Fatah faction and ultimately Hamas’s takeover of the enclave in 2007. Over the next 12 years, the geographic and ideological split between the Fatah-ruled West Bank and Hamas-run Gaza has only deepened. By default, the division has turned the PA into Israel’s ally in isolating and punishing Hamas – and by extension Gaza. The PA has imposed its own form of blockade on Gaza, most significantly withholding transfers of revenues to the enclave, leaving public-sector workers, the largest employed group in the occupied territories, on severely reduced salaries. The harmful effects have been felt across the enclave, because typically the salary of each Palestinian in employment supports a much larger extended family.

Combined, these three factors have engineered the near-collapse of Gaza’s economy.

In 1999, even after Israel had sealed off Gaza from Israel with an electronic fence, some 40,000 workers – about 15 per cent of the labor force – were still employed in Israel, many of them on construction sites in and around Tel Aviv or in the Erez industrial zone. Today, those jobs are unavailable to Gaza’s besieged inhabitants.

Slightly over half the population now live below the poverty threshold, on less than $4.60 a day, and a similar number are unemployed. A third of them live in extreme poverty. The Israeli human rights group B’Tselem concluded in June that Gaza’s isolation and misery was a policy the Israeli government had chosen. Israel, it said, had brought about the enclave’s “economic collapse and trapped its residents in a small, closed job market, with no prospects of development and no future. Israel could change this stifling reality right now. Instead, it chooses to force Gaza residents to live in a state of poverty, stagnation and hopelessness.”

Meanwhile, Gaza’s private business sector has been reeling from the combined effects of the blockade and repeated military assaults. Although there were once eight crossing points between Gaza and Israel, today exports are possible only through one, the Kerem Shalom cargo terminal. Before the blockade, some 120 trucks passed out of Gaza each day to Israel, the Arab world and Europe carrying clothing, food, beverages and furniture. Today, that number never rises above nine trucks, and on numerous occasions none have been allowed through. Israel tightens restrictions at Kerem Shalom as a way to collectively punish Gaza’s population for rocket fire into Israel or protests at the fence.

Consider the following industries that were crucial to Gaza’s economy:

Textile Factories.   For many years, Gaza’s low wages encouraged Israeli clothing companies to order garments from the enclave’s factories. But after Israel tightened the blockade in 2007, it became all but impossible for these factories to get their products out. According to the Union of Palestine Textile Industries, 90 per cent of Gaza’s 930 sewing factories closed as a result, leaving 35,000 workers without jobs. A slight easing of the restrictions in 2015, which allowed exports to the West Bank and Israel, has led to the partial reopening of some 40 factories.

However, those that have resumed operation are in a precarious situation. The regular interruption in the electricity supply, and the high price of generating power privately, have added significantly to production costs. Israel still denies exit permits to most merchants and trade association heads, making it difficult to develop and expand their businesses. Israel’s refusal to allow in equipment, such as sewing machines, and supplies, such as linens, continues to damage the industry. And hanging over all the factories is the permanent threat of a new Israeli assault on Gaza, which would not only disrupt exports but could lead to any of the buildings being targeted for destruction.

Construction Industry.  Construction is Gaza’s one guaranteed growth industry, given the extraordinary levels of destruction wreaked repeatedly on the enclave by Israel. But in practice the sector is in deep trouble. Whereas once construction accounted for a third of Gaza’s Gross Domestic Production, today it supplies less than a fifth of Gaza’s now much-reduced GDP. The industry has sustained massive damage from Israel’s military operations: 2014’s Protective Edge alone destroyed some 100 steel, cement, and brick works. And the sector knows its factories are high on the hit-list in any future attacks.

Also, the so-called Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism, agreed between Israel and the UN after the 2014 assault as a way to rebuild a devastated Gaza, has imposed strict regulations on materials that can be brought into the enclave, and requires Israeli approval before any infrastructure projects can be undertaken. Given the added difficulties faced by most Palestinian families securing a bank loan without assured employment, construction firms have very limited opportunities for work.

A study published in May by the Palestinian Federation of Industries found that construction is operating at only about 15 per cent of its capacity, which is continuing to shrink. This year there were only 1,840 people employed in construction compared to 3,170 last year – a decline of 42 per cent. Many contractors are rapidly relocating their Gaza operations abroad, to Arab countries such as Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

Agriculture.  Since Israel erected a fence around Gaza, it has used heavy equipment to uproot trees and foliage, flattening and scarring a wide area of land on the Gaza side of the perimeter, leaving it desolate. A third of the enclave’s arable land falls within this Israeli-defined no-man’s land, zones that can stretch up to half a mile inside Gaza. In 2012 the International Red Cross negotiated an agreement to allow Gaza’s farmers to grow short crops up to .2 miles from the fence and taller crops up to half a mile. But the farmers are still reluctant to enter these approved areas: experience shows they risk being shot. Irrigation systems and water pumps in range of Israel’s automated gun towers are also regularly targeted.

Since 2007 the blockade has prevented farmers exporting to the West Bank and Israel, their main markets. And restrictions on imports of animal vaccines have led to outbreaks of disease among livestock. Polluted water sources mean that food is likely to be contaminated with bacteria, parasites and industrial runoff. And during Israel’s military operations, outlying farms have been repeatedly targeted. Protective Edge of 2014 caused $500 million of direct and indirect damage to the farming sector, destroying irrigation wells and greenhouses as well as killing farm animals.

In addition, Israel has regularly fumigated the farmers’ lands with herbicides to damage crops, on the pretext of increasing the field of vision along the perimeter fence. The chemicals Israel uses include Roundup, which is suspected of being carcinogenic and banned in some countries. Some 30 spraying operations took place between 2014 and 2018, damaging a total of 3,500 acres of farmland and pasture, according to Gaza’s agriculture ministry.

Forensic Architecture, a research group that has modeled the drift from the spraying operations, accuses Israel of creating “a dead zone of entire swathes of formerly arable land.” According to the Red Cross, irrigation pools as far as half a mile from the perimeter fence have been polluted, and the herbicide residues remaining in the ground pose a threat to those eating produce grown on sprayed land. Hundreds of farmers are reported to have suffered losses worth thousands of dollars each from the spraying, but compensation claims have been rejected by the Israeli courts.

Fishing Industry. Fishing is traditionally one of Gaza’s most important commercial activities – as well as providing locally sourced food. In recognition of that fact, the Oslo accords, signed a quarter of a century ago, established the fishing limit off Gaza’s coast at 20 nautical miles. Israel, however, has refused to abide by the agreement: the navy has never allowed Gaza’s boats to fish more than 15 miles from the coast. But more typically Israel has restricted fishing to 3 or 6 nautical miles, a range that makes it all but impossible to catch commercial quantities of fish.

Furthermore, closures – banning fishermen entirely from access to Gaza’s coastal waters – have been repeatedly instituted by Israel as a punitive measure, most recently over the launching of incendiary balloons and the protests at the perimeter fence. Ismail Haniyeh, the political head of Hamas, has called this “a policy of extortion.”  Israeli human rights groups, meanwhile, note that it constitutes “collective punishment” – a war crime.

According to B’Tselem, back in 2000 there were 10,000 registered fishermen, while today there are only 3,500. In practice, however, no more than half that figure actually go out in boats. The blockade means that most cannot find materials like fibreglass to repair their vessels or motor parts. Nearly all of Gaza’s fishermen are reported to be living below the poverty line of $4.60 a day. Meanwhile, the price of fish has soared, given the scarcity, leaving few in Gaza able to afford it.

Israel’s navy also regularly confiscates boats, claiming they have strayed outside its imposed fishing zone, and then refuses to return them for months or years. Many fishermen cannot afford costly GPS equipment, leaving them unsure whether they are inside the prescribed area. The navy, meanwhile, appears to enforce a “buffer zone” that makes unintentional “violations” by boat crews more likely.

The fisherman also risk being arrested or shot when they head out into Gaza’s waters. In the seven months to July of this year, Israel fired on fishing boats more than 200 times, injuring 15 crew members, according to Al Mezan, a Palestinian human rights group. Another 30 fishermen were seized and detained in Israel.

One recent story that gained some attention was the shooting of 31-year-old Khader Al-Saaidy, a father of three. Like most fishermen, he has had regular run-ins with the Israeli navy over the years. His small boats have twice been impounded and not returned, costing him some $16,000 to replace them. Then two years ago he was shot in the leg while out fishing, and a friend alongside him was shot in the face, losing the sight in an eye. On that occasion Al-Saaidy was jailed for 14 months.

In February his boat was attacked again. This time, naval commandos fired a hail of rubber-coated steel bullets from close range, hitting him 15 times in the upper body. Some of the bullets shattered his eye sockets. The boat was seized by the navy and towed to Ashdod. He was later taken to an Israeli hospital in Ashkelon, where one eye was removed. Hospital staff told him the second eye could be saved with complicated surgery. But he was dumped by the army at the Gaza crossing four days later and has been denied a permit to attend follow-up appointments in Israel ever since. Under questioning from the Israeli Haaretz newspaper, military authorities said he was not eligible to enter Israel because his injuries “did not constitute mortal danger.”

Healthcare Industry.  Al-Saaidy’s need for health care in Israel – and the military’s refusal to allow him to enter for treatment – are difficulties that have become common as Gaza’s health sector has collapsed under the combined strain of more than decade of a blockade and a series of military assaults.

The blockade has prevented medicines and basic equipment reaching Gaza, leading to severe shortages of infant formula, as well as medicines for cancer, kidney failure, diabetes and hypertension. It has been impossible for staff to keep up to date with the latest procedures and medical knowledge, and qualified medical staff are reported to be in short supply. Israel’s intermittent bombing sprees have severely damaged hospitals, medical centers, ambulances, as well killing and injuring medical staff. In 2014 Israel bombed five hospitals. Electricity shortages have made it difficult for medical centers to keep operating or reliably provide treatments like dialysis.

All of this has happened as Israel’s attacks have inflated the need for emergency medical care and rehabilitation services, stretching Gaza’s war-battered health sector to breaking point. Casualties from Protective Edge of 2014 alone included more than 2,200 dead and a further 11,000 seriously wounded, with many needing long-term treatment for disabilities. And since March 2018 some 500 Palestinian protesters a week on average – including 60 children – have needed emergency care for injuries inflicted by snipers at the perimeter fence. So far some 140 of these casualties have required amputations, including 30 children. Another 1,700 of the wounded are expected to lose a leg over the next two years because of complications Gaza’s medical centers cannot cope with, according to the UN.

Local health services also need to deal with the lasting effects of toxic environmental changes. Non-conventional weapons used by Israel during its attacks have dramatically increased the number of low birth-weight babies and birth defects over the past decade. And more of the urban population has been exposed to heavy metals as Palestinian entrepreneurs have improvised solutions to deal both with electricity shortages, by manufacturing primitive batteries, and with the blockade, by cannibalizing electrical parts. Research published in June showed that most children near such workshops had dangerously high levels of lead in their blood.

The Water Supply

Water has an intimate connection to public sanitation and health. Water pollution and the lack of sewage treatment threaten the outbreak of major diseases like cholera and diptheria, especially among children. So far such epidemics have been largely held in check by UNRWA’s vaccination program. But with the US having defunded the refugee agency since 2018, combined with a shortage of antibiotics, the risk of contagion has grown.

According to a study by the RAND corporation four years ago, gastrointestinal infections from water pollution accounted for a quarter of all illnesses in Gaza and 12 per cent of child deaths. Rates are believed to have increased since then, with the spread of rotavirus, salmonella and cholera. A recent Palestinian report suggested that up to 60 per cent of all illnesses in Gaza may be the result of water pollution. Another study showed that Gaza’s schools share one toilet between 75 students and one sink among 80 children. Hand washing and toilet flushing are necessarily kept to a minimum, further risking the spread of disease.

Most families in Gaza have to rely on purified water to drink, but that requires them to spend as much as a third of their income on water purchases. With unemployment estimated at 57 per cent of the population, more and more families cannot afford treated water, relying instead on the short periods the authorities turn on the tap in their area.

Possibly in response to fears like those expressed by Israeli researchers about the risk of epidemics in Gaza spreading beyond the fence, Israel has belatedly agreed to limited new water supplies for Gaza. After a decade of objections, Israel allowed a desalination plant in Gaza to open in 2017. However, as it can produce only a third of Gaza’s shortfall in supplies, the treated water is currently being mixed with polluted water to extend the volume of water coming out of taps.

Leaving Babies to Die Alone

Although Israel is entirely culpable for the health crisis in Gaza, and accountable for it in international law, it has taken only the most minimal responsibility for those in desperate need of treatment. Even when Israel does provide medical care for sick Palestinians from Gaza in its own hospitals, the Palestinian Authority has to foot the bill.

As the blinded fisherman Khader Al-Saaidy found, however, it is extremely difficult to get permits from Israel to leave Gaza for treatment – whether in Israeli hospitals or in Palestinian-run ones in East Jerusalem. Israel usually requires proof that without intervention from a hospital outside Gaza the patient is at serious risk of death. Even then, many of the patients approved for a permit or, in the case of children, their escorts, are subjected to intimidation to turn informer before they are allowed to leave.

Israel’s permit rules have created a spate of heartbreaking cases for the families of young children. According to Physicians for Human Rights,  Israel issued 7,000 permits for children to leave Gaza for treatment last year, but approved a parent accompanying them in only 2,000 cases. Instead a majority of the children were escorted by an elderly relative such as a grandparent or aunt. Such children with life-threatening conditions were therefore forced to travel and endure complicated and frightening treatment without a mother or father present.

Israel’s policy applies to babies too. In the first six months of this year, 56 infants from Gaza were separated from their parents while in hospital, and six died alone. Hiba Swailam, aged 24, found herself in precisely this situation after severe complications during pregnancy. She was permitted to leave Gaza to have her triplets delivered two months early at Al-Makassed Hospital in East Jerusalem. However, her permit expired long before the triplets were well enough to return with her to Gaza. She was therefore forced to leave them behind. One died after nine days, and another after two weeks. According to doctors at Al-Makassed, one of the babies could have survived if it had been breastfed. The surviving baby spent months alone at the hospital, cared for by nurses, with Swailam only able to see her baby by video. Only when the story was finally picked up by Britain’s Guardian newspaper did the Israeli authorities relent and issue Swailam with a permit to collect her baby daughter.

One of the nurses at Al-Makassed, Ibtisam Risiq, noted the psychological effects on such babies: “They need love. Their heart rates go up. They are depressed.” But soon even Al-Makassed’s services may no longer be available to patients from Gaza. The US cuts to funding implemented by Trump last year have also targeted the East Jerusalem hospital.

Gaza’s medical centers need to deal with more than the population’s physical health. The enclave’s severe isolation and a decade of repeated bombardments and devastation have taken a heavy psychological toll, especially on children. One psychologist recently told the documentary-maker Harry Fear that Gaza’s entire population was traumatized to some degree. The enclave’s limited mental health services, however, have no hope of dealing with such an epidemic of emotional and mental trauma. The task is made still harder by the fact that patients suffering from conditions like depression, anxiety, panic attacks, and PTSD cannot be reassured that the source of their trauma is behind them. Constantly hanging over Gaza is the threat of another round of destruction, another wave of bloodletting.

In March a study by the Norwegian Refugee Council found that more than two-thirds of children who live near the perimeter fence suffered from what it termed “psycho-social distress.”  Some 42 per cent had seen at least one bomb explosion, while a third knew someone who had been killed in an attack. One in 14 had lost their own home to a bomb or missile. More than half felt no hope for the future, and 81 per cent struggled academically because of the conflict.  “Gaza’s humanitarian crisis has left an entire generation emotionally damaged,” said the council’s local director, Kate O’Rourke. “It takes years of work with these children to undo the impact of trauma and restore their sense of hope for the future.”

The situation is not likely to improve soon. UNRWA slashed in half its mental health budget late last year as the loss of US funding started to bite. Counseling for children was among the services to be cut.

The Moment of Truth

By most measures, Gaza is already uninhabitable for the vast majority of its population. But as next year’s deadline set by the UN nears, Israel is faced with a stark choice. Given the “logic of elimination” at the core of settler colonial ideologies like Zionism, Israel, as previously noted, has to choose one of three paths in relation to Gaza’s inhabitants: genocide, ethnic cleansing or apartheid. But if as the UN says, and the preceding text highlights, Gaza is about to become uninhabitable, then apartheid will soon no longer be an option. Penning 2 million people up inside an uninhabitable prison amounts not to apartheid but, by default, to slow-motion genocide. So the Israeli public and the watching world are rapidly arriving at a moment of truth. Is Israel going to stand by as Gaza sinks into the terminal humanitarian catastrophe its policies have created? Can it avoid the spread of disease, or hordes of Palestinians fleeing Gaza to escape such epidemics, as its own experts have forecast? And will western states remain complicit through their silence and financial, diplomatic and military support of Israel? In an age of 24-hour rolling news and social media, death on such a large scale may prove too unpalatable.

But if this is the case – if genocide is not acceptable, and apartheid no longer sustainable – that leaves Israel and the US with only one alternative: another major episode of ethnic cleansing.

I have documented elsewhere the strenuous efforts over the past decade by Israel and the United States to force Egypt to accept the reinvention of northern Sinai, the peninsula neighboring Gaza, as a new Palestinian state, and one that would house most of Gaza’s inhabitants.

In this vision, making Gaza uninhabitable is not, as it currently appears, a dead-end strategy leading to genocide. Rather it is an accumulation of pressure on the people of Gaza and the watching international community designed to make it impossible for the Egyptian leadership to deny the enclave’s residents access to Sinai. Like a tube of toothpaste, Gaza is being squeezed ever more forcefully on the assumption that, when the cap is removed – the Egyptian land crossing into Sinai is finally open – the enclave’s inhabitants will flood out, desperate to breathe again.

In 2014 the Israeli media reported on this plan, dubbed “Greater Gaza.” At that time an Arab newspaper interviewed a former anonymous official close to Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president ousted in 2011. He said Egypt had come under concerted pressure from 2007 onwards – when Hamas took over the enclave – to annex Gaza to northern Sinai. Five years later, according to the same source, Mohamed Morsi, who led a short-lived Muslim Brotherhood government, sent a delegation to Washington where the Americans proposed that “Egypt cede a third of the Sinai to Gaza in a two-stage process spanning four to five years”.

Since 2014, it appears, Morsi’s successor, General Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi, has faced similar lobbying. Suspicions that the Egyptian dictator might have been close to capitulating were fuelled at that time by Abbas himself. In an interview on Egyptian TV, he said Israel’s Sinai plan had been unfortunately accepted by some here [in Egypt]. Don’t ask me more about that. We abolished it.”

But Sisi’s hand has since weakened. Both Abbas and Hamas are more isolated than ever, and the situation in Gaza more desperate. Israel has cultivated much closer ties to the Gulf states as they fashion joint opposition to Iran. Egypt is reported to have come under renewed pressure from the Gulf to concede territory in Sinai to help Trump with the long-delayed political elements of his “deal of the century”.

Since last year, indications are that the Trump administration is pursuing an Israeli plan to gradually shift the center of Gaza’s economic life into Sinai by constructing a free-trade industrial zone there as well as major infrastructure projects, such as a new power plant. That was the thrust of a document leaked earlier this year to the Israel Hayom, a free daily funded by Sheldon Adelson – a paper largely seen as a mouthpiece for Netanyahu and his government – that purported to be a leaked version, or at least a draft, of the Trump peace plan.

The advantages to Israel are that it would make the international community permanently responsible for Gaza’s economic welfare and leave Egypt and the wider Arab world in charge of pacifying, controlling, and punishing the people of Gaza should they protest their conditions. The Sinai plan would be viewed by western states as formally ending the occupation of Gaza and its 2 million inhabitants and provide a precedent for gradually relocating Palestinians from the West Bank and East Jerusalem to Sinai as well. Israel would finally be off the hook for the crimes it has committed since 1948.

Can Israel and the US really achieve all of this? Time will tell. But meanwhile, Gaza’s 2 million inhabitants are unlikely to be offered much relief from the horrifying reality of life in their prison – a prison that in only a few months will officially be judged uninhabitable.

*

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

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

Student protests, West Papua independence struggle, monstrous forest fires, an earthquake and a collapsing economy – the increasingly religiously fundamentalist Indonesia is suddenly facing too many disasters. It cannot cope with any of them.

Nothing seems to be going well for Indonesia, these days. People in West Papua are rebelling; an earthquake has devastated several communities in Ambon. The economy is slowing down, and is expected to grow only below 5%, while the population is skyrocketing, out of control.

Students are rebelling, protesting against a proposed law that could make sex outside marriage illegal and punishable by prison terms. Another piece of legislation will turn the recently re-elected President Joko Widodo (known by his nickname – Jokowi) into a demi-god, making it illegal to criticize him. People are also rebelling against the changes which Jokowi announced –curbing labor rights and “opening up” the economy for, virtually, unbridled foreign “investment”.

Some people have already lost their lives, in Papua, in Sulawesi, and elsewhere.

Man-made forest fires, the most vicious in the world, are now continuously ruining millions of lives, sending toxic smoke all over the entire Southeast Asia, as far as Thailand. Flames are also quickly finishing up all that is left of the Indonesian native forests.

*

Things were not supposed to be so bad for the Indonesian President Jokowi.

Just recently, he bragged that he was not afraid of anything, and has nothing to lose, as he cannot run for a third term. He proclaimed that he will do precisely what he always wanted to do: to lift restrictions on foreign investment, to give multi-nationals ‘tax holidays’, and to reform labor laws.

Basically, Jokowi has decided to implement brutal Thatcherite-style capitalism. Of course, Indonesia has already suffered from turbo-capitalism since the US-sponsored military coup in 1965, but for decades, the regime consisted of a sort of medley of extreme capitalism, cronyism and cheap, aggressive nationalism.

Jokowi met with the US President Donald Trump, pouring embarrassing and servile compliments at him, asking him “on behalf of millions of the Indonesia people” to come and visit his country.

Donald Trump promised to “do business with Indonesia”.

What kind of business would it be, everyone can imagine. One can only recall his “investment:” in Bali, a golf course resort in Tanah Lot, which ruined thousands of local lives.

But Jokowi and the Indonesian elites are ruling with an iron fist, and with absolute control over the mass media. No left-wing dissent is allowed.

Before the latest elections, the former military general Prabowo was once again unleashed as an opposition candidate. Prabowo, backed by the Islamist hard-liners, was nothing else other than a bogeyman. His presence fooled many poor and the middle class into voting for Jokowi, who appeared to at least be a little bit more reasonable. This way, Indonesians put their own neck into a loop. From the moment Jokowi got elected, the regime could proclaim, cynically: “You see, you voted for this President yourself, twice”.

*

After the elections, things began moving extremely fast.

Jokowi ‘decided’ to move the nation’s capital, from Jakarta to the devastated island of Borneo (known in Indonesia as Kalimantan).

That was, just in case that the island brutally plundered by the elites and foreign companies, would one day dare to dream about gaining its independence. According to one of my contacts in Kalimantan (a local celebrated writer J. J. Kusni), the president and his entourage already have big investments on the island.

Abandoning Jakarta, a megapolis with an urban area of around 30 million people, is a tremendously cynical move. The over-populated city is sinking. It is hell on earth consisting of brutal slums (where the majority of people live), dotted with skyscrapers, luxury hotels and malls. The city is governed by a corrupt clique, with hardly any green areas, and basically nothing public. Its air quality is the worst in the world.

Instead of improving the lives of the people, the government is planning to grab billions of dollars, flee and build some utopian paradise in the middle of the far-away jungle.

Of course, the paradises have never materialized in Indonesia. Money will disappear into private pockets, and what will be constructed in Borneo will be, like everywhere, an ensemble of sub-standard buildings.

The people in Jakarta do not understand. The propaganda is too colorful and convincing. People living in Kalimantan (Borneo Island) are too debilitated, while some have been out rightly bought. There is hardly anything left of their island. No one there is ready to fight for anything.

*

And Kalimantan, like Sumatra, is burning.

As written by Maria C. Lo Bue, from the United Nations University:

“Indonesia is currently in the throes of an environmental emergency. Thousands of hectares of forest are burning across the vast country, causing toxic smoke to be released into the atmosphere. This has led to eerie apocalyptic scenes of deep red skies, deserted streets and people with their faces covered with masks…”

“Carbon-rich peatland forests on the island of Sumatra and Kalimantan have been extensively cleared to create new plantations, often to produce palm oil…”

“So far, more than 35.000 fires have been detected in 2019…”

What follows is a litany, but all that is written in the report is an under-statement.

The Air Quality Index (AQI) has reached not just ‘hazardous’, but disastrous levels; up to 2,000 in Central Kalimantan (just for comparison, over 100 is already considered “unhealthy”.

When I was filming in Central Kalimantan, recently, the government did close to nothing to combat the fires. It was actually promoting palm oil, even threating countries that were criticizing plantations, with retaliatory sanctions.

“Pray for rains,” was the suggestion from Jokowi’s government, as long as money is being made; even if human lives are lost, entire species eradicated, and tropical forests ruined. All this means absolutely nothing – zero. Indonesia and its government have reached point of no return. All shame, compassion and considerations for this planet and the people have been lost!

*

In the meantime, Jokowi is preparing his scarred country for more plunder.

As reported by Bloomberg:

“Indonesian President Joko Widodo said he’ll introduce sweeping changes to labor rules by the end of the year and open up more sectors of the economy to foreign investment…”

What follows is an account by Bloomberg, which does everything possible to suggest, but not to define the fact that Indonesian workers will lose countless benefits and will be easy to fire, precisely what is demanded by the multi-national corporations. It reads like this:

“Businesses have long complained that generous severance packages, a complex minimum wage system and restrictions on hiring and firing workers make it difficult for them to expand operations…”

Jokowi sees the present labor laws that are protecting workers as “handcuffs”. No one, not even the pro-Western brutal right-wing dictator Suharto was known for using such inflammatory and treasonous language.

Instead of educating people, instead of providing them with better health, job security and housing, Jokowi is cutting their benefits.

Of course, he is hailed by Western mass media outlets, multi-nationals and individuals like Trump.

Bloomberg ‘explains’:

“Relative to the size of its economy and population, Indonesia attracts little foreign direct investment. In a recent World Bank document presented to Jokowi, none of the 33 Chinese companies that announced plans to set up or expand production abroad between June and August chose Indonesia. They preferred locations such as Vietnam and Cambodia.”

But why? Because of “labor laws”? Nonsense! Socialist Vietnam has much stronger legislation, protecting workers, than Indonesia. But it has an excellent and educated work-force. Many Vietnamese technicians and engineers were schooled in the former Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Poland. Even relatively rich Malaysia used to employ Vietnamese workers in the Proton automobile plants.

Furthermore, Indonesia murdered countless people belonging to the Chinese minority, after the 1965 coup. Chinese culture, even language, were banned for decades (until President Abdurrahman Wahid came to power). Pogroms against the Chinese minority were many and brutal. Racism is Indonesia is rampant.

China is also well aware of the “special relationship” between Indonesia and the West, particularly the United States. More precisely, the servility of Indonesian elites towards its former colonial masters, and the neo-colonialist clique in Washington.

*

For decades, the Indonesia elites have been getting away with murder, both metaphorically and concretely.

But something got broken. This administration, the most appalling since Suharto’s reign, has clearly crossed the line.

West Papuans have already lost around 500,000 people since the beginning of occupation. They will not back down. They are fighting. The occupants from Java and elsewhere are fleeing. Western mass media tries to be silent, but cannot, anymore. What has been happening in West Papua is genocide.

The destruction of the environment all over the archipelago is so horrific that it has no ‘competition’ anywhere in the world. But while Brazil is constantly in the spotlight, Indonesia with much a worse record is not.

The Indonesian people live and die in misery. Grotesque statistics are totally spiteful to the enormous plight of the nation. Many more than half live in misery. Tens of millions are unaccounted for by corrupt local statisticians.

Air and water are heavily poisoned. Almost all public property has been stolen, by the “elites”, a long time ago.

And so, now, people are dying, dying terrible deaths. Fighting for independence in West Papua, poisoned by smoke in Kalimantan, killed by armed forces during the protests. They also die from earthquakes, because their dwellings are miserable, and because rescue crews are terribly trained and endlessly lazy.

And, people have had enough. They had enough of this regime, and the administration. They had enough of the savage capitalism; of this life.

The problem is that most of Indonesians have no idea what they want. Socialism, Communism, even words like “class” have been banned here, for decades, according to the leading historian Asvi Warman Adam. What kind of society? But they know that ‘not this’, not this one. Enough!

The streets are turning into battlegrounds. Papua is rising. Workers are outraged by the changes proposed by the government. What is left of the native nature and species is being robbed, converted into oil plantations, poisoned, killed. Jakarta, Bandung and other major cities are clogged with cars, garbage and pollution.

It cannot go on like this. The elites, who have robbed everything, know it. They have golden parachutes – condominiums and villas in Australia, California, Gulf, Singapore and Hong Kong. As the country continues further collapsing, they will be laughing on the way to the airport.

Uprisings are erupting all over the archipelago. It is dangerous.

Uprising and revolutions are very important in places where the workers and peasants are educated; where they know what they want.

In Indonesia, it is all about anger, envy, and frustration. The last time this happened, Chinese women were dragged out from cars, and brutally gang raped. Churches went up in flames.

Indonesia, isolated from the world by a brutal regime, for decades, is far from ready for a constructive, progressive revolution.

The entire archipelago is tense. It is ready to explode. It is exploding. But the blast will not convert Indonesia into a new China or Vietnam. No socialist, no communist leaders are at the frontline of the rebellion. Regressive forces may try to kidnap this rebellion. This may be the most dangerous moment for the country, since the 1965 coup.

*

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

Andre Vltchek is philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He’s a creator of Vltchek’s World in Word and Images, and a writer that penned a number of books, including China and Ecological Civilization. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Andre Vltchek is a frequent contributor to Global Research 

Featured image is from NEO

After months of escalating tit-for-tat tariff increases, and bringing the global economy to the precipice of a global currency war, the US and China agreed to a partial deal on their trade dispute this past week.

Trump heralds the deal as Phase 1 of an historic agreement, subsequent phases to follow. But is this the end of the US-China trade conflict? Will phase 2, to begin after the signing of Phase 1 five weeks from now, wrap up the remaining issues? Or will Phase 1 just announced be all that the parties will agree to over restructuring their trade relations (and money capital flows)? Other questions of import include: who got the better end of the Phase 1 deal—China or Trump?

Why did Trump settle for the partial deal that China was calling for, and not the ‘big deal’ that Trump was declaring publicly he wanted or else there’d be no deal? Why did Trump concede to a lesser partial deal now instead of pressing for his ‘big deal’? Not least, what is the likelihood the remaining, unresolved issues will be concluded before the US 2020 elections?

A Brief Historical Recap

The US-China trade dispute erupted publicly in March 2018. Its origins, however, go back to August 2017, when the Office of US Trade Representative (USTR) issued a preliminary report charging that China’s ‘2025 Plan’ projected passing the US in next generation technology development (5G wireless, Artificial Intelligence, Cybersecurity). China’s plan represented a fundamental challenge to US global economic—and military—hegemony next decade, according to the USTR. That initial USTR report was followed by a second report released in March 2018 that concluded and confirmed what the first had raised: i.e. China represented a threat in nextgen technology development that the US could not ignore. The trade war with China only then commenced, with Trump imposing an initial $50 billion in tariffs on China imports.

An initial tentative agreement was reached between the main negotiators, the US team led at the time by US Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, in May 2018. That tentative deal was quickly scuttled, however, as US neocons, China hardliners, Pentagon, and the US Military Industrial Complex and friends in Congressional defense appropriations committees organized their forces and got Trump to nix the deal. The scuttled deal included China agreeing to buy $1 trillion more in US farm goods over five years and agreeing to allow US banks and financial institutions to have 51% ownership control of their operations in China. China reiterated the concessions over the summer of 2018, to no avail. The main issue was not the US trade deficit. Nor IP guarantees. Nor tech sharing of US companies in China. Nor even majority ownership of US operations in China. The main issue was the development of nextgen technologies—AI, 5G, and cyber. US Neocons aligned with the Pentagon-Military Industrial Complex, now led by Robert Lighthizer, the head of the USTR, Peter Navarro, special trade adviser to Trump, and subsequently later in 2019, John Bolton, demanded China slow, and even share its nextgen technology development with the US, or else no deal!

Negotiations stalled thereafter as Trump turned his focus to the NAFTA 2.0 negotiations and the 2020 midterm elections approached. Negotiations were restarted in January 2019 after the midterm elections, and another five months of negotiations between the parties took place until another tentative deal was reached in May 2019. That tentative deal once again was blown up at the last minute by the Lighthizer-Navarro neocon faction now in control of negotiations, with Mnuchin in tow as a co-chair. As the China delegation prepared to come to the US to sign off in May 2019, the US raised new demands: China had to share its nextgen technology development with the US, cease subsidizing its state owned enterprises, and provide assurances it would not devalue its currency to offset US tariffs (which now totaled $200 billion). Furthermore, US tariffs would remain in effect even if an agreement were reached, according to the US. All these demands were publicly communicated in the week prior to the May 2019 meeting in Washington D.C. when the deal was scheduled to be signed off. Understandably, the China delegation came and returned home in a day. The Neocons had scuttled a deal once again. Nextgen technology was the crux. Either China capitulated on nextgen tech or there was no deal, according to the Neocon-Pentagon position.

Trump thereafter met China president, Xi, in Osaka Japan at the G20 meeting and both agreed once again to restart negotiations. Both also agreed to keep a hold on the level of existing tariffs and not raise them further in the meantime. But Trump broke the pledge in late July 2019 when, on advice of his neocon trade negotiators, he raised tariffs on the remaining $250 billion of China imports. The understanding with Xi not to raise more tariffs was thus shattered. China raised tariffs of its own on US goods in response.

Trump threatened to raise existing tariffs by another 5%, to 25% and 30%, and levy more on all remaining China imports in December 2019. The trade war was intensifying. China stopped intervening briefly in global money markets to prevent its currency, the Yuan, from devaluing and allowed it to fall 5%-7%–a move that essentially negated Trump’s additional 5% tariff hike. Stock and bond markets swooned on the prospect of a trade war now morphing into a currency war. The trade war, based mostly on tariff hikes, was about to expand the economic conflict beyond mere tariff measures. Tariffs were already slowing the global economy; a currency war would quickly spread beyond US and China and inject even more instability into the slowing global economy. Both China and Trump peered over the cliff of a pending broader economic war between the two economies—and then backed off.

Trump’s September 2019 Retreat

Fast forward, the outcome by September 2019 was yet another resumption of negotiations between the two parties, followed by the announcement last week of a ‘Phase 1’ deal on trade.

So why did Trump ‘stand down’ and agree to a deal now, after escalating his threats and actions over the summer? The reasons clearly have to do with the US economy softening in the 3rd quarter combined with a growing discontent in the farm sector over Trump’s handling of a trade dispute that was beginning to bite hard on US farm sector sales that were heavily dependent on exports to China.

As the trade dispute between the countries had intensified over 2018-19, Trump had placated farm interests by providing an extra $28 billion in direct farm subsidies. But it wasn’t enough. According to some sources, no fewer than 12,000 farms went bankrupt in 2018 alone. The $28 billion was going mostly to agribusiness and not getting down to independent farmers who needed it most. Farm sector trade associations were demanding Trump settle the trade dispute and their voices grew louder after the August escalation between the US and China.

So too were other notable business groups, like the US Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable, raising their complaints about the now rapid deterioration of the negotiations. The trade war was beginning to clearly impact general business investment and manufacturing in the Midwest US, and not only in the US but worldwide. US business investment on new plant and equipment turned negative in the 2nd quarter and promised to continue to slump, while business inventory investment was also being pared. The trade war was beginning to impact beyond the farm sector. By August the US manufacturing sector began to contract, joining what had now become a global manufacturing recession. Moreover, at the end of August it was also beginning to appear that the manufacturing contraction in the US was potentially spilling over to the larger services sector. While manufacturing PMIs were contracting in the US, the even larger Services sector PMI had begun to decelerate sharply in terms of growth rate. Of equal concern, the new round of Trump tariffs on consumer goods now threatened to slow US consumer spending—the only sector of the economy still holding up in terms of growth. Chase bank research was estimating that, with the new Trump tariffs on China consumer good imports set for September and December, consumer spending would be reduced on average by no less than $1,000 per household.

It was this growing economic slowdown in the US—combined with the growing political discontent in the farm sector and from other major non-farm business organizations—that pushed Trump to concede into last week’s Phase 1 deal. Trump’s 2020 election interests had become more paramount than the concerns of the neocons and militarists who were demanding China capitulate on the nextgen tech issue or no deal. A rapid about face by Trump occurred by late August-early September and China was once again invited to resume talks in Washington in early October.

The content of the Phase 1 deal reached October 11, 2019 last week reveals that Trump abandoned his ‘big deal or no deal’ position and retreated from the neocon ‘non negotiable’ demand, that was holding up a deal since May 2018, that China capitulate on the nextgen tech issue or no deal.

Placating his farm sector political base to get China to resume purchases, and taking China’s 51% ownership concession desperately wanted by US big banks (i.e. the primary demand of the Mnuchin faction on the US negotiating team), became Trump’s new priority demand in Phase 1. The nextgen technology issue so critical to the neocons was clearly demoted and removed from the bargaining table by the US. In Phase 1 China got its ‘partial’ deal—and absent any concessions on the nextgen tech issue. That was left for a Phase 2 or even Phase 3, as Trump put it in his press conference the same day. Trump got what the China delegation had already offered way back in 2018: i.e. 51% ownership and resumption of big purchases of US farm products.

In short, Trump caved in and in effect “took the money and ran”. His 2020 re-election interests took precedence over the neocon-military concerns over China’s nextgen tech development.

What’s In the Phase 1 Deal?

Important to note, the Phase 1 deal itself is not yet a signed agreement. It’s a verbal understanding between Trump and China’s vice-premier and chief negotiator, Liu He. In his press conference announcing the deal on October 11, Trump admitted the parties were yet to sign off even on Phase 1 but hoped that it could be done within 5 weeks; that is by the time Trump and Xi meet again at the APEC conference in Chile in November.

Trump boasted repeatedly the Phase 1 deal included up to $40-$50 billion in new US farm purchases by China. Over what period was not clear, however. Trump vacillated from saying current levels of China farm purchases were $8 billion, or maybe $16 billion, or was $17 billion at prior peaks. He really didn’t know. Or maybe it was $20 billion, as one side comment was made in the press conference. It sounded like $40 billion was the target agreed to in principle and over the course of the next two years. But that was the ceiling apparently. Trump declared there’s “never been a deal of this magnitude for the American farmer”. Of course that wasn’t true. But the Trump hyperbole and spin was in.

Another major agreement area in Phase 1, according to Trump, was China’s confirmation it would allow US companies to own 51% of their operations in China. As Trump put it, “banks will be very very happy”. More US multinational corporations could now shift even more production to China.
What was agreed to in ‘IP, or intellectual property’ protections was left vague in Phase 1. Trump admitted only some IP issues were included in Phase 1 but didn’t say what. IP was mostly left to Phase 2, per Trump.

Equally vague was the understanding in Phase 1 on how China might agree not to devalue the Yuan, its currency. That was key to the US since devaluation would offset Trump tariffs. Trade representative, Lighthizer, provided some vague commentary during the Trump press conference about how China and the US would meet to work out some rules in that regard. But the devaluation issue itself was irrelevant. China had consistently over the preceding 15 months of trade war intervened in money markets to keep its currency from devaluing, and did so even as the rising US dollar was the primary cause of the pressure on the Yuan to devalue, as it other currencies worldwide as well. If anything was driving the devaluation it was the rising US dollar, not a policy action by China to enact a devaluation.

On the important tariff front, in Phase 1 Trump agreed only to suspend his threatened 5% tariff hike (raising rates from 25% to 30%) due the following week of October.

What’s NOT In Phase 1

What’s not in Phase 1 reveals clearly that Trump clearly capitulated on the nextgen tech issue in exchange for resumption of farm purchases and the 51% US bank ownership in China offer.

Tech issues were in general put off. As Trump declared, would be “largely done in Phase 2”, or maybe even a Phase 3. And Phase 2 would not begin until and if Phase 1 verbal understandings were ‘signed off’ in writing five weeks from now by Trump and Xi in Chile.

Further revealing no agreement on the strategic nextgen tech issue, Trump indicated the US would continue its policy attacking China’s 5G tech company, Huawei, as well as selectively ‘blacklist’ other Chinese AI companies in the US. That was, he added, “a separate process”. So the nextgen tech issue is now a separate track, in effect decoupled from the trade negotiations. It is very unlikely it will be reintroduced in Phase 2, should that subsequent round even occur, which is not likely in any substantive way before the 2020 US elections.

Also left out of Phase 1 was any US reduction of existing tariffs on China imports. That continuation of tariff levels included the $160 billion of China consumer goods exports to the US scheduled for December 15, 2019.

The US also apparently failed to attain its demand that China reduce its subsidies to its state owned enterprises—a strange proposal given that the US just subsidized its business sector with trillions of dollars with Trump’s 2018 tax cuts.

Some Predictions

For more than a year now this writer has been predicting that there would be no deal with China so long as the US negotiating team was dominated by the neocons and they continued to insist China capitulate on nextgen tech, or else no deal.

The related prediction, however, was that Trump would abandon the neocon-military interests’ prioritization of tech issues, and Trump would settle for concessions China already offered concerning US 51% majority ownership and farm purchases. The shift would occur, it was predicted, when the US economy significantly weakened—i.e. threatening Trump’s support in the farm sector and among US big business, and therefore his election in 2020.

The Phase 1 deal reflects just those predictions: Trump has decided to forego resolution of the tech issue and decided to take the money (farm purchases) and run. He has the full support of US big banks and manufacturing in so doing for their priority demand has always been the 51% ownership concession by China.

It is highly unlike there will be a ‘Phase 2’ in anything but a token discussion level.

And if there is, it is extremely unlikely it will include any meaningful concessions by China on next gen tech—i.e. AI, 5G, cybersecurity. China has now clearly prevailed in blunting Trump and the neocon offensive in that regard. For their part, Trump and US military-industrial-Pentagon interests will continue to pursue blocking China on the tech issue in ways decoupled from trade negotiations. Various other measures will now be the focus, such as attacking and blacklisting China tech companies in the US and even elsewhere among US allies. Perhaps even delisting them from US stock exchanges, as a recent Washington ‘trial balloon’ proposed. Trump did not go there on the eve of the recent negotiations. It would certainly have ‘blown up’ the trade deal once again if he had. But that—blacklisting and delisting—remain as likely US tactics in the months to come. For the technology war—i.e. the real war behind the tariffs and trade war—has only just begun between the two countries. And a broader economic war involving non-tariff measures is almost certain to erupt after the 2020 elections.

A ‘Phase 2’ follow up negotiations is tentatively set for after the Phase 1 sign off in November in Chile. Not much will come of it, however, so long as Trump insists on maintaining the current level of 25% tariffs on China imports to the US. Trump likes the current level of tariffs and the revenue it brings in, which allows him a somewhat independent source of financing for his domestic programs independent of the US Congress passing legislation and authorization bills which he now won’t get. On the other hand, Trump may temporarily suspend the planned tariff hikes on $160 billion of consumer goods due December 15, 2019 should the US economy continue to weaken in the 4th quarter, which is more likely than not. But it will be a temporary suspension, not a dropping of the tariffs.

The 15 month long US-China so-called trade war is over. There will be further discussions but no significant changes before the US 2020 election. What Trump got in Phase 1 is all he’s going to get. He’s probably promised the neocons, who have lost out on this Phase 1 deal, even more aggressive action against China companies doing business in the US. That’s there ‘concession prize’. Worst case, Phase 1 might not even be finalized, should the neocon-Pentagon-Military Industrial Complex faction regroup and try to scuttle the deal, once again for a third time. There’s always that possibility. Especially should Trump’s legitimacy fade further due to impeachment proceedings. It’s not impossible the Phase 1 verbal deal might also collapse but not likely at this point.

A Failed Trump Trade Policy

Trump’s trade war with China is clearly a net failure. Trump could have gotten the same deal back in 2018, more than a year ago. Instead, the dispute was allowed to escalate, with the effect of causing business uncertainty and slowing investment in the US and worldwide due to the 15 month trade war. The trade war has clearly played a part in the global manufacturing recession now underway, which threatens now to spread to services and consumption and precipitate a general recession in the US economy and possibly even worldwide.

Trump has pushed the global economy to the brink of a worldwide currency war in the process as well. He has drained $28 billion thus far from business and consumer spending in order to collect tariff revenues that he’s diverted in turn to the farm sector in subsidies that otherwise might not have been necessary. Small business, household consumers, and failing small farmers have paid the price and will continue to do so in higher prices from continuing tariffs.

Despite 15 months of trade war with China—and a series of ‘softball’ trade deals with South Korea, Japan, and Mexico-Canada—the US trade deficit as of August 2019 has reached record deficit levels of $55 billion that month and an annual rate of nearly $700 billion a year. The trade wars have been totally ineffective in reducing the US trade deficit—if that was ever the goal.

Who Benefits?

In net terms, the Trump trade wars have produced little for US capitalist business interests compared to what they already had going into the conflict in March 2018. Conversely, China has clearly prevailed in protecting its nextgen technology plans—i.e. the main target behind the US trade war identified back in August 2017 and launched March 2018 by the USTR and Trump. US agribusiness got their farm purchases renewed—and $28 billion in subsidies to boot. US big banks and multinational companies got their 51%. Trump got an independent executive branch source of revenue flow in the form of tariffs. The US consumer and small goods manufacturers and businesses get to pay for much of it all in the form of rising prices. And more US multinational companies will likely move more productions—and jobs—to China now that they have 51% ownership control.

In a broader picture of ensuring US global economic hegemony in the years ahead, if the Trump trade wars were to be about restructuring global capitalist trade relations favoring the US for another decade, then the outcome is also clearly a dismal failure. The Trump trade war with China has produced few net results in that sense. China prevailed this round in the technology war and will now seriously challenge the US in the 2020s in nextgen technology and the new industries it would create—as well as the new military technologies it portends. Meanwhile, Trump’s ‘other trade wars’ with US allies has similarly produced few net strategic results. They have been thus far ‘token softball’ deals that have merely tweaked existing trade relationships.

Trump’s trade wars have proven to be a lot of bombast, hyperbole, and smoke with no fire. Trump set up straw men opponents, to knock down and allow him to declare he has out-negotiated his president predecessors by rearranging global trade and money flow relations. But this is in fact not so, as history and the next decade will undoubtedly show.

Jack Rasmus is a distinguished author, economist and frequent contributor to Global 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.

Featured image is from FinanceTwitter

When Twitter Safety announced that it was taking actions against “information operations” directed at Hong Kong – informed observers could have immediately assumed that Twitter was not actually serious about stopping anything of the sort – but rather ensuring the information operation they are a part of was protected and those attempting to take action against it were purged from their platform.

And of course, those informed observers would be correct.

The official statement published on Twitter’s official blog titled, “Information operations directed at Hong Kong,” would claim:

We are disclosing a significant state-backed information operation focused on the situation in Hong Kong, specifically the protest movement and their calls for political change.

The statement would also claim:

This disclosure consists of 936 accounts originating from within the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Overall, these accounts were deliberately and specifically attempting to sow political discord in Hong Kong, including undermining the legitimacy and political positions of the protest movement on the ground. Based on our intensive investigations, we have reliable evidence to support that this is a coordinated state-backed operation. Specifically, we identified large clusters of accounts behaving in a coordinated manner to amplify messages related to the Hong Kong protests.

Ironically, “a coordinated state-backed operation” is exactly what the Hong Kong protests themselves are.

Extensively documented evidence – much of which was being exposed and shared by accounts purged by Twitter including this author’s own Twitter accounts – has proven beyond doubt that the Hong Kong protesters are funded and directed by the United States government with virtually every protest leader having literally travelled to Washington D.C. to conspire with US politicians and organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) – an entity openly admitted to be used for destabilizing and overthrowing political orders in foreign nations.

Despite this overt foreign-backed effort to destabilize Hong Kong and wider China – Twitter has instead decided to target accounts within China itself to disrupt any effort to expose and confront this US-backed unrest unfolding in Hong Kong.

Twitter, Western Media Aiding and Abetting Terrorism 

More recently, US-backed agitators have turned from violence including attacking police and arson – to attacking Hong Kong’s civilian infrastructure including its mass transit system. Protesters have been seen intentionally trying to derail trains – and in fact – one train did derail injuring several passengers.

The Washington Post in its article, “Under Hong Kong’s streets, the subway becomes a battleground for protesters and police,” would report (emphasis added):

Rail operator MTR Corp. also has become a protest target, stemming from a perception among demonstrators that it has conspired with authorities to stymie protest action. Stations have been vandalized so frequently in recent weeks that there is a shortage of parts needed for repairs, the rail union has said. 

In a city where about 90 percent of journeys are via public transportation, the clashes have left some of Hong Kong’s 7.5 million residents feeling they no longer have any safe spaces, susceptible to arrest or police scrutiny whenever they venture out. Some people are boycotting the MTR, while others suffer flashbacks when they ride the trains.

An “AFP Fact Check” attempting to exhonerate protesters of being caught sabotaging rail that led to a derailment which injured 5 commuters simply notes that protesters caught on camera sabotaging tracks were at a different location trying to derail a different train than the train in question.

Nowhere does AFP attempt to deny the protesters were still very much so sabotaging train tracks and endangering hundreds of lives in the process.

Despite presenting evidence to the public clearly showing protesters sabotaging civilian mass transit infrastructure and thus endangering hundreds of innocent lives – because it wasn’t at the specific location the derailment occured – AFP boldly declares at the top of their “Fact Check” that it was “FALSE.”

The paralyzing “fear” the Washington Post describes but falls intentionally short of properly labelling, and the deliberate sabotage of train tracks AFP attempts to spin and defend is called “terrorism.”

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines terrorism as: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Terror is defined as: violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion.  

Thus – the Hong Kong protests whose “legitimacy” Twitter is dedicated to preserving – are engaged in terrorism. Twitter is thus an eager accomplice.

Information Warfare Disguised as Social Media 

None of this should be surprising. The 2011 so-called “Arab Spring” was a region-wide campaign organized years ahead of time by the US government in coordination with other social media giants including Facebook and Google which admittedly trained and equipped agitators to destabilize – and if possible – overthrow their respective governments.

This continues today with many nations now reacting by restricting or banning foreign social media platforms and producing their own domestic versions. Russia and China are two nations in particular that have done this with great success and have attracted constant criticism for it across the Western media under the false pretext of “eroding free speech.”

It is little wonder why Twitter is banned in China.

It is not a matter of China seeking to impede free speech because free speech itself is a concept completely alien to Twitter. Massive purges are regularly carried out by Twitter – as well as other social media networks like Google’s Youtube and Facebook – to remove political content that targets the special interests these large social media networks represent.

Twitter is banned in China specifically because it is a weaponized platform – designed specifically to manipulate public perception and serve as a vector for very real “information operations” carried out by the US, aimed at China itself – including China’s special administrative region of Hong Kong.

If mere suspicions of “Russian influence” can induce massive network-wide purges on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter to stave off alleged foreign interference in another nation’s internal political affairs – certainly Hong Kong protest leaders like Joshua Wong, Martin Lee, Johnson Yeung Ching-yin, and Jimmy Lai literally travelling to Washington, receiving funding and political backing from the US government constitutes an overt example of such foreign interference and should be moved to the top of Twitter’s purge list.

The fact that Twitter not only has taken no action to expose and stop US interference in Hong Kong, but is actively aiding and abetting it illustrates unmistakable as well as unforgivable hypocrisy shedding any doubt over what Twitter actually is. It is not a social media platform – but a political tool merely masquerading as social media.

This revelation – proven indisputably numerous times and most recently in regards to Hong Kong – should prompt nations around the globe to follow Russia and China’s lead in producing domestic alternatives and regulating Twitter, Facebook, and Google out of their information space.

For Twitter and its most recent purge to uphold the “legitimacy” of Hong Kong’s protesters – the end result is simply proving that US social media platforms are just as eager in reality to purge users and censor content as they claim China is.

*

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

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO

On October 7, users of Adobe software products in Venezuela began receiving messages saying that the company would no longer provide them with services, citing U.S. government sanctions (specifically Executive Order (E.O.) 13884). Over the next four days, Flickr, TransferWise and Oracle informed Venezuelan users that they, too, would cease services due to E.O. 13884. This could be the beginning of a broader U.S. corporate pull out of Venezuela and is more evidence that Venezuela is under embargo, as both the Maduro government and The Wall Street Journal have stated.

E.O. 13884 constitutes an embargo as it prohibits transactions with the Venezuelan government. It also threatens secondary sanctions on companies that “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services” to the government. However, nothing in this unilateral coercive measure prevents the aforementioned companies from doing business with private citizens in Venezuela. What’s yet to be determined is whether these are cases of “overcompliance” or whether the U.S. government has begun pressuring companies to leave.

Overcompliance refers to when corporations obey sanctions that do not apply to them, sometimes out of fear of noncompliance, but also as a business decision since sanctions indicate a hard-line policy posture that may come to affect their bottom line. The Trump administration’s application of increasingly stringent sanctions on Venezuela reflects a doubling down on its regime change efforts, which serve as a clear signal to businesses that investments in Venezuela carry greater and greater risk. Overcompliance has led banks and financial service providers to freeze Venezuelan accounts or refuse to process Venezuelan financial operations, even transfers for the purchase of food and medicine.

The departures of Adobe and Oracle will harm ordinary Venezuelans more than they will harm the government or government officials. In 2004, then-President Chávez signed a decree for government institutions to begin transitioning to free open source software, away from paid software. This was followed by a 2013 law approved by the National Assembly, which sought to expand the move to open source to institutions of people’s power (communal councils, cooperatives, communes, etc.). Although I.T. experts in the country had warned that institutions had been slow to migrate to open sources, it is unlikely that many government institutions were spending funds to pay for the latest versions of Adobe and Oracle. This means that the majority of those affected by the departures will be businesses and individuals; in other words, the private sector, which, as of 2017, represented over two thirds of Venezuela’s economy.

Professionals in Venezuela have increasingly been working remotely for foreign companies in order to earn foreign currency and ride out the economic crisis. These workers often don’t have the freedom to choose which software to use and as a result they could lose their jobs. The Adobe and Oracle decisions will directly impact their bottom line and might force them to emigrate.

Immediately after the news broke about Adobe, Venezuelan opposition figure Juan Guaidó announced that he would contact the company to ask them to reconsider. As he has never attempted to ensure that the Trump sanctions do not affect the Venezuelan state’s food and medicine imports, it’s likely that his reason for speaking out is that his own base will be disportionately affected. Guaidó is willing to let poor and working class Venezuelans suffer, while he seeks to guarantee that the middle and upper classes aren’t overly burdened.

TransferWise’s decision to end services in Venezuela is also troubling, as this company provides a way for Venezuelans abroad to send remittances to their families facing the economic crisis. Remittances are notoriously difficult to calculate for Venezuela as most people prefer to avoid the government’s currency exchange mechanism (which gives less bolivares per dollar than the parallel, or “black,” market). However, one rough estimate claims that 30% of Venezuelan households will receive remittances for a total of $3 billion in 2019. If other money transfer companies leave, it will leave millions of Venezuelans in the lurch, as E.O. 13884 seems to make it impossible to send remittance through Venezuelan government channels.

The timing of the announcements is suspect: why did these four companies suddenly announce their decision to leave more than two months after E.O. 13884 was issued? There might never be a definitive answer to this question, but it is curious that these announcements are coinciding with a Trump administration pressure campaign related to the sanctions. The administration has spent the last two months talking with allies in Europe and Latin America, as well as its adversaries Cuba and Russia, to convince them to either impose sanctions of their own on Venezuela or end their support of the Maduro government. The U.S activated the Rio Treaty to give Latin American countries a legal framework for sanctions. Elliott Abrams, the White House Special Envoy on Venezuela, admitted that the administration is “always looking for ways to squeeze” Cuba. If the Trump administration is going to these lengths to pressure countries, then it may well be reaching out to U.S. corporations to have them cease operations in Venezuela.

This would be a logical next step for the US’s regime change efforts, to the extent that there can be logic in continuing a failed policy of regime change that has already resulted in the deaths of more than 40,000 Venezuelans in 2017-2018 (the current figure of deaths is likely significantly higher as the sanctions have become harsher). The departures of Adobe, Oracle, and others are relatively insignificant when compared to the suffering already being imposed on the Venezuelan people. Yet as more companies feel forced to leave, the suffering will deepen.

*

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

Leonardo Flores is a coordinator with CODEPINK’s Latin America Campaign.

Featured image: A Hands Off Venezuela protest in London on January 28, 2018. (Socialist Appeal/Flickr).

Kurds in northern Syria comprise around 10% of the nation’s population, its largest ethnic minority.

Their relationship with Damascus has been uneasy at best, stormy at worst. They seek local autonomy. 

Syrian authorities want the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity preserved and protected, their right under the UN Charter and other international law.

US-dominated NATO and Israel want Syria illegally partitioned along ethnic lines for easier imperial control — part of their scheme to redraw the Middle East map.

As things now stand, war rages in Idlib province, largely controlled by thousands of US-supported al-Nusra terrorists, holding around three million civilians hostage as human shields.

After Turkish forces launched cross-border aggression last week, things greatly escalated — Kurdish YPG fighters outgunned and outmatched against the onslaught.

Their only option was seeking accommodation with Bashar al-Assad against a common Turkish foe, President Erdogan hell bent to annex northern Syrian territory, especially its oil-producing areas.

His aggression has nothing to do with protecting Turkish security. It’s unthreatened by Syrian Kurds except in self-defense if attacked.

Nor is Ankara threatened by ISIS, al-Nusra and likeminded terrorists, elements Erdogan supports.

His rhetorical concern for Syrian refugees is head fake deception. His cross-border incursion is entirely for self-serving interests — unrelated to pretexts he and other Turkish officials cited as reasons for the current offensive.

All wars are based on Big Lies and deception, Turkish aggression following the norm — making restoration of peace and stability to Syria all the harder, especially if government troops from both countries clash.

Here’s where things now stand. Over the weekend, Syrian Kurds agreed with Damascus to have government troops aid them in countering Turkish aggression, a statement saying:

“To prevent and repel this attack, an agreement has been reached with the Syrian government to protect the border and sovereignty of Syria,” adding:

“The Syrian army will enter (Kurdish-controlled areas) and deploy troops along the entire Syrian-Turkish border in order to help (YPG fighters) repel this attack and liberate areas occupied by the Turkish army and its affiliates.”

According to reports cited by Southfront,

“by the morning  of October 14, Syrian Army units will enter the towns of Manbij and Kobani. Some sources say (government troops) will also enter into al-Tabqah. However, these reports still have to be confirmed.”

The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported that government forces are “moving north to confront Turkish aggression on Syrian territory,” adding:

“This movement comes to confront the ongoing Turkish aggression on towns and areas in the north of Hasaka and Raqqa provinces, where the Turkish forces committed massacres against locals, occupied some areas, and destroyed infrastructure.”

AMN News reported that Syrian forces are poised to enter Raqqa province for the first time since 2014, adding they’ll “soon enter the city.”

They’re “striking the positions of the foreigner-led Turkestan Islamic Party near the Turkish border” in Latakia province.

Late last week, Syrian attack helicopters struck US/Ankara supported jihadists along Turkey’s border.

Turkish troops are attacking “densely populated” al Qamishli neighborhoods, said AMN News, other civilian areas likely targeted the same way.

When naked aggression is waged, hostile forces ignore the rule of law, prohibiting attacks on civilian areas.

On Monday, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) said government troops are preparing “to confront Turkish aggression on Syrian territory,” adding:

“Turkish forces committed massacres against locals, occupied some areas, and destroyed infrastructure.”

“The Turkish regime forces (and ‘mercenary terrorists’) intensified aerial and artillery bombardment on villages and towns in Hasaka and Raqqa provinces in framework of their aggression on Syrian territory…occupying several towns and villages.”

On Sunday, SANA cited local sources, saying Turkish terror-bombing killed “dozens of people, including foreign journalists,” adding:

“A video surfaced showing tens of bodies and injured people, most of them having been mutilated and burned.”

Is Turkey using incendiary and other banned weapons against heavily populated areas?

Ankara’s large-scale aggression makes conflict resolution all the harder.

Restoration of peace and stability to Syria depends on defeating US-Turkish supported terrorists and aggression, along with ending illegal occupation by foreign forces.

These goals remain unattainable as long as Washington, NATO, Israel, and Turkey pursue their imperial aims in the country.

*

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.

Privacy campaigners have warned of an “epidemic of facial recognition” use around the UK. This, of course, followed the epidemic of CCTV that led to it in the first place. An investigation by Big Brother Watch, the civil liberties campaign group, found major property developers, shopping centres, museums, conference centres and casinos were using the technology in the UK. The police use it – with startlingly high failure rates. But now comes a new battleground in the privacy war – lie detection systems.

At TruePublica, we have warned about the rise of the UK’s techno-Stasi-state where technology is harnessed and used against the civilian population without any debate or indeed any real legal framework. But if you think that facial recognition is bad enough, then the next outrage against our civil liberties is already being rolled out – again, with no public debate. This time, civil society is being tested with AI-driven lie detection systems – and this is very much worse than facial recognition with more challenging implications.

There are literally hundreds of studies that have examined the ‘Pinnochio Effect‘ of humans and a quick online search provides many answers. Generally speaking, it is understood that we all tell one or two big lies a day and a few ‘white lies’ – and are then exposed to hundreds from others collectively. Lies range from being socially polite to covert reasons for personal advancement or indeed, to actively harm others. But then, we all know that. That’s why we trust some and not others. That’s why some truly inadequate, useless people get good jobs and others don’t. Lying is a game we all play, every day of our lives and we’ve learned to navigate it. Some better than others.

Technology has attempted to solve the problem of lying – or finding the truth, where a serious situation demands it. In cases of serious crimes, polygraphs would be great if they worked but they don’t. And here’s another lie. Invented in 1921, the Polygraph has put many behind bars in the USA. Some have been wrongfully put to death because of it. And yet, despite claims of 90% validity by polygraph advocates, the National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness and two-thirds of the scientific community who have the requisite background to evaluate polygraph procedures considered polygraphy to be little more than pseudoscience. And yet, there are about 2.5m polygraph exams still being conducted in the US every year in an industry worth $2.5 billion. It’s not about getting to the truth, it’s all about the money – as they say.

The UK has started using polygraphs which have been used on sex offenders since 2014, and in January 2019, the government announced plans to use it on domestic abusers on parole.  So you might also be alarmed to know that a new wave of lie detection systems are not just on their way, they are already in use.

Many startups now claim that a powerful new generation of lie-detection tools are not just working but in active use. They want us to believe that a virtually infallible lie detector is, just like the polygraph was in the 1920s, just around the corner.

The consequence is that these new systems are being acquired by police forces and state agencies desperate to keep ahead of potential breaches of national security. Worse, they are also now being used by insurance companies, welfare officers and soon on the horizon – by employers. For example – the Converus website promotes a product called EyeDetect and makes claims of 90% accuracy just as polygraphs once did. Its homepage says –

“EyeDetect® is a next-generation lie detector. It measures subtle changes in the eye to detect deception. EyeDetect is used to screen job applicants, employees, parolees, and immigrants — as well as law enforcement and public safety personnel — to protect against corruption and crime. It is also used to conduct diagnostic (single issue) testing for criminal or civil cases. When the truth matters, get a second opinion with EyeDetect.”

In the meantime, the system is being used in the real world.

“EyeDetect, has been used by FedEx in Panama and Uber in Mexico to screen out drivers with criminal histories, and by the credit ratings agency Experian, which tests its staff in Colombia to make sure they aren’t manipulating the company’s database to secure loans for family members. Other EyeDetect customers include the government of Afghanistan, McDonald’s and dozens of local police departments in the US. Soon, large-scale lie-detection programmes could be coming to the borders of the US and the European Union, where they would flag potentially deceptive travellers for further questioning.”

And before you know it that is exactly what then emerged.

The FT published a story last month on the subject –

  “A group of researchers are quietly commercialising an artificial intelligence-driven lie detector, which they hope will be the future of airport security. Discern Science International is the start-up behind a deception detection tool named the Avatar, which features a virtual border guard that asks travellers questions. The machine, which has been tested by border services and in airports, is designed to make the screening process at border security more efficient, and to weed out people with dangerous or illegal intentions more accurately than human guards are able to do.”

Using technology is of course nothing new, what is new is that these systems require mass data to work in the first place. One system already trialled and in use uses AI to predict crime. The data looks at the number of crimes an individual had committed with the help of others and the number of crimes committed by people in that individual’s social group. The result of tests showed there were serious ethical questions to answer and that the failure rate meant arresting innocent people.

Martin Innes, director of the Crime and Security Research Institute at Cardiff University, UK, says he is “sceptical” that the system will reliably predict offences at an individual level. The tool will probably be more useful for generally locating communities at risk, he says.

Northumbria Police are carrying out a pilot scheme that uses EyeDetect to measure the rehabilitation of sex offenders. It won’t be long before such systems are broadened to such an extent that using AI lie detection systems could be used on all matter of daily decision making.

In a recent Guardian article – “The race to create a perfect lie detector” – the author asks:

“But as tools such as EyeDetect infiltrate more and more areas of public and private life, there are urgent questions to be answered about their scientific validity and ethical use. In our age of high surveillance and anxieties about all-powerful AIs, the idea that a machine could read our most personal thoughts feels more plausible than ever to us as individuals, and to the governments and corporations funding the new wave of lie-detection research. But what if states and employers come to believe in the power of a lie-detection technology that proves to be deeply biased – or that doesn’t actually work?”

The bigger question to consider is if such technologies are indeed used what effect will that have on daily life for all of us? Human society is arranged by all sorts of different factors and being forced to tell the truth sounds OK if everyone does it, but those designing and controlling these systems may well be exempt as could law enforcement officers, and, even the politicians that authorise their use. Can you imagine advanced tools like these in the hands of populist leaders clinging onto power in a world full of fake news and post-truths to frame opponents or dissenters?

The other issue is that polygraphs have been used for convictions for decades. The first was in 1935 and hundreds of exonerations have since followed – and at the end of this long experiment, which has proven to be a failure its use is continued and worse, it’s being rolled it out in the UK.

Lie detection is a completely new frontier and startups are targeting it in an age of national and domestic security, a way to combat the rising costs of policing the streets and then look at ways of making decisions about health (questionnaires about exercise, food, alcohol?), education (catchment areas?), employment (reasons for leaving last employer?) and all manner of normal life.

An increasing number of projects are using AI to combine multiple sources of evidence into a single measure for deception. Can you imagine a system that gives you deception rating? Machine learning is accelerating deception research by spotting previously unseen patterns in reams of data. The Guardian article highlights that Scientists at the University of Maryland, for example, have developed software that they claim can detect deception from courtroom footage with 88% accuracy.

“The algorithms behind such tools are designed to improve continuously over time, and may ultimately end up basing their determinations of guilt and innocence on factors that even the humans who have programmed them don’t understand. These tests are being trialled in job interviews, at border crossings and in police interviews, but as they become increasingly widespread, civil rights groups and scientists are growing more and more concerned about the dangers they could unleash on society.”

Discern Science, is a software system, that boasts automated interviewing technology that aims to send a verdict to a human border guard within 45 seconds, who can either wave the traveller through or pull them aside for additional screening. These systems are already in use at Nogales in Arizona on the US-Mexico border, and with federal employees at Reagan Airport near Washington DC. Discern Science claims accuracy rates of between 83% and 85%. It hopes to sell them to airports, government institutions, mass transit hubs, and sports stadiums.

Trials were then conducted by Frontex, the EU border agency, which is now funding a competing system called iBorderCtrl, with its own virtual border guard. One aspect of iBorderCtrl is based on Silent Talker, a technology that has been in development at Manchester Metropolitan University since the early 2000s. Silent Talker uses an AI model to analyse more than 40 types of micro-gestures in the face and head; it only needs a camera and an internet connection to function. This system has a reported accuracy rate of 75% with the team that developed the AI algorithm going as far as to say that “We don’t know how it works.”

Back in July this year, London’s Metropolitan Police’s controversial trial of facial recognition technology to spot suspects failed to work 81% of the time, according to researchers. The researchers from the University of Essex said the problems were so bad that the use of facial recognition by the Met should be stopped immediately. And yet this system is still in operation and used by various police forces and private contractors.

The accuracy rates of 80-90% claimed by the likes of EyeDetect sound impressive, but applied at the scale of a border crossing, they would lead to thousands of innocent people being wrongly flagged for every genuine threat it identified. It might also mean that two out of every 10 terrorists easily slips through. One could say that conversely eight out ten don’t – but the evidence for less sophisticated systems such as facial recognition tell us that that will not be the case.

This blind faith in new technologies such as lie detection is very worrying. The British state is already the worst offender of any democracy in the world today for illegal breaches of privacy data. The state has intruded to such as extent it knows who you are right now, where you live, who you slept with last night, where you went, who you met and has evidence of it all. It is now, without proper public debate rolling out biometric databases that will merge with health records and other state agencies such as HMRC, local authorities, the courts, schools and the like.

In May this year, the EU Council Presidency and European Parliament reached an informal agreement on the introduction of mandatory biometric national identity cards including a photo and two fingerprints. The rollout of this technology is now worldwide already, with Africa and India leading the charge. In some parts of the Middle East biometric cards are used for border control, accessing health, registering and taxing cars, paying fines and even utility bills.

The merging of all this data is a serious cyber-security threat to all of us and yet civil society seems to have no choice in the matter. We are all being dragged into a world with an all-seeing eye managed by the least trusted of institutions in society, that of the government and their agencies.

And as the claims of reliability increase, as they did with polygraphs, the more dangerous they will become. And as the architecture of these systems is always pointed directly at the most vulnerable in society, the expectation is that unsafe convictions could rise and the data of innocents people inappropriately used.

The scandal over digital strip searches after serious sexual allegations made to police is a good example. Here police confiscate mobile phones from the victim and download its entire memory logs to determine some level of complicity. Big Brother Watch said –

“These digital strip searches are not only cruel, invasive and causing major delays to investigations – they breach victims’ fundamental rights and obstruct justice. These invasive practices are highly likely to infringe victims’ data protection and privacy rights protected by the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act.”

The next wave of suspects to follow the polygraphed dissidents of the 1950s and homosexuals in the 60s,  the online searches for benefit claimants in the 2000s, and biometric analysis of asylum seekers and migrants today could just as easily be you and me next. Lie detection systems are a dreadful idea. The data collected, often wrong, like facial recognition images and polygraph results, could then added to national databases that make decisions over all manner of our lives and we would never know why things just seem to go against us. And who is to say that this information is not manipulated by the army of private contractors, public sector workers and government officials to target non-violent protestors – just as they do by reclassifying whistleblowers as foreign state spies. And then, of course, will come the mobile Apps wanting to cash in from the frailties and insecurities of humans. You can just imagine the destruction of personal relationships this will cause.

*

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

US sanctions are war by other means on targeted countries. The Senate, House, and White House are preparing them on Turkey — nothing imposed so far.

They’re unrelated to Ankara’s alliance with US war on the Syrian Arab Republic, nor support by Erdogan, the US, and allied regimes for ISIS, al-Nusra, and likeminded terrorists in the country.

The Trump regime abandoned Kurdish YPG fighters in northern Syria by OKing Turkey’s cross-border aggression against them and vetoing a Security Council resolution condemning its actions.

On the one hand, the White House is OK with Turkish aggression by failing to oppose and denounce it.

At the same time, Trump signed an executive order, authorizing Treasury Department sanctions on Turkey, secretary Mnuchin saying:

“We can shut down the Turkish economy if we need to.”

A Treasury Department statement said Trump’s EO authorizes Mnuchin to sanction “designate(d) individuals and entities of the government of Turkey…”

It also lets him “impose secondary sanctions on those engaging in knowing and significant transactions with designated individuals and entities of” Turkey’s government, adding:

“(W)e will be targeting specific Turkish individuals or departments as needed. This is a notice to banks and other parties to be on notice of potential actions.”

Separately, a proposed Senate Graham-Van Hollen sanctions bill on Turkey states the following:

They’ll be ordered unless the White House certifies to Congress every 90 days that Ankara is not operating in Syria “without US support east of the Euphrates and west of the Iraqi border” — territory Washington wants control over.

Congress has no objection to Turkish aggression elsewhere in Syria, nor its support for jihadists.

Senate sanctions if imposed target Turkey’s president, vice president, war minister, foreign affairs minister, finance and trade ministers, among other senior officials.

They’ll cover military transactions between foreign nations, entities and individuals “who sell or provide financial, material, or technological support or knowingly (conduct) transactions with the Turkish military.”

They also target Turkey’s energy sector, including “any foreign person, or entity who supplies goods, services, technology, information, or other support that maintains or supports Turkey’s domestic petroleum production and natural gas production for use by its armed forces.”

Sale of US weapons, munitions, and related transactions to Turkey are prohibited.

Ankara’s legitimate purchase of Russian S-400 air defense missiles is denounced.

Visa restrictions on Turkish officials for travel to the US are imposed. Assets held by Erdogan and other senior Turkish officials in the US, if any, will be frozen.

House Foreign Relations Committee chairman Eliot Engel and ranking Republican committee member Michael McCaul said they’ll introduce similar legislation to impose sanctions on Turkey, Engel saying:

“I strongly condemn both President Erdogan’s decision to attack America’s partners in Syria and President Trump’s decision to step back and let it happen,” adding:

“The Turkish assault on the Syrian Kurds is a gift to Russia, Iran, and ISIS, and a blow to our national security interests (sic).”

McCaul made similar remarks, along with falsely claiming Turkish aggression “will enable an ISIS resurgence” — failing to explain their fighters are US proxy foot soldiers, operating where the Pentagon and CIA send them in the Middle East and elsewhere.

In response to possible US sanctions, Turkey’s Foreign Ministry said:

“No one should doubt that we will respond in full against each step to the full extent of reciprocity.”

On Friday, Russia and China blocked a draft Security Council statement, saying its members “expressed deep concern over the Turkish military operation and its implications, including humanitarian and security dimensions,” adding:

“They call upon Turkey to halt its military operation and to make full use of diplomatic channels to address its security concerns.”

Russia’s UN mission website and English language media reported nothing about this action.

US and Russian UN envoys failed to denounce Turkish aggression in Syria during Thursday and Friday closed-door Security Council sessions.

Both countries vetoed an EU Security Council resolution, calling on Turkey “to cease unilateral military action.”

Failing to condemn its aggression showed support for what the UN Charter and other international laws strictly prohibit at all times, under all conditions, with no exceptions — other than in self-defense if authorized by the SC.

*

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.

Violence is pervasive throughout human society and it has a vast range of manifestations. Moreover, some of these manifestations – particularly the threat of nuclear war (which might start regionally), the climate catastrophe and the ongoing ecological devastation, as well as geoengineering and the deployment of 5G – threaten imminent human extinction if not contained. Separately from these extinction-threatening manifestations, however, violence occurs in a huge range of other contexts denying many people the freedom, human rights and opportunities necessary for a meaningful life. Moreover, human violence is now driving 200 species of life on Earth to extinction daily with another 1,000,000 species under threat.

For just a sample of the evidence in relation to the threats noted above see, for example, ‘Rapidly expanding nuclear arsenals in Pakistan and India portend regional and global catastrophe’, ‘Plan A’,‘City on Fire’, ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’, Geoengineering Watch, ‘International Appeal: Stop 5G on Earth and in Space’ and ‘5G and the Wireless Revolution: When Progress Becomes a Death Sentence’.

Given the expanding range of threats to human survival that require a strategic response if they are to be contained, is that possible?

Well, any candid assessment of the relevant scientific literature coupled with an understanding of the psychological, sociological, political, economic and military factors driving the violence, clearly indicates that the answer is ‘highly unlikely’. Particularly because so many people are so (unconsciously) terrified and incapable of responding powerfully.

However, this does not mean that many people are not trying and some of these people perceive the interrelated and synergistic nature of these threats and know that we must be addressing each of them strategically if humanity and an enormous number of other species are to have any meaningful chance of survival in a viable biosphere. These people range from ‘ordinary’ activists, who work passionately to end violence in one context or another, to globally prominent individuals doing the same. Let me tell you about some of them.

Ramesh Agrawal is a prominent social and environmental activist in India who has devoted many years to educating and organizing local village people, including adivasi communities, to defend their homes and lands from those corporations and governments that would deprive them of their rights, livelihoods, health and a clean environment for the sake of mining the abundant coal in the state of Chhattisgarh. However, because his ongoing efforts to access and share key information and his organization of Gandhian-inspired grassroots satyagrahas (nonviolent campaigns) have been so effective, he has also paid a high price for his activism, having been attacked on many occasions. In 2011, for example, he was arrested despite ill-health at the time and chained to a hospital bed. A year later he was shot in the leg, which required multiple operations. He still has difficulty walking with six metal rods inserted through his thigh.

The Jan Chetna (‘peoples’ awareness’) movement started by Ramesh has spread to several parts of Chhattisgarh as well as other states of India. For the latest account of his efforts including the recent ‘coal satyagrapha’ focused on coal blocks owned by state power companies but being developed and operated by Adani Enterprises, see ‘Thousands Hold “Coal Satyagraha”, Allege Manufacturing of Consent at Public Hearing’. For his nonviolent activism, Ramesh was awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize in 2014. See ‘Ramesh Agrawal: 2014 Goldman Prize Recipient Asia’ and ‘Chhattisgarh activist, Ramesh Agrawal, bags Goldman prize’.

In Ghana, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) continues its work under the leadership of President Dr. Ayo Ayoola-Amale, a certified mediator and peacebuilder. One recent activity was a two weeks training course on negotiation and mediation as a tool for conflict resolution for women in the Upper West region of Ghana, particularly three districts: Lawra, Nadowli and Lambussie. The training was aimed at providing local NGOs, community elders, administrators and others with the skills and knowledge to further improve their capacity in the work they do. In such courses, Ayo emphasizes the importance of trust, identity and relationship building issues, quoting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:

‘Life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.’

But Ayo has also conducted other courses, such as a three day workshop on peacemaking and mediation skills for the teachers and students at Okyereko Methodist Junior High School which taught skills such as communication (listening, speaking, silence), cooperation, trusting, empathy, responsibility, reconciliation and problem solving. Ayo also used her storytelling skills to convey an understanding of what it means to be a responsible person and how that puts us in charge of our lives. Through the storytelling she reveals some of the personal benefits that come from being honest, reliable, trustworthy and principled and how treating people with respect helps us get along with each other, avoid and resolve conflicts, and create a positive social climate. She told workshop participants that every choice they make helps define the kind of person they are choosing to be and their character is defined by what they do, not what they say or believe.

Professor René Wadlow, President of the Association of World Citizens headquartered in France, has been involved for decades in efforts to engage people in world events rather than leave these events to be mismanaged by elites with a vested interest in a particular outcome. In this article, for example, he reflects thoughtfully on the ‘Iran Crisis: Dangers and Opportunities’ by drawing attention to opportunities for citizen engagement through NGOs to influence how the conflict plays out. As he notes: ‘The dangers are real. We must make the most of the opportunities.’ René also continues to examine issues and throw light on subjects well outside the spotlight of the corporate media, such as conflicts in Africa. See, for example, his article ‘Sahel Instability Spreads’.

Since 2017 Dr Marthie Momberg in South Africa has been working with international colleagues to address Zionism amongst Christians. Along with a colleague from Kairos USA, Marthie offered, for example, a seminar entitled ‘Christianity and the Shifting of Perceptions on Zionism’ at Stellenbosch University’s Beyers Naudé Centre. ‘With some other colleagues we are also in the midst of a research project at this Centre to understand how to sensitise Christians on the nature of Zionism and how it serves as an important lens on so many other struggles in our world. I am also in the process of writing a number of scholarly articles on ethics and religion in the context of Israel and the Palestinian struggle.’

And while on Palestine, US activist journalist Abby Martin recently completed her debut feature film Gaza Fights for Freedom. Directed, written and narrated by Abby, the film had its origins while Abby was reporting in Palestine, where she was denied entry into Gaza by the Israeli government on the accusation she was a ‘propagandist’. Connecting with a team of journalists in Gaza to produce the film through the blockaded border, this collaboration shows you Gaza’s protest movement ‘like you’ve never seen it before’. Filmed during the height of the Great March Of Return protests, it features riveting footage of demonstrations ‘where 200 unarmed civilians have been killed by Israeli snipers since March 30, 2018’ and is a thorough indictment of the Israeli military for war crimes, and a stunning cinematic portrayal of the heroic resistance by Palestinians. You can watch a preview of the film here: Gaza Fights for Freedom (preview). And if you would like to buy or rent the film (and support Abby’s work) you can do so here: Gaza Fights For Freedom.

In Guatemala, Daniel Dalai continues his visionary work providing opportunities for girls to develop their leadership capacities at ‘Earthgardens’. If you haven’t previously been aware of their work, including in Bolivia and Nicaragua, you will find it fascinating to read how girls – including Carmen, Angelica, Reyna, Katiela, Yapanepet, Zenobia, Deysi, Rosalba, Charro, Katarina and Marleni – in this community each changed their society, often by forming ‘Eco-Teams’, with a remarkable variety of initiatives.

The Asia Institute ‘is the first truly pan-Asian think tank. A research institution that addresses global issues with a focus on Asia, The Asia Institute is committed to presenting a balanced perspective that takes into account the concerns of the entire region. The Asia Institute provides an objective space wherein a significant discussion on current trends in technology, international relations, the economy and the environment can be carried out.’ Focused on research, analysis and dialogue, and headed by president Emanuel Yi Pastreich, the Institute was originally founded in 2007 while Emanuel was working in Daejeon, Republic of (South) Korea. Emanuel writes extensively on culture, technology, the environment and international relations with a focus on Northeast Asia. He also serves as president of the Earth Management Institute, a global think tank dedicated to developing original approaches to global governance in this dangerous age. But for more on The Asia Institute, see the website above.

While the individuals and organizations mentioned above are just a sample of those directly involved, they are part of an expanding worldwide network in 105 countries committed to working to end human violence in all of its manifestations. Whatever the odds against it, they refuse to accept that violence cannot be ended, and each has chosen to focus on working to end one or more manifestations of violence, according to their particular circumstances and interests. If you would like to join these people, you are welcome to sign the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

If your own interest is campaigning on a peace, climate, environment or social justice issue, consider doing it strategically. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy.

If your focus is a defense or liberation struggle being undertaken by a national group, consider enhancing its strategic impact. See Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

If your preference is addressing the climate and environmental catastrophes systematically while working locally, consider participating in (and inviting others to participate in) ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’.

If you would like to tackle violence at its source, consider revising your parenting in accordance with ‘My Promise to Children’. If you want the evidence to understand why this is so crucial, see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

If you are self aware enough to know that you are not dealing effectively with our deepening, multifaceted crisis, consider doing the personal healing necessary to do so. See ‘Putting Feelings First’.

Perhaps ending human violence is impossible. If that is true, then human extinction is inevitable and it will occur as a result of one cause or another. Moreover, it will happen in the near term. But every person who believes that human violence can be ended, and then takes strategic action to end it, is participating in the most important undertaking in human history: a last ditch strategy to fight for human survival.

*

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.

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is [email protected] and his website is here. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The recently-elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky keeps saying there was “no blackmail” in a July telephone call with President Donald Trump that caused an impeachment inquiry in the USA.

He made the comments recently during an all-day press marathon held in a food court in Kyiv, while he was conversed with hundreds of local and international reporters.

Questions have been raised about the Trump administration frozen military aide to Ukraine around the time of the July 25 phone call between the two leaders and whether that was related to Trump’s request to Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden for alleged corruption tied to his son Hunter Biden’s job with a Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

“This has nothing to do with weapons and the Burisma situation,” Zelensky said. “There was no blackmail; it was not the subject of our conversation. The call could have no impact on our relations with America.”

“But if it happens, we will learn about that from Twitter,” he added, jokingly.

It is a natural thing to make fun of the serious themes for Zelensky who is known for his salty comic performances and a TV series, Servant of the People, where he was playing the country’s president in dodgy situations.

Yet the comedian-turned-leader seems to be growing more and more serious with every new day.

In these recent times he is gearing up to hold negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin in an effort to put the stopper on the five-year pro-Russian conflict in Eastern Ukraine.

Critics are receiving the move as capitulation to Russia. So Mr. Zelensky’s efforts to pull back Kiev forces and separatists troops from the frontline apparently would trigger another mass riots in central Kiev on October 14, when the Defender of Ukraine Day will take place.

Everything is according to the well-trodden old path. The Ukrainian media are pumping hysteria right now. The crowds of thousands with national flags and combative slogans are ready to storm the presidential administration. The former combatants such as Azov and Beletsky militants acclaim that there will be no pullback of troops in the Donbass, and if there is, they will take up the relinquished positions of the Ukrainian Army. Nationalists, protesting against Mr. Zelensky’s peace plan, called the him a “traitor and a puppet” — not for obsequiousness to Mr. Trump, but for his capitulation to Mr. Putin.

The next few days will show us how the situation develops, but the Ukrainian leader is obviously inclined toward the extreme choice — complete cease-fire and the end of the war. Thus his confrontation with the anti-Russian movement is almost inevitable. Is the “Servant of the People” ready to fighting against the people?

*

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

Sergey Maidukov is a Ukrainian writer.

The Zionist Neoconservatives who run US foreign policy are now herding the US out of the remaining arms limitations agreements.  It appears that Washington intends to withdraw from the Open Skies agreement with Russia. See this. 

The Open Skies Treaty allowed the US and Russia to overfly each other’s territory in order that there could be mutual assurance that one country or the other wasn’t building up forces for attack.  If Washington withdraws from the treaty, which seems in the cards, tensions and uncertainties between the two major nuclear powers will increase.  In no way is this a good thing. 

The American military/security complex wants the tensions to increase, because this makes the orchestrated “Russian Threat” even larger and leads to a larger budget and more profits and power for the US military/security complex.  The military/security complex about which President Eisenhower warned us, to no effect, has been highly successful in dismantling the arms control agreements made between past US and Russian leaders.  This has raised the profits of the US military/security complex at the expense of the security of the world.

On top of this, Washington is currently raising tensions in the Black Sea, arming Ukraine, Georgia, and Romania, countries that border the Black Sea along with Russia, Turkey, and Bulgaria.  The US and its NATO puppets are conducting military exercises in this internal sea that hosts Russia’s Crimean naval base.  The Black Sea is Russia’s exit to the Mediterranean Sea.  The Zionist neocon warmongers would love to cut off Russia’s access to the Mediterranean and, thereby, Russia’s naval base in Syria. This would make it easier for the Zionist neoconservatives to overthrow Syria for Israel.

This is irresponsible provocation on the part of Washington.  A buildup of forces in such a small area carries all kinds of risks.  It would be easy for a CIA black ops to provoke one of the Ukrainian nazis or one of the Georgian fools or one of the bought-and-paid for Romanian vassals to provoke an incident. 

Indeed, the purpose of the US buildup of forces is to provoke incidents that can be blamed on Russia in order to create more fear and loathing in the West in order to keep feeding the military/security budget.  

Russia, a country in which the military/security complex, to the extent that it exists, does not run the country, has difficulty comprehending what it is facing.  Wanting no conflict, the Russian responses, as I have often emphasized, are passive, and thus provoke more irresponsible moves by Washington.  

As there is no doubt that the buildup of US and vassal state military forces in Russia’s neighborhood is very dangerous and gives every opportunity to the CIA to create incidents that can be used for anti-Russian propaganda, and as it is very easy for such incidents to have unintended consequences and to get out of control, anything that can be done to stop the buildup of Western forces in the Black Sea and in Romania, Ukraine, and Georgia, is an act of peace.  Russia needs to understand that sometimes peace is protected by a more aggressive, instead of passive, response.

What might such a response be?

It seems to me that if the US can declare the South China Sea, thousands of miles from the US coastline to be a “US national security interest,” Russia can declare the Black Sea on Russia’s own coast to be a Russian national security interest. 

It would be a highly responsible decision for the Russian government to prevent the dangers that Washington is creating by taking a lesson from Ancient Rome.  

Rome declared a much larger sea, the Mediteranian Sea,  to be “mare nostrum,” — our sea.  The Russians could declare the Black Sea  to be “our sea.”  

As Russia is by far the most powerful force in the area, the US is on the low end of the correlation of forces. No one could do anything about it if Russia were to declare the Black Sea “mare nostrum.” 

Russia could politely inform other parties that no military vessels of any other country are permitted in the Black Sea without Russian permission.  This would exclude the US and its NATO, Ukrainian, Romanian, and Georgian vassals.  Russia should specity an immediate date by which the foreign military vessels must leave the Black Sea or be escorted out by Russian forces, or, if resistence is met, destroyed.

This would bring to an end the Zionist/CIA attempt to create a new avenue to demonize Russia. It would protect Russia from multiple attacks all along its borders.

Russian nationalists, that is the actual Russians who are patriotic and love Russia, will see the wisdom in this suggestion.  The Russian “American worshipers,” such as the traitorous vermin Alexei Kudrin, will continue to scream at the top of their foul lungs against any defense of Russian national interests. Why the Russian government puts up with a traitor in their midst is a mystery.  Kudrin is the foul traitor who forced Russia to pay off illegitimate “foreign debts” piled on Russia during the corrulpt Yeltsin 1990s by Western  and Israeli interests for the single purpose of enriching Russia’s oppressors and driving Russians deep into the ground.  

In the US, this suggestion, which I believe is pro-peace, pro-avoiding a conflict destined to go nuclear, the idiot American superpatriots will denounce me as an “anti-American Russian-lover.”  The Zionist Neocons will denounce me as a “traitor to American Imperialism,” a “traitor to US world hegemony.”

But actually I am neither anti-American nor pro-Russian.  I am just for common sense and peace.  If Washington’s provocations of Russia continue and Russia continues to accept them passively, a fatal line will be crossed, and the world will be blown up, and none of us will be here.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Moreno campaigned on a platform of continuing the progressive policies of his predecessor Rafael Correa.

Straightaway in office, he betrayed the public trust.  Ecuadorian legal scholar Oswaldo Ruiz-Chiriboga accused him of abandoning his pledges, implementing neoliberal policies demanded by US and internal special interests, purging Correa loyalists from his regime, operating extrajudicially.

Moreno sold Julian Assange to the US and UK for $4.2 billion in loan shark of last resort IMF blood money — requiring force-fed austerity, serving bankers and other corporate interests at the expense of the public welfare he abandoned.

Ruling anti-democratically, he waged war on independent journalists, human rights activists, and individuals criticizing his regime.

Mass protests in the capital Quito and other Ecuadorian cities since October 3 continue over Moreno’s elimination of longstanding fuel subsidies and other harsh neoliberal policies — in deference to IMF diktats.

Protesters want fuel subsidies reinstated, austerity ended, a return to progressive rule instituted by Correa, Moreno’s resignation, and snap elections to replace him.

After 10 days of public outrage, police and other security forces killed at least five protesters, injured countless others, and arrested around 1,000 individuals — what police state repression is all about.

The Moreno regime unleashed state-sponsored viciousness, refusing to reinstate the fuel subsidy or soften his hardline neoliberal agenda.

Reportedly on Saturday, indigenous CONAIE leaders accepted his request to meet for direct talks — short of suggesting he’ll ease support for privileged interests exclusively at the expense of ordinary Ecuadorians.

He ordered a military-enforced curfew, starting at 3:00 PM Saturday, saying: “We’re going to restore order in all of Ecuador. We’re starting with the curfew in Quito” and surrounding areas.

Last Tuesday, he announced a curfew near government facilities, ports, bridges, and other so-called “strategic zones.”

Ecuador’s ombudsman Freddy Carrion slammed the curfew, calling it “a desperate attempt by (Moreno) that will only worsen the violence.”

Urging him to reinstate the fuel subsidy, he said “(i)t’s the only way to reduce violence” and curb public anger over his harsh agenda.

CONAIE official Leonidas Iza said conditions for talks include holding them publicly, broadcasting them on national television.

“We’re not going to talk behind closed doors,” he stressed. Talks “ha(ve) to be with the Ecuadorean people. There has to be large screens so every tiny input from our members can be heard” and seen.

CONAIE president Jaime Vargas urged Ecuadorian military officials to back legitimate demands of protesters against “the orders of that traitor, liar and thief” Moreno.

He falsely accused Correa and Venezuela’s Maduro of orchestrating a coup against his rule.

According to Ecuador’s energy ministry, protests curbed oil production. A copper mining company announced curtailment of its operations.

Ecuadorians want progressive rule enjoyed during a decade of Correa’s tenure reinstated.

Interviewed by Sputnik News, Correa said an “Ecuadorian press ‘wall’ supports Moreno. Ordinary people reject their one-sided coverage.

“The hegemonic press (operates as) Moreno’s greatest accomplice.” Since earlier military dictatorial rule, “I have not seen such cruel persecution with curfews, the abolition of constitutional guarantees and physical repression, beating protesters, dispersing demonstrations” violently, he said, adding:

Moreno is discredited, his rule at “an end. He is a puppet of lobbying groups.” Ordinary Ecuadorians no longer tolerate him.

“With his help, the elite has regained power based on fraud and treachery. What way out do I see? If he remains in office, he will become a bigger nobody even more than today.”

His regime “is already in a state of clinical death, in a vegetative state. Hegemonic media, business, financial power, the military, the police, and part of the church continue to support it.”

“Our democracy is made of playdough. (Power elites) control all the real branches of government, including the state institutions that they have taken over, for example, the Electoral Commission, to prevent me from participating in free elections. Nevertheless, I am being optimistic. I believe that we will win.”

Correa noted that throughout his decade in office, Ecuador prospered without IMF involvement.

Ordinary Ecuadorians yearn for governance enjoyed during his tenure. They want neoliberal harshness ended and Moreno replaced with new leadership, serving everyone in the country equitably.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Grayzone Project

Whatever follows the 13th round of US/China trade talks concluding Friday alone matters. Major differences over structural issues remain hard-wired on both sides — unchanged and not about to ahead.

Following Thursday talks, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported that “Chinese and US officials agree(d) on lunch but are no closer to (a) deal” — other than on minor issues that could have been resolved last year.

Ahead of an October 15 deadline for US tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports to increase from 25 – 30%, what Trump called a “phase one almost complete” deal was agreed on.

Based on the history of bilateral talks so far, it more accurately should be called a no-deal/deal.

On Thursday, SCMP reported that the Trump regime is considering imposition of restrictions on US investments in China, creating a greater breach between both countries if he goes this far — on top of major damage to bilateral relations already in place.

On Saturday, SCMP said

“Beijing warn(ed) of more uncertainty in trade war negotiations despite ‘constructive’ talks in Washington.”

More talks will continue on major unresolved issues. For the moment, subject to change any time and likely will ahead, US tariff hikes scheduled for October 15 are on hold, not cancelled.

Scores of Chinese companies on the Trump regime’s blacklist will be reviewed, actions against tech giant Huawei to be discussed separately in follow-up talks.

Nothing substantive is in writing. According to Trump, it’ll be weeks before issues agreed on to be finalized. As many times before, Chinese negotiators pledged to purchase billions of dollars of US agricultural products — clearly dependent on Trump regime reciprocity on issues vital to Beijing.

China’s Global Times said

“trade talks progress (should be viewed) with rationality (and) calmness.”

On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that stocks and bonds rose sharply over Trump’s offer to meet with China’s chief negotiator Vice Premier Liu He and optimism over a possible deal between both sides — despite no evidence suggesting resolution of major differences was possible.

Irreconcilable ones separate both countries on major political, economic and military issues.

Unresolved after many rounds of talks, the latest one is unlikely to achieve what earlier high-level efforts failed at — no matter public pronouncements by both sides now and ahead.

Beijing is especially outraged over Trump’s economic war, including scores of blacklisted Chinese enterprises, human rights accusations, provocative Pentagon incursions near its territorial waters and airspace, along with US dirty hands all over months of violent protests in Hong Kong.

Longstanding meddling in the internal affairs of other countries is forbidden by international law, consistently ignored by both right wing of the US war party.

On Friday, a day when Sino/US negotiators seek to reach accommodation on major differences, Beijing’s official People’s Daily broadsheet slammed the Trump regime “for attempt(ing) to suppress and defame China,” adding its effort “will prove futile eventually.”

Trump very much wants a deal with China to further his reelection chances. Beijing has no incentive to accommodate him without significant reciprocity not forthcoming so far.

It’s increasingly reliant on domestic consumption while continuing to be an export powerhouse.

According to analyst Brandon Smith:

“Even when we set aside all the geopolitical obstacles to a trade deal…there is nothing compelling China to make a deal in the near term, and this makes the trade talks this month rather predictable.”

Smith believes talks would either continue impasse or both sides would announce a “positive discussion (and) possible deal” — a “head fake” with no significant fruition ahead like earlier.

There’s no cause for optimism when both sides remain irreconcilably apart on major structural issues China won’t compromise on to accommodate unacceptable Trump regime demands.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Stansberry Churchouse

“Don’t tempt me. Do your job” Hillary Clinton responded in a tweet to Trump when he said that “I think that Crooked Hillary Clinton should enter the race to try and steal it away from Uber Left Elizabeth Warren.” In reality, the democrats have no one that can face Trump and win. Trump’s popularity has remained basically the same despite polls that suggest otherwise. The Democrats have pushed the Russia-Gate conspiracy theory that failed and now the Impeachment inquiry as their latest plot to remove Trump from office by a whistle blower who happened to be a CIA operative planted inside the White House who exposed Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. During the conversation, Trump had asked to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter for their involvement in the Ukraine’s largest energy company, Burisma where Hunter Biden sat on the board of the energy company and was paid more than $50,000 a month. Although there might be some ethical problems with Trump’s suggestion to the Ukrainian leader, the American’s do have a right to know about the Joe Biden’s business dealings with the Ukrainian government who is absolutely corrupt to its core.

Besides the mainstream media’s 24 hour news reporting on the Impeachment Inquiry, Joe Biden has practically put his own foot in his mouth when the Democrats were asked about the legacy of slavery at the third Democratic debate last month, when he said

“Look, there’s institutional segregation in this country,” Biden struggling with his answer “and from the time I got involved, I started dealing with that. Redlining, making sure that we are in a position where – look, talk about education. I proposed that what we take is those very poor schools, the Title I schools, triple the amount of money we spend.”

Biden continued

“the teachers … have every problem coming to them, we have to make sure that every single child does, in fact, have three, four, and five-year-olds go to school – school, not daycare, school. We bring social workers into homes and parents to help them deal with how to raise their children. It’s not that they don’t want to help. They don’t know quite what to do. Play the radio. Make sure the television – excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night.”

Biden’s fate has been sealed with his scandals with the Ukraine along with his black people who don’t know “how to raise their children” problem is a red flag for the Democrats. They will not take a chance with Biden under these circumstances. The democrats have ruined the prospect of winning the 2020 elections against Trump since they have no original platform to run on besides their conspiracy theories and propaganda. Now they are banking Trump’s conversation with Zelensky as an impeachable offence in hopes of removing Trump from office which will not happen with a majority of Republicans in the senate who will vote against impeachment.

Forget Biden and Warren, Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party

Image on the right is from Another Day in the Empire

Elizabeth Warren will not be President or Vice-President without Hillary Clinton. In fact, according to an NBC News article from early September ‘Warren and Clinton talk behind the scenes as 2020 race intensifies’ claims that

“Elizabeth Warren’s team doesn’t want to talk about Hillary Clinton, but that doesn’t mean the 2020 presidential candidate isn’t talking with her party’s 2016 nominee” the report said. “The two women have kept a line of communication open since the Massachusetts senator decided to run for president — though only a conversation around the time of Warren’s launch has been previously reported.”

Warren knows that Clinton is the power and the face of the Democratic party. Who has credibility among the establishment Democrats according to NBC News? “with a progressive base behind her, Warren’s political need is to make establishment Democrats comfortable with her candidacy. Clinton, whose politics arguably have been closer to Biden’s over the course of her career, has deep credibility in those circles.” So Clinton is Warren’s go to person for advice. Bloomberg News reported back on July 25th that by Warren “endorsing Sanders, her ideological ally, would mean sacrificing her ability to influence Clinton, who was widely expected to win” Warren did not endorse anyone until Clinton became the Democratic nominee. “In essence, Warren bet that she had a better chance of enacting her liberal agenda by working through Clinton than by banking on a Sanders revolution.” Warren’s domestic and foreign policies is not too far off from establishment Democrats or Republicans. For example, In Wall Street, there are some high level bankers and Hedge Fund managers who would support Warren. Bloomberg News reported that

“there’s a new whisper on Wall Street — maybe Elizabeth Warren isn’t so bad.” the story continued “the Democratic senator, who rose to national prominence by calling for tough regulation after the financial crisis, is winning respect from a small but growing circle of senior bankers and hedge fund managers.”

Warren’s foreign policy stance won’t be any different from Clinton’s either. Warren’s Q&A with the Council of Foreign Relations published last month shows where Warren stands on Iran, Venezuela, Russia and others. Warren said that there are “serious concerns” on Iran’s policies concerning its nuclear program and its “support for destabilizing regional proxies.” On Venezuela, Warren said that “Maduro is a dictator and a crook who has wrecked his country’s economy, dismantled its democratic institutions, and profited while his people suffer.” She actually Sounds like Donald Trump. What Warren forgot to mention is that the U.S. sanctions and attempted regime change operations over the years that have repeatedly failed has contributed to Venezuela’s economic and political crisis. She will also support regime change policies when she said that “the United States should lead the international community in addressing Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis and supporting regional efforts to negotiate a political transition, including free and fair elections as soon as possible.” Warren also mentioned Russia who “by illegally annexing Ukrainian territory and fueling a war in eastern Ukraine, Russia has imperiled the vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace that prevailed for nearly a quarter century.” Well by now you can get the idea where Warren’s foreign policy is going.

Elizabeth Warren has also insulted Indigenous tribes in the U.S. by claiming she had Native American blood from the Cherokee Nation. Warren faced a backlash even from Trump who consistently still calls her “Pocahontas.” The Washington Times reported the response from the Cherokees on October 15th, 2018:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren trumpeted Monday DNA test results showing she has a smidgen of Native American blood, although no more than the average U.S. white person, even as Cherokees accused her of dishonoring them with her dubious claims of tribal ancestry. Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said the Massachusetts Democrat was “undermining” Native Americans with her attempt to prove her tribal heritage using genetic testing, calling it “inappropriate and wrong.”

“Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong,” said Mr. Hoskin in a statement. “It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven.” “Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage,” he concluded

Warren has apologized since then. The only way I see Warren in the White House if of course, the Democrats win, is as vice-president under the queen of the Democratic party who has significant political and economic power within the establishment. The two most important front-runners Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren have no chance against Trump. Without getting into the details, you can forget about the rest of the Democratic candidates including Bernie Sanders (whose health is now in question since his heart attack), Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke, and the rest especially the only anti-war candidate out of all the Democrats, Tulsi Gabbard.

An interesting story by the Washington Free Beacon ‘Good News for Hillary Clinton 2020, Inevitable?’ claimed that

“There is one battle-tested candidate still on the sidelines who could enter the race at any time and wrest her party’s nomination from the likes of former vice president Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), or Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.). Her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

The article also mentioned the flaws between Joseph Biden and Bernie Sanders “Biden looks wobbly, and Clinton’s rival from the 2016 campaign, Bernie Sanders, is struggling to stay relevant.” the article continued “Donald Trump’s first term in office has been an epically entertaining saga thus far. What better way to cap it off than by bringing back a major character from the early episodes and setting up what is sure to be the most highly rated rematch in American history?” Mainly CNN and MSNBC would welcome a Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump rematch at the U.S. presidential debates since their viewership has declined due to their propaganda and their ridicules conspiracy theories. A rematch would surely add a boost to their ratings. Hillary Clinton has come out more so in recent months and more so since the Democratic party and a handful of Republicans came out and called for Trump’s impeachment due to his phone call with Zelensky. I believe the democrats and many of the Clintonistas in Washington are conducting psychological warfare against Trump. Taint him with the label of a traitor who is conspiring with Russia which is further from the truth since Trump himself has been more aggressive towards Russia with economic sanctions and geopolitical moves that has threatened Russia right up to its borders. Overall it’s all nonsense.

A Clinton-Warren ticket in the making? It will be an uphill battle for the Democrats unless the coming economic recession happens before the November elections which is most likely, then Trump will be the fall guy who will take the blame for the economic downturn. The Democrats will have something to work with in regards to an economic recession therefore they will have a better chance of winning. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is willing to do anything to ensure a Democratic victory over Trump. They undermined Bernie Sanders in 2016, so don’t think they won’t attempt to steal the elections from Trump in 2020. U.S. Representative from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard is seriously considering boycotting the Democratic debate on October 15th due to the fact that she knows that the DNC and the mainstream-media will rig the Democratic primary election. Here is what she said:

I share your concerns, and I’m sure that all our supporters throughout the country do as well. The 2016 Democratic Primary election was rigged by the DNC and their partners in the corporate media against Bernie Sanders. 

In this 2020 election, the DNC and corporate media are rigging the election again, but this time against the American people in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. They are attempting to replace the roles of voters in the early states, using polling and other arbitrary methods which are not transparent or democratic, and holding so-called debates which are not debates at all but rather commercialized reality television meant to entertain, not inform or enlighten. In short, the DNC and corporate media are trying to hijack the entire election process 

I would not be surprised if Hillary Clinton runs again, although back in March, she told a local New York City television station News 12 that

“I’m not running,” she said “but I’m going to keep working on and speaking and standing up for what I believe.”

She basically believes that she still can become the first woman president of the United States.  Several journalists and researchers in the alternative media and of course, H.A. Goodman of the Huffington Post who since 2016, has been consistently saying that Clinton will run again. They could steal the elections from Trump and the Trump supporters will challenge the outcome. There could be another Bush-Gore debacle with the Florida recount during the presidential election of 2000. Will history repeat itself? We need to factor in that Clinton still has many friends who hate Trump in the Military-Industrial Complex, in congress, intelligence agencies, major corporations, banks and the mainstream media. She is still influential among the establishment.

Ironically, Clinton recently authored a new book with her daughter Chelsea titled ‘The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience’ according to their Amazon page it’s about “gutsy women who have inspired them—women with the courage to stand up to the status quo, ask hard questions, and get the job done.”

*

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.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Erdogan has accelerated his war crimes against Syria, in Day 2 of Turkey’s new military aggression. His regime thug troops again bombed the electrical cables of the Alouk Water Station in Ras al-Ain, bombed on Day 1, and immediately repaired by the Syrian government. This water plant meets the daily needs of almost 2 million Syrians and remains out of service at the time of this writing. The Industrial Region of Ras al-Ain has also been targeted. 

As does every amoral war criminal, the rabid Erdogan targets the vital essentials of life: Electricity, water, dams, oil, and homes.

Erdogan troops didn’t spare a church

These illicit Turkish troops are focusing on villages in Hasaka, Qamishli, and Raqqa, and on Day 2, even bombed cars on the road between Raqqa and Tal Abyad (three martyred, dozens injured).

One child was martyred in the neighborhood of Qadouar Beik, Qamishli. Five civilians were murdered in Ras al-Ain city, with 9 others injured. Erdogan regime thugs also bombed the villages of Naddas, Alouk, Hamid, and Tal Arqam, from the skies and from ground artillery. The Saeeda petroleum station was bombed, caught fire, and burnt to the ground.

Transatlantic NATO media are currently engaged in near apoplexia over the horror of Erdogan’s war crimes, though they are the same war crimes that have been committed against Syria since President Barack Obama announced his creation of the fascist coalition of war criminals, on 10 September 2014, in a live address to the nation.

Is it possible that the criminal liars of journalism have suddenly had a crisis of conscience, over their previous cheering of the obliteration of al Raqqa, by the war criminal coalition?

CNN cheers destruction as far as the eye can see. This is al Raqqa, courtesy of the US-led war criminal coalition.

Have the warmongering media had a Trumpian epiphany against perpetual war?

Let us not get silly with optimism.

Their seeming concern is not over rabid Erdogan continuing the same military aggression as was committed by Obama and accelerated by Trump.

NATO media — including artificial liberal and independent sources — are nominally concerned for the cannon fodder of the armed terrorist SDF, the separatist Kurds given weapons and the promise to Israelize a large carved off piece of Syria, the criminals who have closed schools, tried to bomb churches, set fire to wheat fields, ambushed and slaughtered members of Syrian security — atrocities that would be condemned were they to be perpetrated in western countries.

Imagine American soldiers slaughtered in the US, their bodies dumped & the world writing about “moderate American opposition.”

Note that the western condemnations of Erdogan do not mention the destruction of vital infrastructure, the bombing of homes, do not note that the attacks are against the country of Syria.

Instead, they obsess on the ”abandoned” and “betrayed” SDF terrorists (abandoned with massive weapons that Trump has been providing since early August).

And what have the ‘betrayed’ and abandoned only with trucks, explosives, military guns been doing since the war criminal Erdogan began his new onslaught to destroy Syrian infrastructure, slaughter Syrians, annex part of the Syrian country?

Why, they continue to terrorize the Syrian civilian population.

SDF armed terrorists again stormed a village, this one Tal Tamer in Hasaka. They committed dozens of home invasions, rounding up and abducting youths for forced military training, to be then forced into combat zones.

US-run ‘SDF’ continues to kidnap Syrian children to make them ‘soldiers.’ [Archive]

Yesterday, Deputy Foreign and Expatriates Minister, Fayssal Mikdad, held a press conference at the Foreign Ministry. He condemned Erdogan as war criminal, noting the military aggression is a breach of Syria’s sovereignty, a breach of international law, and a breach of the UN Charter.

Minister Mikdad asserted that the Erdogan regime is responsible for much of the foreign terrorism inflicted on the Syrian people, their murders, their displacements, the destruction of their infrastructure, of their homes.

He reminded the press that the Erdogan regime was responsible for the facilitation of illegal entry of foreign terrorists via the Turkey-Syrian border [again, note that no illegal entering Syria ever stepped on any of the nearly 200,000 land mines that Turkey promised to clean up when it joined the Mine Ban Treaty in 2003.]

Dr. Mikdad also noted the cowardice of the Turkish thugs, of invading part of Syria in which the Syrian Arab Army is not currently deployed.

In response to a question on whether the SAA is prepared to enter the area, Dr. Mikdad explained that the government has been in dialogue with all of its citizens, and again offered reconciliation. The armed gangs — the US’s ‘betrayed’ SDF, the armed separatist Kurds — refused the offer of rejoining the state — instead, preferring to remain “in the bosom of the foreigner” [illegal US occupiers].

The refusal of these armed terrorists to put down their weapons and rejoin the state, effectively allowed the Erdogan regime to invade and occupy this region.

Most of the more than 300,000 foreign terrorists and illegals of NATO media, Sen. John McCain, and even the poisoned measles vaccines which murdered 50 Syrian children in 2015, entered through the Turkish border.

It is worthy of mention that many of the various media sources who arrogantly and illegally entered Syria through Erdogan’s ‘benevolence,’ who embedded themselves with armed terrorists engaged in the most heinous of atrocities against Syrian civilians, are suddenly screeching that the war criminal is engaged in criminal aggression.

Can a thinking mind not grasp the colonial hypocrisy in the ongoing, demonic attempt to inflict a new Sykes-Picot on the citizens of Syria?

Let us put an end to western peak colonialism.

*

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 Syria News unless otherwise stated

Heinous. Savage. Ghastly. It’s hard to find the words to describe the act of luring journalist Jamal Khashoggi into a Saudi consulate in Istanbul, suffocating him, chopping him up and dissolving his bones. Yet a year later, governments and businesspeople around the world are eager to forgive and forget–or already have.

So far, not a single Saudi official has been found guilty or punished for this crime. The Saudi government has put 11 officials on trial but these trials, which began in January and drag on behind closed doors, are a mockery of justice. The government is prosecuting lower-level officials but not the top guns who are truly responsible. The defendants have not been named but it is known that Saud al-Qahtani, a former top aide to Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) and the alleged mastermind of the murder, is not a defendant and the government refuses to say where he is.

And what about the crown prince himself? In a September 29 PBS interview, MbS accepted responsibility for the killing because it happened “under his watch” — but he denied having prior knowledge. The CIA, however, concluded in November that the prince, who maintains tight control in the kingdom, likely ordered the killing. A report by United Nations Special Rapporteur Agnes Callamard said there was “credible evidence” linking him to the murder and cover up of what she said was undoubtedly a “state killing.” Still, the trials continue even though they do nothing to indict the person who gave the orders.

When Khashoggi was murdered, the outrage had a major effect on US congressional support for the Saudis, manifested by growing opposition to the US support for the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. Several key Republicans turned against MbS, not in response to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen but in response to the public outcry against Khashoggi’s horrific murder. A broad-based coalition of peace, human rights and humanitarian groups was able to convince a majority in both the House and the Senate to cut off support for the Saudi war in Yemen, a necessary step to hold MbS accountable for his complete disregard for human life. Even some of the most hawkish Republicans stepped up in response. Lindsey Graham, for example, called MbS a “wrecking ball” and voted to end support for the war, explaining in a statement,

“I changed my mind because I’m pissed. The way the administration had handled [Khashoggi’s murder] is just not acceptable.”

The bills were vetoed by President Trump but Congress is still trying to force the President’s hand by including an amendment in the must-pass military funding bill (NDAA).

On the heels of Khashoggi’s death, businesses, embarrassed by their Saudi connections, started pulling out of deals. Dozens of companies and notables, from the New York Times to Uber CEO to the head of the World Bank, decided to skip the major annual Saudi Future Investment Initiative, also known as Davos in the Desert. Talent agent Endeavor returned a $400 million investment from Saudi Arabia. Several think tanks, including the Brookings Institution and the Middle East Institute, announced that they would no longer accept Saudi funding. In the past year, five PR firms—Glover Park Group, BGR Group, Harbour Group, CGCN Group and Gibson, Dunn & Crutche—have severed ties with the kingdom. At the behest of groups including the Human Rights Foundation, singer Nicki Minaj canceled her performance in Saudi Arabia, citing concerns about the treatment of women, the LGBTQ community and freedom of expression. Freedom Forward was successful in getting the New York Public Library to cancel its “Youth Forum” with MbS’s charity, the Misk Foundation.

Still, the Saudis have been investing huge sums of money in companies and notables to “rebrand” the Kingdom, prompting CODEPINK to launch a full-blown Boycott Saudi campaign in January. The campaign includes urging entertainers not to perform, asking Vice Media to stop producing promotional/propaganda videos for the Saudis, encouraging Lush Cosmetics to close their Saudi stores, and pushing the G20 nations to reconsider their decision to hold their 2020 meeting in Saudi Arabia. The campaign’s long list of targets shows just how much money Saudi invests in whitewashing its crimes and how overreaching its influence is.

While human rights groups work to hold the private sector accountable, the biggest obstacle to holding Saudi accountable is the Trump administration continued support. Trump has focused on Saudi Arabia’s key role as a purchaser of US weapons and an ally against Iran. In the wake of the September 14 attacks on the kingdom’s oil infrastructure, Trump announced the deployment of 200 troops and Patriot missiles to Saudi Arabia to bolster its defences against Iran. It is also Trump who vetoed legislation to end military assistance for the Saudi war on Yemen on three different occasions and went so far as to declare a state of emergency to sell $8 billion in weapons to the Saudis while bypassing Congressional disapproval.

Trump has not only stood by MbS but pushed for his rehabilitation on the world stage. With the “Davos in the Desert” Future Investment Initiative taking place against this year, on October 29-31, Jared Kushner is expected to lead a robust US delegation. Big banks and investment firms, including Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, CitiGroup, are once again lining up to attend. It seems the money to be made in the anticipated initial public offering of the world’s wealthiest company, the Saudi oil company Aramco–valued at between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion–is just too enticing.

Khashoggi himself was critical of the international community’s unwillingness to take substantive steps to hold the Saudi regime accountable. In a column about the need for freedom of speech in the Arab world, he remarked that the repression by Arab governments “no longer carry the consequence of a backlash from the international community. Instead, these actions may trigger condemnation quickly followed by silence.” The sad irony is that in response to his own murder, governments and private interests are proving his point.

One year later, their silence has allowed MbS to tighten his grip on power and increase repression against political rivals and women activists. It has given the green light for governments around the world to sell weapons to the Saudis to destroy Yemen. It allows businesses to rake in billions in petrodollar investments and foreign entertainers to provide a veneer of normalcy and modernity to the kingdom. Far from being held accountable for Khashoggi’s murder, MbS is thriving—thanks to his rehabilitation by an international community that cares more about money than it does human rights.

In times like this, it’s difficult not to ask oneself: Who is more evil—the maniacal Saudi crown prince responsible for Khashoggi’s murder and the murder of tens of thousands of  Yemenis, or the mendacious world leaders and businesspeople who continue to embrace what should be a pariah 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.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the US-Saudi Connection.

Featured image is from the author

“If we burn, you burn with us.” “Self-destruct together.” (Lam chao.)

The new slogans of Hong Kong’s black bloc – a mob on a rampage connected to the black shirt protestors – made their first appearance on a rainy Sunday afternoon, scrawled on  walls in Kowloon.

Decoding the slogans is essential to understand the mindless street violence that was unleashed even before the anti-mask law passed by the government of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) went into effect at midnight on Friday, October 4.

By the way, the anti-mask law is the sort of measure that was authorized by the 1922 British colonial Emergency Regulations Ordnance, which granted the city government the authority to “make any regulations whatsoever which he [or she] may consider desirable in the public interest” in case of “emergency or public danger”.

Perhaps the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, was unaware of this fine lineage when she commented that the law “only intensifies concern over freedom of expression.” And it is probably safe to assume that neither she nor other virulent opponents of the law know that a very similar anti-mask law was enacted in Canada on June 19, 2013.

More likely to be informed is Hong Kong garment and media tycoon Jimmy Lai, billionaire publisher of the pro-democracy Apple Daily, the city’s Chinese Communist Party critic-in-chief and highly visible interlocutor of official Washington, DC, notables such as US Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and ex-National Security Council head John Bolton.

On September 6, before the onset of the deranged vandalism and violence that have defined Hong Kong “pro-democracy protests” over the past several weeks, Lai spoke with Bloomberg TV’s Stephen Engle from his Kowloon home.

He pronounced himself convinced that – if protests turned violent China would have no choice but to send People’s Armed Police units from Shenzen into Hong Kong to put down unrest.

“That,” he said on Bloomberg TV, “will be a repeat of the Tiananmen Square massacre and that will bring in the whole world against China….. Hong Kong will be done, and … China will be done, too.”

Still, before the violence broke out, hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong people had gathered in peaceful protests in June, illustrating the depth of feeling that exists in Hong Kong. These are the working-class Hongkongers that Lai supports through the pages of Apple Daily.

But the situation has changed dramatically from the early summer of non-violent demonstrations. The black blocs see such intervention as the only way to accomplish their goal.

For the black blocs, the burning is all about them – not Hong Kong, the city and its hard-working people. Those are all subjected to the will of this fringe minority that, according to the understaffed and overstretched Hong Kong police force, numbers 12,000 people at the most.

Cognitive rigidity is a euphemism when applied to mob rule, which is essentially a religious cult. Even attempting the rudiments of a civilized discussion with these people is hopeless. The supremely incompetent, paralyzed Hong Kong government at least managed to define them precisely as “rioters” who have plunged one of the wealthiest and so far safest cities on the planet “into fear and chaos” and committed “atrocities” that are “far beyond the bottom line of any civilized society.”

“Revolution in Hong Kong”, the previous preferred slogan, at face value a utopian millennial cause, has been in effect drowned by the heroic vandalizing of metro stations, i.e., the public commons; throwing petrol bombs at police officers; and beating up citizens who don’t follow the script. To follow these gangs running amok, live, in Central and Kowloon, and also on RTHK, which broadcasts the rampage in real-time, is a mind-numbing experience.

I’ve sketched before the basic profile of thousands of young protestors in the streets fully supported by a silent mass of teachers, lawyers, bewigged judges, civil servants and other liberal professionals who gloss over any outrageous act – as long as they are anti-government.

But the key question has to focus on the black blocs, their mob rule on rampage tactics, and who’s financing them. Very few people in Hong Kong are willing to discuss it openly. And as I’ve noted in conversations with informed members of the Hong Kong Football Club, businessmen, art collectors, and social media groups, very few people in Hong Kong – or across Asia for that matter – even know what black blocs are all about.

The black bloc matrix

Black blocs are not exactly a global movement; they are a tactic deployed by a group of protesters – even though intellectuals springing up from different European strands of anarchism mostly in Spain, Italy, France and Germany since the mid-19^th century may also raise it from the level of a tactic to a strategy that is part of a larger movement.

The tactic is simple enough. You dress in black, with lots of padding, ski masks or balaclavas, sunglasses, and motorcycle helmets. As much as you protect yourself from police pepper spray and/or tear gas, you conceal your identity and melt into the crowd. You act as a block, usually a few dozen, sometimes a few hundred. You move fast, you search and destroy, then you disperse, regroup and attack again.

From the inception, throughout the 1980s, especially in Germany, this was a sort of anarchist-infused urban guerrilla tactic employed against the excesses of globalization and also against the rise of crypto-fascism.

Yet the global media explosion of black blocs only happened over a decade later, at the notorious Battle of Seattle in 1999, during the WTO ministerial conference, when the city was shut down. The WTO summit collapsed and a  state of emergency was in effect for nearly a week. Crucially, there were no casualties, even as black blocs made themselves known as part of a mass riot organized by radical anarchists.

The difference in Hong Kong is that black blocs have been instrumentalized for a blatantly search-and-destroy agenda. The debate is open on whether black bloc tactics, deployed randomly, only serve to legitimize the police state even more. What’s clear is that smashing a subway station used by average working people is absolutely irreconcilable with advancing a better, more responsible, local government.

My interlocutor shows up impeccably dressed for dim sum on Saturday at a deserted Victoria City outlet in CITIC tower, with a spectacular view of the harbor. He’s Shanghai aristocracy, the family having migrated to Hong Kong in 1949, and he’s a uniquely informed insider on all aspects of the Hong Kong-China-US triangle. Via mutual Chinese diaspora connections that hark back to the handover era, he agreed to talk on background. Let’s call him Mr. E.

In the aftermath of dark Friday, Mr. E is still appalled:

“Not only you’re harming the people making their living in businesses, companies, shopping malls. You’re destroying subway stations. You’re destroying our streets. You’re destroying our hard-earned reputation as a safe, international business center. You’re destroying our economy.”

He cannot explain why there was not a single police officer in sight, for hours, as the rampage continued.

Cutting to the chase, Mr. E attributes the whole drama to a pathological hatred of China by a “significant majority” of Hong Kong’s population. Significantly, the day after our conversation, a small black bloc contingent circled around the PLA’s Kowloon East Barracks in Kowloon Tong in the early evening. Chinese soldiers in camouflage filmed them from the rooftop.

There’s no way black blocs would take their gas masks, steel rods and petrol bombs to fight the PLA. That’s an entirely new ball game compared with thrashing metro stations. And color-coded “revolution” manuals don’t teach you how to do it.

Mr. E points out there is nothing “leaderless” about the Hong Kong black blocs. Mob rule is strictly regimented. One of the black shirt slogans  – “Occupy, disrupt, disperse, repeat” – has in effect mutated into “Swarm, destroy, disperse, repeat.”

Mr. E asks me about black blocs in France. Western mainstream media, for months, have ignored solid, peaceful protests by the Gilets Jaunes/Yellow Vests across France, against corruption, inequality and the Macron administration’s neoliberal push to turn France into a start-up benefitting the 1%.

Charges that French intel has manipulated black blocs and inserted undercover agents and casseurs (persons vandalizing property, specifically during protests) to discredit and demonize the Yellow Vests are widespread. As I’ve witnessed in Paris first hand, the feared CRS have been absolutely ruthless in their RAND-conceptualized militarized operations in urban terrain – repression tactics – without excluding the odd beating up of elderly citizens.

In contrast, mob rule in Hong Kong is excused as protest against “totalitarian” China.

Most of the conversation with Mr. E centers on possible sources of financing for the initial nonviolent protest and, particularly, for the mob rule that the black blocs have brought in its place.

Motivation and opportunity will get you on the list, which is not terribly long – but is long enough to include names of people and organizations diametrically opposed to one another and thus unlikely to be working together.

Among governments, we can start with the still (if not, probably, for much longer) number one superpower. Trump administration officials, locked in a trade war with Beijing, would have no trouble imagining some advantage coming from a weakening of the People’s Republic’s rule over Hong Kong, and could perhaps see good in positively destabilizing China, starting with fomenting a violent revolution in the former British colony.

The United Kingdom, contemplating a lonely post-Brexit old age, could have pondered how nice it would be to get closer to its favorite former colony, still an island of Britishness in a less and less British world.

Taiwan, of course, would have had interest in provoking a test run of how One Country, Two Systems – the formula that the PRC and the UK used with Hong Kong in 1997 and that Beijing has offered to Taiwan, as well – might work out under stress. And after the stress of peaceful protest had exposed weak underpinnings, the temptation may well have arisen to go farther and make such a hash of Chinese-ruled Hong Kong that no Taiwanese would ever again fall for the merger propaganda.

The People’s Republic seems an unlikely protagonist for the initial, nonviolent phase, but there are plenty of Hong Kongers who believe it is now encouraging provocations that would justify a major crackdown. And we can’t completely rule out the possibility that a mainland CCP faction – opposed to the breach of recent tradition with which Xi Jinping extended his time in the presidency, say – is trying to discredit him.

OK, enough about governments. Now we need some on-the-ground agents, Chinese with plausible deniability who can blend in as they receive and disburse the necessary funding and handle organizational and training matters.

Here the possibilities are far too numerous to list, but one popular name would be Guo Wengui, aka Miles Kwok. The billionaire fell out with the CCP and, in 2014, fled to the United States to pursue a career as a long-distance political operative.

Even more popular would be name of Jimmy Lai, mentioned above. Confirming another of my key meetings, when Mr. E points to the usual funding suspects, the name of Jimmy Lai inevitably comes up. In fact, a US-Taiwan-Jimmy Lai combination may be number one on the hit parade when it comes to the common wisdom.

But when I tried that combination on for size I encountered problems. For one big thing, Jimmy Lai has made no effort to hide his aid to pro-democracy groups but in his public remarks has invariably encouraged nonviolent agendas.

As South China Morning Post columnist Alex Lo wrote not long ago, “What’s wrong with making massive donations to political parties and anti-government groups? Nothing! So I am puzzled by the media brouhaha over Apple Daily boss Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s alleged donations worth more than HK$40 million to his pals in the pan-democratic camp over a two-year period.”

Let’s not give up so easily, though. I believe that some things are best hidden right out in the open in bright daylight.

Yes, Lai’s public voice happens to be Mark Simon, who worked for four years as a US naval intelligence analyst.

Yes, Lai has been good friends with neo-con guru Paul Wolfowitz since the latter became chairman of the US Taiwan Business Council in 2008, according to a Lai aide.

Wolfowitz served as deputy secretary of defense from 2001 to 2005 under Donald Rumsfeld, sort of by accident: He was supposed to become George W Bush’s head of CIA. But, alas, that didn’t work out because his wife got wind of an affair Paul, a member of the board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED, had with a staffer, who was married at the time … and so it goes.

And, yes, according to Wikileaks documentation, in 2013 Lai paid US$75,000 to Wolfowitz for an introduction to Myanmar government bigwigs.

A document suggesting a transaction between Lai and Wolfowitz. Photo: Wikileaks via SCMP

But none of that really proves anything, does it now? Innocent until proven guilty. Colluding with arguably the most important US policy and intelligence operative of the past two decades, apparently yes – but can we establish active involvement by either the Pauls or the Jimmys of this world in black bloc provocations to achieve the bloody Chinese intervention that Lai forecast? Innocent until proven guilty.

This is going to take some further work. Back to the old drawing board with Asia Times.

There will be blowback

“We in Hong Kong are few in number. But we know that the world will never know genuine peace until the people of China are free.” – Wall Street Journal op-ed by Jimmy Lai,  Sept 30

As much as there have been frantic efforts by the usual suspects to obliterate them, the images of black bloc mob rule and rampage across Hong Kong are now imprinted all over the Global South, not to mention in the unconscious of hundreds of millions of Chinese netizens.

Even the black blocs’ invisible financial backers may have been stunned by the counter-productive effects of the rampage, to the point of essentially declaring victory and ordering a retreat. In any case, Jimmy Lai continues to blame the Hong Kong police for “excessive and brutal violence” and to demonize the “dictatorial, cold-blooded and violent beast.”

Yet there’s no guarantee the black terror mob will back down – especially with Hong Kong fire officials now alarmed by the proliferation of online instructions for making petrol bombs using lethal white phosphorous. Once again – remember al-Qaeda’s “freedom fighters” – history will teach us: Beware of the Frankenstein terrors you create.

*

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.

Some say the following quote came from journalist John Swinton (1829-1901), but it matters not who actually said it. The cold hard truth is that it was spoken by someone who worked as a writer for a newspaper, and had a career writing for more than a few. He stated:

“There is no such thing at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press…There is not ONE of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did you know beforehand that it would never appear in print! I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with… The business of journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread… We are the tools of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes!“ 

We only need go back a few short years to see the utter magnitude of what Swinton was talking about. Remember the illegal and immoral USA invasion and occupation of Iraq? Most of the ‘levers of empire’ were pushed to accommodate that bit of lying, disinformation and half truths. This writer remembers when Phil Donahue had his nightly news/talk show on MSNBC. By February of 2003 or thereabouts, Jeff Cohen, Phil’s producer, recalls how he was told to have TWO pro invasion guests on for every anti invasion guest. Remember, at that time General Electric Corp. owned MSNBC. Yet, that was not enough to satisfy the empire. On February 23 the Donahue show was cancelled, although the ratings were pretty good. You see, by that time, late February, the machine was all ready for the attack. It just needed a few more morsels of propaganda to sink into both the Congress and of course the consumers… Sorry, I mean the citizenry.

This writer was extremely agitated by the high level of Pro invasion info coming over the embedded mainstream print and electronic media. One slight consolation was when C-Span actually ‘did the correct thing’ and showed a Canadian news channel’s coverage of the impending doom. Of course, when the die was cast and Rumsfeld’s famous Shock and Awe campaign began, the three major news talk channels, CNN, MSNBC and FOX, were all over us with cheerleading. FOX was so off the radar that no critique is needed. However, CNN and MSNBC, trying to look like ‘Neutral Journalism 101’, could not contain their peanut gallery mindsets, the one that John Swinton referred to in his famous speech. You had Aaron Brown, Lester Holt and little Katie Couric (of flagship station NBC, owned by GE), along with Brian Williams (later to be outed, for but awhile, for his phony news stories in Iraq) all right there celebrating the ‘Liberators of Iraq’. They all wore their flag buttons on their lapels, and little Katie was filmed strolling through the halls of NBC shouting ‘Marines Rock!’ Of course, Lester Holt did the ‘right (wing) thing’ and now is a respected anchor… so much so that good ole Lester moderates presidential debates. Swinton’s use of the phrase ‘Intellectual prostitutes’ rang true then.

Now we come to a recent bit of disgrace. Ellen Degeneres, the highly celebrated and successful daytime talk show hostess and proud gay woman, was seen sitting with Junior Bush at a Dallas Cowboys game, in the exclusive owner’s box area. She has had Junior on her show to talk about his painting, has visited him at his ranch, and considers him a ‘Nice guy’. Junior has, on record as president, never did squat to help with the AIDs pandemic, and allowed his far right evangelical beliefs to keep him from ever speaking favorably about gay rights etc. Yet, this openly gay woman, who must have felt alarmed by our illegal invasion (OR DID SHE?), must have had friends who were enraged by that invasion at the time. All the many alternative news blips must have gotten to her eyes and ears, telling her that the Bush/Cheney gang were WAR CRIMINALS! Yet Ms. DeGeneres continues to satisfy the lie which tells us to take a pass on the dastardly things done by the war criminals in the White House. As the war criminal Mr. Obama stated, when in 2008 many of his own party wanted to have hearings on the pre-emptive attack and occupation of Iraq, that it was time to ‘Move forward’. Forward he did by increasing the number of drone murderous assaults by Tenfold! Now that he is out of office, Barack, the ‘Hope and Change’ king, just purchased a home for $8.1 million. Tell that to the suckers who fell for his rhetoric in the Afro American communities.

Anyone but the foolish people who still support Mr. Trump realize that he is as much of a populist as the man he emulates with his body gestures: Il Duce! Nothing ever changes when the majority of working stiffs suck in the foul air that comes from the mouths of the empire’s minions, whether they be presidents, congress people or (so called) journalists and talk show hosts. It is time for those of good conscience to boycott the lot of them!

*

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

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]

Featured image is from TruePublica

The university, in a global sense, is passing into a managerial oblivion.  There are a few valiant holdouts, but they have the luxury of history, time, and learning.  Cambridge and Oxford, for instance, still boast traditional academics, soaking erudition, and education as something more than a classroom brawl of the mind.  They can barricade themselves against the regulatory disease that has made imbeciles of administrators and cretins of the pretend academic class.  They can, for instance, rely on their colleges to fight the university, a concept so utterly alien to others.  Across Europe, the management structures wear heavily.  In the United States, the corporate university took hold decades ago.  Academics are retiring, committing suicide, and going on gardening leave.

In Australia, a more serious problem has become evident: You cannot expose the obvious.  You cannot, for instance, expose the evident plagiarism of colleagues.  You cannot expose corruption within the university, notably the sort that celebrates graft over industry.  You cannot discuss the decline in academic standards, or the purposeful lowering of admission levels.  The obvious, in a certain sense, is that standards will be lowered if there is a need for largesse and revenue.  The natural impulse of fat cat Vice-Chancellors is to cry foul that the government of the day has not forked out from the tax payer’s wallet.  Pay the university; fund more places.  Give us more funding, because we are teaching and research institutions.

The problem with this dubious formulation is that funding a university in its current, monstrous form is tantamount to giving a drug lord a state subsidy for a pool, a perk, or a prostitute.  (A suitable doctoral dissertation: Compare the rhetoric of Pablo Escobar with Australian university management from 2000 to 2019.  You won’t be disappointed.)  Vice-Chancellors of the university world are white collar criminals on par with bankers, and, like those bankers, claim they perform an invaluable service.  When they fail, they are simply moved on to another institution, leaving their sludge in ample supply.

The pro-vice chancellors, the deputies, the deputy-deputies and the deputies under them, are co-conspirators in an enterprise that robs students blind and plunders the goodwill of academic staff.  Never has there been a better case to start putting these types into re-education camps, the very sort that they wish academics who disagree with them to attend.  Apropos on that point, it is notable that universities in Australia love sending disagreeing and disagreeable academics to counsellors hired by the university itself.  Thought-crime thrives down under.

Be that as it may, the recent news that Murdoch University in Western Australia, has decided to counter-sue an academic for exposing the lowering of academic standards, should come as confirmation.  How utterly revolting to expose such a squalid secret!  How revolting to believe that standards should be kept!  (The issue here, as much as anything else, is to put to bed the snake oil language of being a “global educator”.  A local non-educator will suffice.)

Federal Court documents have done more than reveal that the university is seeking compensation from Associate Professor Gerd Schröder-Turk for millions lost since he appeared on a Four Corners program in May discussing the plight of failing Indian students.  It involves a counter-action against the academic, who initially filed an action under the Fair Work Act to restrain the university from disciplining him for discussing the lowering of academic standards.

The university has been rightfully punished by a decline in student numbers but insists that it “maintains admission standards consistent with the national standards for international students, along with English language requirements in line with those across the sector.”  In short, the Murdoch argument is that made by those who think failure sells: they all do it, so why pick on us?

Murdoch University’s overpaid VC, Eeva Leinonen, claims to refute (is it not confute?) “the claims made by the ABC” in an email sent to students after the Four Corners program aired.  She babbles incorrigibly, resorting to those nonsenses about employability and global reputation for a university that struggles, just, to be local.  “In 2018, Murdoch was ranked number one in Australia for graduate employability.  Employers value the knowledge and skills that you have learnt at Murdoch University.”  (Leinonen is yet another example of how corruption, to be pure, needs to be imported – she cut her teeth as Vice-President in Education at King’s College, University of London.)

Even Australia’s restrained whistleblowing commentators have been a touch troubled by the arid and vicious reasoning of Murdoch University.  The university, as a realm of academic protection, is a piecemeal matter in Australia.  But modern management, being itself a high-functioning criminal class, has made it imperative to cast an eye on protections for those who blow that all too rare whistle on plagiarism, charlatanism, shallow standards and good, down-to-earth theft.

A. J. Brown, who wears the rather rusted crown of whistleblowing authority in a country that has found the practice irksome, ventured the obvious in his assessment: the action by Murdoch University will stifle whistleblowing.  “I’m not aware of any situation where a university, or really… any sort of organisation, has counter-sued the whistleblower for damages.”

Murdoch University has revealed some important, and cheery results, for those who believe that the academy, and university, remains a place of challenge and learning rather than numbers and padding.  The institution, in an effort to target Shröder-Turk, is full of complaint: shovelling amounts out for investigations by tertiary regulators; lamenting the upgrade of the Immigration Risk Rating by the Department of Home Affairs.  Schröder-Turk should be given a knighthood.

What is needed, in the immediate future, is a redrafting of laws in states and the Commonwealth that permits full, iron-sheeted immunity to those who expose managerial corruption.  This case shows the quibbling and the lack of clarity of those who engage in what is called “public interest disclosure”.  University academics fit uncomfortably within that skimpy bit of legislation known as the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, but Shröder-Turk has attempted to apply it.  (The provisions are so miserably weak and vague as to be ineffectual and, as the court documents note, he was “largely unsuccessful in his interlocutory application.”)  Nor can they avail themselves of the Corporate protections recently passed in Australia, exaggerated in their protections, but nonetheless important for having taken place.

What is astonishing is the free rein given to universities to punish and discipline their personnel for a disgusting tendency, namely, to have, and defend, principles central to teaching and research.  How dare these learned types stand up for principled admission standards?  Care about grades?  Worry about performance?  Away with those hideous farts, those people who refuse to play the corporate ball game.

We so happen to disturb an age where the university, as it has become, should be abolished.  We await the madly dedicated Martin Luther in academic dress and garb to target his theses with venom against the Papacy of Management; we await the sit-ins of keen students, aware of thought, who have decided to be more than drugged consumers, leading the militant protests directed to learning, the determined opposition to expose the corporate hypocrisy of this dying animal.  (Academics won’t, cowardice being their poesy and milky blood.)  Best kill it off now, and put us, and everybody else, out of a collective misery that serves to rob taxpayer, learner and instructor.

*

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 Wikimedia Commons

On Saturday, the fourth day of Turkey’s cross border military operation, Turkey’s Defense Minister claimed that they had captured a key border town called Ras Al Ain, however the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) denied the claim.

Turkey accidently put US special forces in harm’s way on Friday, when they attacked a known US observation post on Friday. Turkey denied firing on US forces. No injuries were reported.

Turkey has stated that “Operation Peace Spring” is directed at safeguarding its border security, preventing the formation of a terror corridor, preventing the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) and its Syrian offshoots the People’s Protection Units (YPG), Democratic Union Party (PYD) and Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) from disrupting the demographic structures of the region, protecting Syria’s territorial integrity, resettling Syrian refugees in terror-free safe zone, terminate the PKK/YPG/PYD drug trade including production and sales, and preventing these militias from recruiting child soldiers.

However, residential neighborhoods have been targeted, and civilians have been killed in border towns. The situation is fluid with chaos, fear, and violence raging on. Armenia has reached out the Armenian Bishop and offered Armenians in Qamishli to leave Syria during this difficult time but many are saying that they would rather remain in their country (Syria).

The PKK is recognized as a terrorist organization by NATO including the US and the EU. Turkey states the PKK has killed 40,000 people in Turkey since its inception thirty years ago.

Turkey is worried about a terror corridor being built under the guise of being an energy corridor. The Kurdish militias took control of energy sources. They wanted to transfer gas and oil that they seized to the Mediterranean passing through Hatay through this “energy corridor” which Turkey believes is a terror corridor.

Mortar shells and rocket attacks have been launched by both sides dozens of times claiming hundreds of innocent civilian lives. Turkey says that they want to prevent the Kurdish militias from disrupting the demographic structure of the region. Stating that the PKK/YPG/PYD are terrorizing civilians and forcing Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen out of their homes if they do not recognize their authority and then seizing their properties. They also demolish buildings where land registry records are kept.

On the ground sources in Syria that are not allied with Turkey have also stated similar things, homes and businesses are being confiscated, young men are kidnapped from the streets in forced conscription by the Turkish militias. Illegitimate taxes are being placed on non-Kurds. Schools have been closed and administrators thrown in jail for not accepting an unrecognized Kurdish curriculum.

Although Turkey has stated at every opportunity that it is interested in protecting Syria’s territorial integrity and wants to prevent the establishment of a Kurdish state on its border some worry that the real intention behind establishing a safe zone and peace corridor is to encroach on Syrian land. Turkey has claimed that they will return Syrian land to “its rightful owners” but hasn’t specified who that is.

Turkey claims it wants to eliminate the presence of all terrorist groups in the region, but that doesn’t seem to include the nefarious militias and terrorists that it supports such as the Free Syrian Army and its affiliates. Turkey is fixated on eliminating only Kurdish militias.

Turkey’s two previous military operations, Euphrates Shield and Olive Branch cleared Kurdish militias along 4,000 km of Turkey’s border and this latest operation is aiming to clear 480 kilometers east of the Euphrates and establishing a safe zone.

Another aim is to terminate the Kurdish militia’s drug trade. Turkey states that the PKK/YPG/PYD have drug production facilities in the region and sell their drugs to Europe and the USA. Turkey is aiming at ending their drug production and trade in the region.

Turkey is also looking to resettle 1-2 million of the 3.6 million Syrian refugees it is currently hosting. It aims to purge the Kurdish militias first, then restore the infrastructure system and then resettle them in the safe zone area. The issue here is that demographics will be forcefully changed by Turkey, just as they were in the two previous cross border operations.

Turkey makes the distinction that Kurdish militias do not represent most Kurdish people. Most Kurdish movements and political parties are focused on the concerns and autonomy of Kurds within their respective countries. Within each country, there are Kurds who have assimilated and whose aspirations may be limited to greater cultural freedoms and political recognition.

The PKK/YPG have previously admitted to recruiting and using child soldiers. Turkey is aiming at eliminating that as well.

It’s important to remember that Turkey was not granted permission by the Syrian state to carry out these military operations on its sovereign land. Also, had the United States and the Kurdish self-administration given control of these areas to the Syrian army Turkey wouldn’t have had a pretext to justify these illegal military missions.

Turkey is using artillery and war plans in Ras al-Ayn and Qamishli in the Al Hassaka governorate and Ein Issa in Raqqa’s northern countryside. Also, the Allouk water station in Ras al-Ayn is not rendered after electrical cables were severed during Turkish aggression. It’s also been reported that 100 US soldiers withdrew from the targeted areas in two batches and headed to Iraq along with dozens of vehicles and that ten US officers and several foreign experts left the Rumailan US base for Iraq.

On Thursday, the Directorate-General for Antiquities and Museums (DGAM) stated that archeological sites and hills in northern Syria have sustained serious damage. Dr. Mahmoud Hammoud the Director General of DGAM said that several archeological sites that date back to the modern stone age and have been home to several consecutive civilizations for thousands of years have been targeted by Turkish aggression. He is pleading with the international community, academics, archeologists and UNESCO to pressure Turkey into halting its aggression which threatens Syria’s cultural heritage. He also noted that the northern area of Syria which Turkey wants to occupy contains archeological sites that date back more than 3,000 years and are an integral part of this region’s history. He called the Turkey’s actions crimes against humanity and stated that its barbaric aggression is a methodical attack on Syria’s heritage.

By Friday, the UN estimates 100,000 civilians have fled their homes, 342 Kurdish fighters have been killed, major cities in northern Syria have been hit including, residential neighborhoods, dams, vital electric and water facilities. Civilian casualties are rising as well.  President Trump has said mediation is one of the three options the other two are to send thousands of troops or enforce harsh sanctions.

We are likely to see more bloodshed, civilian deaths, prison breaks, ISIS detainees fleeing, battles over border towns such as Ras Al Ayn and other strategic areas in the upcoming days. Although the international community has called for Turkey to end its invasion and exercise restrain not enough is being done to end “Operation Peace Spring” which is anything but peaceful.

*

The article was also published on The American Herald Tribune

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.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. She is a frequent contributor of Global Research.

For media inquiries please email [email protected].  

Since October 9, the Turkish Armed Forces and Turkish-backed militants have been developing a ground phase of their operation against Kurdish armed groups in northeastern Syria.

The main Turkish efforts were focused on the towns of Ras al-Ayn and Tell Abyad. Turkey-led forces captured several villages surrounding the towns and event entered Tell Abyad. Nonetheless, the situation in the area remains unstable. It is expected that the Syrian Democratic Forces, a brand used by mainstream media to describe the YPG and the YPJ, will be able to defend fortified urban areas until they are not encircled.

According to pro-Turkish sources, over 100 YPG/YPJ members were neutralized since the start of the operation. This number remains unconfirmed. Pro-Kurdish sources claim that the YPG was able to eliminate several pieces of Turkish military equipment and kill two dozens of Turkish proxies. These claims were also barely confirmed by any evidence. However, at least 17 civilians were injured in a mortar shelling that targeted the Turkish town of Ceylanpınar.

Watch the video here.

Syria’s state-run news agency SANA reported on October 10 that about 100 US troops had left northeastern Syria through the Semalka border crossing with Iraq. Taking into account that US President Donald Trump called Turkey’s operation a “bad idea”, but distanced himself from Kurdish forces because they did not help the US in World War II, it becomes more and more clear that the Turkish military action in the region is in fact coordinated with the US.

By this move, the Trump administration makes an important step to return confidence of its key ally in the eastern Mediterranean and, at the same time, delivers a blow to efforts of the Obama administration and the CIA that had contributed notable efforts in supporting the Kurdish project in northern Syria.

The possible rapprochement of the US and Turkey over the conflict in Syria will allow Washington to strengthen its campaign to limit influence of Iran and the Assad government in the war-torn country, as well as open additional opportunities for a revanche of the US military industrial complex on the Turkish market. This is a logical step in the framework of the national-oriented policy provided by the Trump administration.

The key question is how deep into Syria the Turkish military is planning to expand its Operation Peace Spring. Currently, pro-Turkish sources speculate about the possible creation of a 30km-deep corridor. If the US allows Turkey and Turkey appears to be capable of reaching this goal, Anakra will boost its role in the conflict even further and gain a wide range of options to influence its possible settlement. In this event, the Assad government will lost all the remaining chances to restore the territorial integrity and the Trump administration will get additional leverages of pressure on Iran, the Assad government and Russia in Syria.

*

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.

We call upon Global Research readers to 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

This article was first published in April 2019, following the granting of a $4.2 billion IMF loan to Ecuador.

It should be understood that the conditions underlying this loan are intended to impoverish an entire country. 

The IMF policy conditionalities are very specific. Massive layoffs in the public sector, dramatic hikes in fuel prices, reduction in real wages, the privatization of pension funds. 

The diesel fuel price more than doubled overnight. Gasoline prices increased by 29%. 

The $4.2 billion is tagged for the reimbursement of Ecuador’s external debt. new loans to pay back old debts. It is fake loan.

See the text of the IMF loan agreement in Annex below

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 12, 2019

****

The evidence of political pressure on Ecuador is surfacing. The IMF Executive Board Approved US$4.2 Billion  (435% of quota and SDR 3.035 billion).

Extended Fund Facility for Ecuador. The Executive Board agreed to this arrangement with strings attached. The Board’s decision enables the immediate disbursement of US$652 million (equivalent to SDR 469,7 million, or 67.3 percent of Ecuador’s quota). This arrangement provides support for the Ecuadorean government’s economic policies over the next three years provided they gave up Julian Assange.

It is very interesting how corruption and bribes grease the world. Every person who ever becomes a whistleblower on government goes to prison.

The USA immediately unveiled its request for extradition on computer hacking charges that carry 5 years. Of course, the US must put on its case to get its hands around Julian’s neck. Once he is extradited to the USA, they will unleash a battery of other charges to ensure he does life.

The rumblings behind the curtain are that the Democrats in league with the Deep State are behind this, hoping to force Assange to say he got Hillary’s emails from Putin as part of a plea deal. The danger of all of this nonsense is simply the plain fact it will bring us one more step closer to world war. What is clearly involved here seems to be a highly coordinated scheme that links the IMF and throwing Chelsea Manning in prison who will conveniently have to testify against Assange who can be eventually charged as was Manning and face the death penalty. By linking this to Russia, they hope to also prevent Trump from granting him any pardons.

This is getting very deep. Tyranny under the Banner of Liberty & Human Rights.

*

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

Martin Arthur Armstrong is the former chairman of Princeton Economics International Ltd. He is best known for his economic predictions based on the Economic Confidence Model, which he developed. 

The IMF Report 

click to read full report.

emphasis and comments in brackets added by Global Research

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Context: The authorities face a difficult situation. Wage increases have outpaced productivity growth [IMF calls for a reduction in real wages] over the past decade which, has led to a deterioration in competitiveness. This has been exacerbated by a strong U.S. dollar—Ecuador’s economy is fully dollarized—leaving the real exchange rate overvalued. [engineered by Wall Street]

Public debt is high and rising, the government faces sizable gross financing needs, and international reserves are precariously low. The recent volatility in oil prices and tighter global financial conditions have exacerbated these strains.

Article IV: The Article IV discussions focused on diagnosing the nature of the imbalances facing Ecuador and the policy changes that will be needed to address them. At the center of the discussion was the proper calibration of the size, pace, and composition of the reduction in the fiscal deficit that will be needed in the coming years. [implementation  of drastic austerity measures] In addition, there was broad agreement that fundamental supply-side efforts will be needed to foster competitiveness, create jobs, rebuild institutions, and make Ecuador a more attractive destination for private investment. Finally, improving the social safety net and increasing the effectiveness of public spending, particularly on health and education, will be essential to achieving strong, sustained, and socially equitable growth.

Program Objectives: Consistent with the findings of the Article IV, the authorities’ policy plan seeks to decisively address the systemic vulnerabilities facing Ecuador. The goals of these policies are to boost competitiveness and job creation, protect the poor and most vulnerable, fortify the institutional foundations for dollarization, [denies Ecuador to have an independent and sovereign monetary policy] and to improve transparency and good governance to public sector operations while strengthening the fight against corruption.

Program Modalities: The proposed program would be a 36-month Extended Fund Facility with access of US$4.209 billion (SDR 3.035 billion, 435 percent of quota) [New loans to pay back outstanding foreign debts, harsh policy conditionalities imposed by creditors]. The program has quarterly reviews and the full amount of Fund resources would be made available for direct budget support. Performance criteria have been established on the non-oil primary balance of the nonfinancial public sector (including fuel subsidies), net international reserves (excluding bank deposits held at the central bank), and on social assistance spending. There are continuous performance criteria to prevent new external payment arrears and to prohibit central bank financing of the nonfinancial public sector (both directly or indirectly through public banks). The program also includes a quarterly indicative target on the overall balance of the nonfinancial public sector.

Featured image is from HoweStreet.com

Big powers, as with the greatest of gangsters, have always had a certain, indulgent luxury; their prerogative is to make promises they can choose to abide by or ignore.  A vision is assured, guarantees made.  Then comes the betrayal.  The small powers, often pimped in the process, can only deal with the violent consequences.

The United States has gone the way of other powers in this regard.  On Monday, the White House announced that US troops would be withdrawn from the Syrian-Turkish border.  At a press conference, President Donald Trump explained that the US had been in Syria “for a long time”.  The stint was intended to be short; and besides, the US had, by and large, “defeated ISIS.  One hundred percent of the caliphate.” (This point is confuted by the US Defence Department Inspector General.)  Distinctly un-imperial sentiments were expressed.  “We want to bring our soldiers home.  These are the endless wars.”

Ankara, having been beating at the door impatiently for some for action to be taken against the Kurdish fighters who form the bulk of the Syrian Democratic Forces, has now been given what is tantamount to an encouragement: when we leave, do your worst.  Trump, for his part, has made less than convincing overtures that any violent action on the part of Turkish forces against the Kurdish fighters will lead to an economic retaliation from Washington.  In operational terms, Turkey has also been scratched from the roster of coalition air operations over Syria and limited in terms of receiving US intelligence.

Critics of the decision see the matter less in pro-Kurdish terms than in those benefitting US adversaries in the region.  Russia, Iran and Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, warned Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), would be delighted as this “precipitous withdrawal”.  Islamic State forces would also receive a boost of encouragement.  For Senator Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) Trump had made “an impulsive decision that has long-term ramifications” cutting “against sound military and geopolitical advice.”

The United States has, like a deep-pocketed sugar-daddy, funded, watered and encouraged agents, allies, entities and states in various global theatres, only to withdraw support at vital moments.  The Kurds and Marsh Arabs, or the Ma’dan, were offered promises of support in 1991 in taking up arms against the Saddam regime.  The more than heavy hint given was that Washington would put boots and vehicles on the road to Baghdad once the Iraqis were banished from Kuwait.  Rebellions were started in anticipation.

The mission never went much beyond the issue of restoring Kuwait’s sovereign status.  President George W. H. Bush felt that tic of restraint, the cold hand of geopolitical reason: to go further would inspire doom and possible quagmire, the US having previously received a most telling bruising in Indochina.  The result of this cruel calculus was simple: Best abandon the promised.  The result was massacre, with Iraqi forces mopping up with an efficiency unseen in its confrontation with Coalition forces.

The Kurdish story of abandonment and betrayal is historical staple.  No mention was made of the Kurdish nation in the Treaty of Lausanne, which saw Britain and France deal with Syria and Iraq in artificial, jigsaw terms.  Sects and tribes were jumbled.  The ingredients for future conflict were mixed.  Britain’s own great power contribution during the 1920s was to quash Kurdistan within the borders of Iraq.  But it saw little trouble, at least initially, in recognising the Kurdish Republic of Ararat, as it was set up within the boundaries of a severely weakened post-Ottoman Turkish state.  The Foreign Office, however, saw much value in Turkey as a geopolitical player.  Britain duly repudiated its position, permitting Turkey to wipe that fledgling experiment from the map.

In time, the United States replaced European powers as the Kurds’ serial betrayers, and seemed to relish leading projects of autonomy down the garden path.  Washington did not shy away from providing assistance to Iraqi Kurds during the rule of Abd al-Karim Qasim in the late 1950s.  With Kassem’s overthrow in a 1963 military coup, support dried up.  The US objective of having Kassem removed had been achieved, allowing the new order to liquidate Kurdish resistance.

In February 1975, the Village Voice published details of a covert action program supplying Iraqi Kurds with weapons and material that had run for three years costing $16 million.  The aim was to turn the Kurds into a harassing force rather than a full blown autonomous unit.  This took place despite strenuous objections from those within the Central Intelligence Agency, a body not always known for its cautious take on such matters, warning that thousands of Kurds would perish.  As ever, the man behind the effort – President Richard Nixon – made sure that the State Department was left in the dark for a good time after the program had commenced.

Despite US approval of an Iran-Iraq agreement over the Shatt-al-Arab in 1975, the Kurds were purposely not informed about the political shift and encouraged to keep fighting.  For the border dispute, Saddam got what he wanted: Iranian-US cessation of support for the Kurdish cause, resulting in the deaths of 35,000 and the creation of 200,000 refugees.  Before the  House Select Committee on Intelligence (also known as the Pike Committee), Nixon’s Iago, Henry Kissinger, was untroubled: “covert action should not be confused with missionary work.”  The final report of the Pike Committee would not let this one pass.  “Even in the context of covert action, ours was a cynical enterprise.”

The pattern of cold indifference, fed by hardened cynicism, continues through the 1980s.  Few tears were shed in the White House over the use of nerve and mustard gas against the Kurdish populace of Halabja in March 1988.  In fact, President Ronald Reagan, in the great US tradition of he’s-our-sonofabitch, made a point of ensuring that Iraq was not penalised by sanctions.  In the 1990s, the Clinton administration separated its favourite, noble Kurds from their destabilising counterparts, the former a celebrated nuisance to Saddam; the latter a terrorist threat to Turkey, a US ally.  In 2007, just to recapitulate the point, Turkey was allowed free rein to target Iraqi Kurds within a post-Saddam country.

The rise of Islamic State with its daft and dangerous caliphate pretensions had a seedling effect in northern Syria and Iraq: an incipient Kurdish independence movement throbbed in resistance.  Turkey looked on, worried.  But US support for the Kurdish resistance was premised on the continuing presence of Islamic State, and its eventual neutralisation.  The defeat of its fighters, many of whom have found themselves in Kurdish custody, with their families in camps, gave Trump the signal to move US personnel out.  While his sentiment on not feeding eternal wars is eminently sensible, the consequences of this decision make it just another betrayal, and another bloodbath in waiting.  To the Kurds go the sorrows.

*

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]

The withdrawal of US troops from the Turkish border has caused a kind of panic among the leadership of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, which mostly consist of Kurdish militias.

On October 7, the group already speculated that the Syrian Army is preparing to capture the town of Manbij taking an upper hand of the US troops’ withdrawal. The Syrian military in fact deployed reinforcements near the area. Pro-government sources say the army is preparing to act in response to a possible Turkish military operation.

On October 8, the Turkish Armed Forces announced that they had carried out strikes on the Syrian-Iraqi border in order to prevent Kurdish groups from using the route to reinforce their positions in northeastern Syria. Ankara expects that units of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which it recognizes as a terrorist group, could be re-deployed from northern Iraq to the Syrian-Turkish border.

Watch the video here.

Almost immediately after first Turkish strikes, the SDF leadership announced that it is ready to consider resuming talks with Damascus, and therefore Russia. Earlier, the group sabotaged all Damascus attempts to settle the existing differences through political measures by demanding the Syrian government to de-facto recognize and fund a de-facto independent state with own military within Syria. Now, when the SDF’s key ally has once again appeared to be not ready to sacrifice its geo-strategic interests to create a Kurdish state in Syria, the SDF is once again seeking negotiations with the ‘bloody Assad regime.’

At the same time, the Turkish military and Turkish proxies continue their preparations for a possible military action against Kurdish militias. Recently, a Turkish military convoy was spotted near the town of Jarabulus. In the event of a military operation, the town will become an important logistical point.

*

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.

We call upon Global Research readers to 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

Most of the world remembers the controversy in recent years about Russian athletes allegedly failing to comply with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) policies, but that scandal still continues to this day after the international organization recently threatened that country’s sportspeople with being banned from next year’s Tokyo Olympics on the same basis. The narrative is that there are supposedly “inconsistencies” with the lab data that Russia submitted to prove its adherence to WADA’s regulations, though that storyline is extremely suspect and also reeks of selective enforcement for political reasons.

To explain, it’s illogical that Russian athletes would continue to use banned substances after the agency globally humiliated them and the country that they represented several years ago on that basis, nor would their coaches and those responsible for them allow “inconsistent” lab results to be given to that international sports body if that was still the case (though it was always questionable to begin with the first time around whether there were actually any violations or not). Every stakeholder therefore has a self-interested reason in ensuring that the testing process proceeds smoothly and without incident, not to cheat the rules while under scrutiny.

Another valid point to make is that other countries’ athletes use questionable medi cation to treat certain health symptoms that might have actually given them an unfair advantage during competitions. For instance, RT reported last year on how Swedish media alleged that “70 percent of Norwegian medals in Olympic skiing events were won by athletes diagnosed with asthma”, yet those athletes aren’t under WADA’s microscope like Russia’s are. Quite clearly, the agency is only selectively enforcing its standards for what can only be presumed to be political reasons related to the New Cold War.

Russia is one of the US’ chief geopolitical adversaries across the world, and Washington is weaponizing all means at its disposal to wage a Hybrid War against Moscow, one that transcends the traditional definition of war to include intangible and unquantifiable aspects such as the degrading of national dignity. Understanding this, it makes sense why WADA is threatening Russian athletes, since that’s intended to damage their country’s dignity on the world stage as punishment for their government refusing to submit to the US’ foreign policy diktats. As a result, all Russians might be made to suffer.

This strategy isn’t just being carried out for the sake of schadenfreude, but as part of a far-fetched plan to decrease the population’s support of their government. The theory goes that average Russians might eventually be misguided by a forthcoming US-backed infowar campaign to somehow blame their government for this humiliation, which could contribute to increasing anti-government sentiment and then indirectly influence their political preferences in 2024 after President Putin’s final term ends. That idea might sound attractive in Washington think tanks and the halls of Langley, but it’s completely unrealistic in practice.

A supposedly apolitical international organization punishing a population for the disagreements that their government has with another violates all morality and exposes that said body for what it truly would be in that scenario, which is an American proxy organization being weaponized for Hybrid War ends. It doesn’t matter that the consequences of such a decision wouldn’t have any effect on political stability in Russia, but just that it would be very cruel to do to ordinary people who more often than not could care less about international politics and are more interested in patriotically rooting for their country’s team as they compete in Tokyo.

The Olympics are supposed to bring the world together for a few weeks by allowing everyone’s athletes to bask in glory that they deserve for being the best of the best selected to compete in this prestigious event, provided that they earned their place fairly. Singling out Russians for alleged “inconsistencies” while ignoring the much more credible case of Norwegians gaming the system — to say nothing of transsexuals now being allowed to participate, even without undergoing gender reassignment surgery — is a travesty of everything that the Olympics are supposed to stand for and actually degrades the international community’s dignity most of all.

*

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 also published on InfoBrics.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

It remains one of the more unusual arrangements in terms of funding. Like a club filled with members of erratic disposition, the United Nations can never count on all dues to come in on time.  Some members drag their feet.  The bill is often delayed.  In the United States, responsible for some 22 percent for the operating budget of the UN, payment only tends to come in after October, a matter put down to the nature of the fiscal year.

That, however, is only one aspect of the broader problem.  Withholding money is as much a political as it is a budgetary act, despite it being notionally a breach of Article 17 of the UN Charter.  The article is important for stipulating that the Organisation’s expenses “shall by borne by the Members as apportioned by the General Assembly.”

Historically, foreign policy and matters of organisation reform have been cited as key matters to reduce or withhold membership dues.  The reason is simple: such “assessed dues” go to funding the official regular budget, which defrays administrative costs, peacekeeping operations and various programs.

For the United States, this has been a critical matter, given that some 40 percent of running costs for the organisation were initially borne by Washington.  It was therefore unsurprising that some pressure would come to bear upon the organisation.  In the mid-1980s, for instance, it became US policy to threaten the reduction of Washington’s “annual assessed contribution… by 8.34 percent for each month which United States is suspended” if Israel was “illegally expelled, suspended, denied its credentials or in any manner denied its right to participate.”

The funding issue has been a burning one for a US Congress mindful of the money bags.  Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Jesse Helms, the immoveable furniture of that committee for years, could claim to be the one deciding voice on whether the US would pay its UN dues either in full or on time.  (It often did neither.)  Along with Senator Joe Biden, a deal was struck in 1997 to pressure the UN to observe various “benchmarks” in order to receive full payments.  These included the necessary reduction of UN staff, appropriate reporting procedures between the Inspector General and the Secretary General, and a ban on funds to other organisations.

In January 2000, Senator Helms was given a chance to advise, poke and condescend to the body he had held in such deep suspicion for decades, this so-called shadow government in waiting.  The UN was greeted to the unusual spectacle of a Congressman addressing the UN Security Council, an event engineered by then US ambassador to the UN, Richard Holbrooke.  Despite professing a degree of strained friendship for the organisation, his purpose was to rebuke those critics who had considered US contributions to the body those of a “deadbeat”.  As “the representative of the UN’s largest investors – the American people- we have not only a right, but a responsibility, to insist on specific reforms in exchange for their investment.”

President Donald Trump’s arrival was unlikely to start a new chapter of warm accommodation between US money and UN operating costs.  In September 2018, the Trump administration announced that it would cease US humanitarian aid contributions to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).  Despite threatening social services, healthcare and education, Jared Kushner was convinced by the wisdom of the move.

“This agency is corrupt, inefficient, and doesn’t help peace.”

The 2018 budget proposal also included slashing half of US funding to UN programs, with climate change being a particularly inviting target.  (Congress has relented on the issue of enforcing a cap on contributions to the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations.)  Such an example of hectoring, threatening UN agencies with a cessation of funding designed to induce changes of policy, remains a steadfast practice.

Of the current amount of some $1.3 billion owed to the UN by members, the US boasts the lion’s share of arrears at $1 billion.  This figure of imbalance has not prevented Trump, from venting about other members.  “So make all Member Countries pay, not just the United States!”

In June this year, Secretary-General António Guterres informed the budget overseers at the Fifth Committee that the UN faced catastrophe in terms of reputation and its ability to operate if payroll and supplies were not covered.

“The solution lies not only in ensuring that all Member States pay in full and on time, but also in putting certain tools in place.”

By the end of May, the organisation was facing a deficit of $492 million.  Guterres could not help but sound apocalyptic.

“We are at a tipping point and what we do next will matter for years to come.”

The situation has duly worsened.  On Monday, Guterres suggested the possibility that the UN would run dry of cash reserves by the end of October.  In a letter to the 37,000 employees based at the UN secretariat, the secretary general explained that,

“Member states have paid only 70 percent of the total amount needed for our regular budget operations in 2019. This translates into a cash shortage of $230 million at the end of September.  We run the risk of depleting our backup liquidity reserves by the end of the month.”

Belt tightening measure are being suggested.  Conferences and meetings are being postponed.  Non-essential travel is being stopped.  UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric is pressing member states, of whom 129 have paid their annual dues in full to date “to avoid a default that could risk disrupting operations globally.”  As the UN is only as relevant, and as effective, as its member states, failure to fill the coffers may well confirm Trump’s sentiment that the globalist is in retreat.  Behold the parochial patriot.

*

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]

For the first time in recent history, a poor, underdeveloped country has in no time developed into an economic superpower, with a major impact on world affairs. How has this been made possible? What does this mean for the rest of the world? A retrospective of 70 years of Chinese revolutions.

Back on the world map

For centuries, China exerted a cultural attraction and was, together with India, a leading player on the world stage. After a century of harrowing colonization, humiliation and internal civil wars, Mao Zedong put his country back on the world map in 1949. The Chinese regained their dignity.

It was the start of a ‘development marathon at a great pace’ that would shake up global relations. And as Napoleon Bonaparte predicted earlier:

“China is a sleeping giant. When it awakens, the whole world will shake “.

Economic miracle

At the time of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the country was one of the poorest and most backward in the world. The vast majority of the Chinese were employed in (often primitive) agriculture. Per capita GDP was half that of Africa and one sixth of that of Latin America. To give the revolutionary ideals of equality a chance in a highly hostile world environment, it was necessary to achieve rapid economic and technological growth. This was to take place over the next 70 years through a process of trial and error.

After an extremely introverted and turbulent period under Mao Zedong – in which controversial mass campaigns were launched such as ‘The Great Leap Forward’ and ‘The Cultural Revolution’ – Deng Xiaoping took up the torch in 1978. Almost immediately but cautiously, he launched economic reforms and established relations with numerous countries, including, remarkably, the United States.

In comparison with Western Europe, China’s industrialization went four times as fast, and with a population five times as large.^[i] Seventy years ago, the Chinese economy was insignificant on a global level. In 2014, the Chinese surpassed the US as the largest economy (in terms of volume) and it also becomes the largest exporting country. Today there are 35 Chinese cities with a GDP equal to that of countries such as Norway, Switzerland or Angola. The Chinese GDP has meanwhile become larger than the combined GDP of 154 countries. In 2011-2012, China produced more cement than the US during the entire twentieth century. It built ten new airports each year and has the world’s most extensive network of motorways and high-speed train lines. At the present, the country exports as much in six hours as it did in 1978 on an annual basis.

Technological leap forward

China is not only surprising in terms of quantitative evolution. In terms of quality, the Chinese economy has also made huge leaps forward, technological development being the prime example. Millions of engineers, scientists and technicians have graduated from Chinese universities in recent decades. Until recently, China was seen as an imitator of technology. Today it is a leading innovator. China currently has the fastest supercomputer and is building the world’s most advanced research center to develop even faster quantum computers. In recent years, the country has achieved impressive results in the field of hypersonic rockets, human gene processing tests, quantum satellites and perhaps most importantly: artificial intelligence. The Made in China 2025 project aims to strengthen that technological innovation in vital socio-economic sectors.

Does China owe part of its technological progress to the stealing of intellectual property? Undoubtedly, as is the case with countries such as Brazil, India and Mexico. In the past, the US, too, has only been able to develop its economic growth at the level of superpower thanks to the large-scale theft of technology from Great Britain and Europe. As The Economist puts it:

“The transfer of know-how from rich countries to poorer ones, by hook or crook, is an integral part of economic development.”

Recipe

The success of the Chinese modernization sprint is based on various pillars:

1. The key sectors of the economy are in the hands of the government, which also indirectly controls most of the other sectors, inter alia through the controlling presence of the Communist Party in most medium-sized and large companies.
2. The financial sector is under strict government control.
3. The economy is planned, not in all details but in general, both in the short term and in the longer term.
4. There is room for (quite a lot of) private initiative within a well-delineated market mechanism that is dynamically developed in various economic domains; the market mechanism is tolerated as long as it does not interfere with economic and social objectives (of the overall planning).
5. Compared to other emerging countries, there is a high degree of openness to foreign investment and foreign trade, provided that it is in line with China’s global economic objectives.
6. A great deal of effort is being put into developing infrastructure and Research & Development.
7. Wages largely follow the increase in productivity, which has created a large and dynamic internal market.
8. A relatively large amount is invested in education, health care and social security.
9. The country has enjoyed peace for decades and there is a relatively high level of social peace in the workplace.

• The distribution of agricultural land to farmers at the start of the revolution and the system of individual household registration (Hukou) have made it relatively possible to avoid the typical chaotic rural exodus of most Third World countries, resulting in massive informal and unproductive work.
• Unlike the Soviet Union, China has not embarked on a very expensive arms race with the US.

This approach contrasts with the recipe of capitalist countries where financial capital and multinationals are in charge, where short-term profit is the overriding goal and where governments are fixated on eliminating budget deficits through savings. The spectacular way in which they have tackled the financial crisis (2008) is typical of China. The Chinese government launched a stimulus program of 12.5 percent of GDP, probably the largest peacetime program ever. The Chinese economy plummeted a little but then picked up quickly, while the European economy has been teetering during ten years.

New growth model

Due to rapid changes in the internal labor market, wages and foreign markets, the Chinese government developed a different growth model. When President Xi Jinping took office in 2012, he stated that ‘growth for growth’s sake’ should no longer be the goal. The old model was based on exports and on investments in heavy industry, construction and the manufacturing industry. In the new model, the driving force is mass consumption (domestic market), the services sector and higher added-value activities by climbing the technological ladder. This transformation illustrates the flexibility in which the Chinese leadership implements economic policy. It is the 12th pillar of the Chinese recipe. This flexibility stands out from the way the Soviet Union dealt with these challenges in its later period.

Can the successful growth continue for a while now? Without doubt the economy is struggling with a high level of debt, shadow banks, over-investment in infrastructure, a real estate bubble, an ageing population, an increasing trade war with the US, and so on. Yet most observers still see China as a resilient economy with analyses showing that there is still substantial room for error and setbacks and a lot of room to grow at a rapid pace for a long time to come.

The largest poverty reduction in world history

In 1949, at the start of the Chinese revolution, the life expectancy was 35 years. Thirty years on, it had already doubled to 68 years.^[ii] Today, the life expectancy of the Chinese is 76 years. Infant mortality has improved fairly well. If, for example, India offered the same medical care and social support to its inhabitants as China does, 830,000 fewer Indian babies would die each year.^[iii]

Between 1978 and 2018 China succeeded in lifting a record number of people out of poverty: 770 million. This amounts to the total population of sub-Saharan Africa during that period. At the current pace, extreme poverty will be eradicated by 2020. According to Robert Zoellick, former President of the World Bank,

this is “certainly the greatest leap to overcome poverty in history. China’s efforts alone have ensured that the world’s Millennium Development Goal on poverty reduction will be met. We and the world have much to learn from this.”

While wages are stagnating or declining in many countries, they have tripled in China over the last decade. Fifteen years ago, Western multinationals flocked to China because of low wages. The reverse movement is now starting to take hold. The average wages in the Chinese industry are currently only 20 percent lower than in Portugal. Countries such as Bulgaria, Macedonia, Romania, Moldova and Ukraine already had lower minimum wages in 2013 than in China.

Dark sides

This success story also has its drawbacks. The faster increase in productivity in industry and services, compared to agriculture, has led to a big gap between urban and rural areas, between poorer regions and the richer eastern coastal provinces. The strict Hukou system (registration of the individual residence, determines the social status) causes a huge group (of hundreds of millions) of ‘internal migrants’ who have less social rights and are often being discriminated. The one-child policy (since 1978) has led – apart from its binding character – to numerous selective abortions and a male surplus of more than thirty million.

Democracy: input and output

The Western political system usually thinks of itself to be superior and regards itself as the only valid model. This doesn’t demonstrate much historical insight knowing that almost all fascist regimes were born in the womb of western parliamentary democracy. An unbiased observer also will observe that Western democracy mainly serves the interests of the 1 %. That it lacks both a long-term vision and an effective policy to tackle social and ecological problems. And that it has been the breeding ground for increasingly ludicrous, unpredictable and dangerous figures such as Trump, Johnson, Bolsonaro and Duterte.

When it comes to democracy, the emphasis in the West is on the input side, on the question of how and by whom decision-making takes place. What are the procedures for choosing the political leadership and is the will of the citizens voiced by the elected representatives? Elections are the most important element in this.

In China, the emphasis is on the outputside, i.e. on the consequencesof the decision: is the decision successful and who benefits? The result is paramount, good and fair governance is the most important criterion.^[iv] In this respect, the Chinese attach more importance to the quality of their politicians than to the procedures for choosing their leaders.

Political decision-making with Chinese characteristics

According to Daniel Bell, expert on the Chinese model, China’s political system is a combination of meritocracy at the top, democracy at the base and room for experimentation at the intermediate levels. The political leaders are selected on the basis of their merits and, before they reach the top, they go through a severe process of training, practice and evaluation. There are direct elections at the municipal level and for the provincial party congresses. Political, social or economic innovations are first tried out on a smaller scale (a few cities or provinces) and after thorough evaluation and adjustment introduced on a large scale.^[v] According to Daniel Bell, that combination “comes close to the best formula for governing a large country”.

In addition, the central government organizes opinion pollson a very regular basis which assess the government’s performance in the areas of social security, public health, employment and the environment. The popularity of local leaders is also the subject of the surveys. Based on this, policies are frequentlyadjusted.

The Chinese decision-making system has proved its worth. Francis Fukuyama, who can hardly be suspected of left-wing or Chinese sympathies:

“The most important strength of the Chinese political system is its ability to make large, complex decisions quickly, and to make them relatively well, at least in economic policy. China adapts quickly, making difficult decisions and implementing them effectively.”

For example, in just two years, China has extended the pension system to 240 million rural residents, which exceeds drastically the total number of people covered by the US state pension system.

It should therefore come as no surprise that the Chinese government can count on great support from the population. Around 90 percent say their country is heading in the right direction. In Western Europe, that is between 12 percent and 37 percent (the global average).

The Communist Party

The backbone of the Chinese model is the Communist Party. With more than 90 million members, it is by far the largest political organization in the world. That such a backbone is useful or even necessary is shown by the gigantic proportions of the country. China is the size of a continent: it is 17 times the size of France and has as many inhabitants as Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Arab countries, Russia and Central Asia combined. Translating this into the European situation would mean that Egypt or Kyrgyzstan would have to be governed from Brussels. Given these proportions, the large differences between the regions and the huge challenges facing the country, a strong cohesion force is needed to keep the country governable and to be able to implement a solid policy. According to The Economist:

“China’s rulers believe the country cannot hold together without one-party rule as firm as an emperor’s (and they may be right).”

The party recruits the most skilled people. The selection process for the promotion of top leaders is objective and rigorous. Kishore Mahbubani, a top expert on Asia:

“Far from being an arbitrary dictatorial system, the CPC may have succeeded in creating a rule-bound system that is strong and durable, not fragile and vulnerable. Even more impressive, this rule-bound system has thrown up possibly the best set of leaders that China could produce.”

Nearly three quarters of the population say they support the one-party system.

International relations

China’s economy has been largely self-sufficient in the past. It has been able to afford to live in isolation from the outside world and has often done so. Even at the height of its imperial power, China has spread its culture by diplomatic and economic relations rather than by (military) conquests.^[vi] This way of foreign policy is also maintained in recent history. China strives for a multipolar world, characterized by equality between all countries. It regards sovereignty as the cornerstone of the international order and rejects any interference in the internal affairs of another country, for whatever reason. This often gives China the reproach that it does too little against human rights violations in other countries. In any case, China is the only permanent member of the UN Security Council that has not fired a single shot outside its own borders in the last 30 years.

Globalization in Chinese style

Today, China is no longer self-sufficient. With 18 percent of the world’s population, it has only 7 percent of the world’s arable farmland, and only imports 5 percent of the world’s oil. In addition, the country produces far more goods than it consumes. For all these reasons, China today is highly dependent on world markets.

China’s dependence on world trade and the – in essence – military ‘encirclement’ of the US (see below) has prompted the country to take the initiative for a New Silk Road. Two thousand years ago, during the Han Dynasty, the world-renowned Silk Road connected China to the Mediterranean Sea via Eurasia. Like the historic trade route, the project has also become a vast network of sea and land routes today, launched in 2013 under the name of ‘One Belt, One Road’.

In the meantime, more than 1,600 projects are involved in construction and infrastructure works, projects in transport, air and other ports, but also in initiatives of cultural exchange. Hundreds of investments, loans, trade agreements and dozens of Special Economic Zones, worth 900 billion dollars, are spread over 72 countries, representing a population of approximately 5 billion people or 65% of the world’s population. ‘One Belt, One Road’ is by far the largest development program since the Marshall Plan for post-World War II reconstruction in Europe.

Martin Jacques describes the New Silk Road as “Globalization in Chinese style”. The ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative is strongly reminiscent of the Netherlands’ trade strategy 400 years ago. British and French colonialism were literally on the hunt for conquered land. They organized military conquests to subdue societies and to steal wealth. Amsterdam, on the other hand, was striving for an ’empire of trade and credit’. It was not about territory but about business. The Dutch built a gigantic fleet, installed trading posts on the major routes and then tried to secure them. Like the Dutch in the 17th century, China currently has the largest merchant fleet.^[vii] The Special Economic Zones are “commercial garrisons of a supply chain world, enabling China to secure resources without the messy politics of colonial subjugation” says Stratfor, a prestigious think tank.

Tilting North-South relations

China’s enormous growth in the heart of Asia has acted as a catalyst for the entire continent. The world’s economic centre of gravity is shifting rapidly towards the poorer economies of Asia. It also dramatically increases the demand for raw materials, to the benefit of many countries in Latin America and Africa.

The industrialization of East Asia shows the pattern of ‘flying geese’. As a country upgrades economically, wages rise and less sophisticated production tasks shift to poorer regions with lower labor costs. This first happened in Japan, then in South Korea and Taiwan, and today this process is in full swing in China. Because of the higher wages, Chinese companies are now relocating their production to countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh, but also increasingly to Africa. If this trend continues, it can help to build an industrial base on the African continent.

Confronting the US

The socialist revolutions did not break out in the heart of capitalism but in its weakest links, the poorest and most underdeveloped countries. An advanced social system then had to be built on a weak material basis, which has given rise to many handicaps and contradictions. Seventy years later, that situation has changed radically. China’s great leap forward in technology and spectacular economic growth have laid solid foundations for building a socialist society.

Of course, Washington is not amused with this. But even worse is the fact that China threatens to surpass the US economically. These two phenomena feed the ‘new Cold War’ between the US and China and the threat of a ‘hot war’.

In the context of the 2019 budget discussions, Congress stated that “long-term strategic competition with China is a principal priority for the United States”. It is not only about economic aspects, but about an overall strategy that must be conducted on several fronts. The aim is to maintain dominance in three areas: technology, the industries of the future and armaments.

Trump is aiming for a full reset of the economic relations between the US and China. The growing trade war is the most striking, but it is only the leading edge of a larger strategy that includes investment, both Chinese investment in the US and US investment in China. In the first place the strategic sectors are targeted with the aim of disrupting China’s technological advance. In this respect, the roll-out of the 5G network is crucial. It is no coincidence that the Huawei, which is far ahead in the development of 5G technology, has become a central target.

The Trump government is also trying to extend this economic war with China to other countries by having clauses signed in trade agreements or by simply putting pressure on them. The aim is to create a kind of “economic iron curtain” around the country.

US military strategy

The military strategy towards China has two tracks: an arms race and an encirclement on the country.^[viii] The arms race is in full swing. The US spends 650 billion dollars a year on weapons, or more than a third of the world total. That is 2.6 times as much as than China and 11 times as much as per capita. It also spends 150 billion dollars a year on military research, that’s five times as much as China. The Pentagon is feverishly working on a new generation of highly sophisticated weapons, drones and all kinds of robots, which a future enemy will not be able to cope with. A pre-emptive war is not excluded.

The second track is the military encirclement. For its foreign trade, China depends for 90 percent on maritime transport. More than 80 percent of the oil supply has to pass through the Strait of Malacca (near Singapore), where the US has a military base. Washington can easily cut off oil flows to China. Currently the country has no defence against it. Around China the US has more than thirty military bases, facilities or training centres (dots on the map). 60 percent of the total US fleet is stationed in the region. It is no exaggeration to say that China is encircled and squeezed. You can not imagine what would happen if China were to install even one military facility, let alone a base near the US.

It is in this context that China’s militarisation of small islands in the South China Sea should be seen as well as its  claim to a large part of this maritime area. Controlling the shipping routes along which its energy and industrial goods are transported is of vital importance to Beijing. It is in that same context that the New Silk Route must be seen.

Champion of pollution and greening

Since the end of the 1980s, China has entered a phase of development that has caused great environmental pollution. As the ‘workplace of the world’, it is one of the biggest polluters on the planet. At present the country is also – by far – the largest emitter of CO2, albeit that the emissions per person are less than half of those of the US and about the same size as those of Europe. China is also responsible for only 11 percent of cumulative emissions, compared with more than 70 percent for industrialized countries.

The situation is untenable. At the current rate, between 1990 and 2050, China will have produced as much carbon dioxide as the whole world did between the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and 1970, and that is catastrophic for global warming.

Ten years ago, the Chinese leadership changed course and the ecological issues were given high priority. In 2014 the “War on Pollution” was declared by Prime Minister Li Keqiang. A battery of measures is being drawn up, including trend-setting legislation on the environment, but its application is not always self-evident.

The results follow quickly. In no time, China has become number one in the field of solar panels and wind energy. Currently, 33 percent of the electricity is generated by green energy, compared to less than 17 percent in the US. China today invests about as much in green technology as the rest of the world combined. It wants to capture and store millions of tons of CO2 underground in the near future.

The country is a pioneer in the long-distance transmission of large amounts of energy (e.g. from distant solar panel fields), which is very important for green energy supply of cities. According to NASA data, China’s sustained reforestation efforts have made an important contribution to the global forestation, which is essential to keep emissions under control. On the other hand, Chinese companies still have a large share of illegal logging worldwide.

Patron saint of the Paris Climate Agreement

China is called the ‘patron saint of the Paris Climate Accord‘ (COP 21, 2015, focus: limiting global warming to a maximum of 2 degrees, with 1.5 degrees as a target value). When Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2017, Beijing declared that it would do everything in its power to achieve the goals of COP21, together with others – including the EU.

China also acts as a mediator between rich industrialized countries and developing countries, stressing that global warming is essentially a historical responsibility of the industrialized countries, and therefore arguing that rich countries should make financial resources and technology available to developing countries in order to combat climate change. Thanks to China, the large majority of developing countries have aligned themselves with the objectives of COP21 and submitted climate plans to the UN General Assembly in recent months.

There is, obviously, still a long way to go in China but it is going in the right direction. Witness to this is the report in mid-2017 that China has achieved its climate targets two years before the agreed date of 2020. China is

Errors

Many mistakes have been made over the past seventy years. Initially, the CPC tried to introduce socialism hastily with the Great Leap Forward (1958-1961), with catastrophic consequences. The left-wing extremism of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) left deep scars and led to a right-wing reaction. The introduction of market elements from 1978 onwards has given capitalist exploitation a controlled rein. The consequences were far-reaching: a deeper gap between rich and poor, and the creation of a top layer of capitalists.

The margin for personal enrichment has been widened and has caused rampant corruption and abuse of power. Nevertheless, this policy of ‘capitalist bird in the cage’ has made the Chinese economy grow spectacularly and has dramatically reduced extreme poverty. Whether this controlled market-oriented dynamic can be kept in check will remain to be determined by the future.

The Chinese leadership has succeeded in keeping the vast and very heterogeneous country together, but this was and is done by keeping certain minorities tightly in line. Tibetans and Uighurs feel treated like second-class citizens, even though there have been many formal efforts by the Chinese authorities to improve their situation. Quite a few questions remain about the unorthodox and muscular approach to ethnic tensions.

An advantage here is that the Chinese leadership is not in the habit of hiding or concealing weaknesses and problem issues. They are usually explicitly recognized and addressed. For example, before and during the eighteenth Congress, the country’s main problems were listed one by one and discussed and translated each with action points assigned. Such a rational political attitude makes it possible to learn from the mistakes and, if necessary, to adjust the course.

Stability of the planet

For the first time in recent history, a poor, underdeveloped country has rapidly developed into an economic superpower, with a major impact on world affairs. China, and in its wake India, is rapidly changing the balance of powers and transforming the world in an unprecedented way.

The more China follows an independent course, the more it deviates from the West and the more it holds up a mirror to ‘the Western system’, the more the country is criticized and attacked. It seems to be very difficult for us to look at this new world player in an open-minded way. According to Mahbubani, “the reluctance of Western leaders to acknowledge that Western world domination cannot continue is a major threat”.^[ix]

Yet we will have to learn to live with the realization that we are no longer the center and benchmark of the world. In fact. With the rise of populism in more and more countries, unpredictable and irresponsible people like Trump, Bolsonaro or Johnson are taking the reins. The stability and liveability of this planet will increasingly depend on people like Xi Jinping and other decent leaders.

*

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

Notes

[i] We take 1870 as a starting year for Western Europe and 1980 for China. We measure the speed of the industrialization process based on the growth of GDP per capita. The figures are calculated on the basis of Maddison A., Ontwikkelingsfasen van het kapitalisme, Utrecht 1982, p. 20-21 en UNDP, Human Development Report 2005,p. 233 en 267. Zie ook The Economist, 5 januari 2013, p. 48.

^[ii] Hobsbawm E., Een eeuw van uitersten. De twintigste eeuw 1914-1991, Utrecht 1994, p. 540.

^[iii] Calculated on the basis of UNICEF, The State Of The World’s Children 2017, New York, p. 154-155.

[iv] For the distinction between input and output of political decision-making, see Kruithof J., Links en Rechts. Kritische opstellen over politiek en kultuur, Berchem 1983, p. 66.

[v] Bell D., The China Model. Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy, Princeton 2015, p. 179-188.

[vi] Luce E., The Retreat of Western Liberalism, New York 2017, p. 166.

[vii] In the seventeenth century, the Netherlands had 25 times more ships than England, France and Germany. Today, China has 20 times more merchant ships than the US. Maddison A., The World Economy. A Millennial Perspective, OESO 2001, p. 78; Khanna P., Use It or Lose It: China’s Grand Strategy, Stratfor,9 april 2016.

[viii] For a more extensive treatment, see Vandepitte M., Trump and China: Towards a Cold or Hot War?

[ix] Mahbubani K., De eeuw van Azië. Een onafwendbare mondiale machtsverschuiving, Amsterdam 2009, p. 18.

All images in this article are from the authors

On October 7th, Russian ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said that Russia and the US needed to come to grips with the issue of short-range and intermediate-range missile deployment.

“In case the United States deploy these types of missiles very close to our borders, we will be forced to protect our country, we will be forced to resort to the necessary measures….It is high time for us to sit at the negotiations table, to stop negotiating via media trading accusations; it is high time to meet, perhaps in Geneva, in Vienna, in Washington, in Moscow and to come to grips with these issues,” he said.

Ambassador Antonov also said that he had requested a meeting with new US National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien and with State department officials. This follows a statement by British ambassador to Russia Laurie Bristow on October 4th, wherein he said that the UK government had received President Putin’s proposal concerning a moratorium on short-range and intermediate-range nuclear missiles, but that the UK-government did not consider it a realistic offer in view of Russia’s test-firing of the 9M729 cruise-missile from the Kapustin Yar launch-site in Astrakhan.

They’re still talking about Kapustin Yar. No mention whatsoever of the American cruise missile test on August 18th, or of the Pentagon’s announcement of plans to test-fire a missile similar to the Pershing II, which was prohibited under the now-defunct INF Treaty, or of the deployment of MK-41 missile launch-pads (which are capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles) in Japan, Poland and Romania.

Without having produced any publicly verifiable evidence whatsoever that the Kapustin Yar test did in fact violate the terms of the INF Treaty, the NATO alliance nonetheless still cites the Kapustin Yar test of the 9M729 cruise-missile as justification for pressing ahead with an extremely aggressive intermediate-range missile-policy. This completely unverified allegation regarding a marginal INF Treaty violation by Russia in the conduct of the cruise-missile test at Kapustin Yar remains their fig-leaf.

Of course, on the purely strategic level, Ambassador Antonov understands the situation as clearly as anyone, but well-trained diplomats don’t think out loud. He understands perfectly well that, in the case of this issue, it would be extremely dangerous to do so. Once we say the unsayable, it moves us one little cognitive step closer to doing the unthinkable. So Ambassador Antonov prudently decides to appeal to our pragmatic common sense, rather than analyzing the arms-race as the amoral chess-match which it is.

In coldly amoral terms, the strategic situation may be summarized as follows:

The United States has no particular reason to come to any agreement with Russia concerning short-range or intermediate-range missiles. The existence of US military bases in Poland, Romania, Japan etc, means that the United States’ strategic nuclear advantage exists on the level of short-range and intermediate-range weapons. The same cannot be said regarding intercontinental ballistic missiles. Therefore, when US officials argue that they would prefer “a more comprehensive agreement,” they are being disingenuous, ignoring the elephant in the room. Everybody in Russia’s political and foreign policy establishment, including Ambassador Antonov, understands this clearly.

However, once the coldly amoral, psychotic logic of that chess-match is publicly conceded or alluded to by people in positions of leadership, we are one little cognitive step closer to nuclear confrontation. Therefore Ambassador Antonov’s appeals to common sense, which may at first glance appear naïve, are grounded not only in a diplomat calculation but also in a moral calculation.

To understand the strategic nuclear situation in clear, coldly amoral terms, we must also bear in mind the economic fundamentals which drive it. The world is running out of natural resources very quickly, and Russia is blessed with natural resources. This is the most central factor determining the levels of geo-strategic hostility which the western alliance shows toward Russia. Ultimately, the nations of the western alliance need Russia to become a minerals and hydrocarbons colony, to subsidize their unsustainable models of financialized capitalism. That model has always required subsidization by the natural resources of de facto colonies, and always will.

If we compare the predicament of the United States today to its geo-strategic logic 35 years ago, the Reagan administration were also imperialists, of course. However, the Reagan administration believed that they could afford to play a long-term geo-strategic game.

That long-term game is no longer possible – the western economies’ access to cheap natural resources is now dwindling too quickly.

This sense of economic desperation is ultimately what forces the western alliance to once again raise the nuclear stakes. Subtle forms of geo-strategic pressure are no longer seen as adequate. This is the central reason why it is extremely improbable that we will see a new agreement on short-range or medium-range missiles between Russia and the United States in the foreseeable future. In short, it was always inevitable that a systemic crisis in the western model of financialized capitalism would re-ignite the cold war, and therefore trigger new nuclear threats. Furthermore, that crisis within financial capitalism was in itself always inevitable, because capitalism ultimately cannot be purely “financial.”

*

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.

Padraig McGrath is a political analyst.

Global Research: On October 8 you were refused entry to a public event organized by the University of Concordia in Montreal that featured the so-called ambassador from Venezuela: The event: “The Crisis in Venezuela: a discussion with Venezuelan Ambassador to Canada”. What happened?

Arnold August: Since I am subscribed to the regular newsletter of the Montreal Network of Latin American Studies, which regroups all four universities in the city, I received their bulletin at the beginning of September which announced this event as a free public one. Thus, I got a ticket on September 14.

The goal of the Quebec Peace Movement, of which I am a member, as decided at its September 24 meeting, was to organize a surprise activity inside the hall where we would attempt to read our statement to be elaborated before hand. The goal was that, right from the beginning of the meeting, to surprise and verbally confront the so-called Ambassador to his face and the university authorities who invited him.

In addition to having received the ticket close to a month before the event, and several follow up emails as an attendee issued by Concordia until the day before the activity confirming my attendance, I was not allowed to enter. Security guards told me that I was “not on the list”! Upon insisting, they could not give any reason. They instead fumbled clumsily from one pretext to another. For example, they said that there was not enough space and thus they took the last 4 or 5 people to have registered off the list despite the fact that I was probably one of the FIRST people to have received a ticket. At another point they cited a possible “security threat” as a result of another very public protest with which I had nothing to do. Yet, they could still not answer the question: “why me?”

GR: What do you think alerted them to single you out?

AA: Well, our plan was to not make our intentions known publicly in order to surprise the “ambassador” face to face in the hall. Surrounded by his supporters. However, for some reason opposition to the event became public beforehand.  It seems that a result of that the university, probably in collaboration with the Canadians secret service agency, scoured the list of attendees and of course came upon mine. Thus, the exclusion.

Despite not being allowed in, we made our presence felt and as the videos show: we can see what the so-called ambassador” and the Concordia authorities had to hear.

GR: How did it end?

AA: It was a disaster for the very weak Trump-Trudeau forces in Montreal and a victory for those of us in Montreal who support the Bolivarian Revolution and democratically elected president Maduro.

Do you know that not one overtly pro-Guaidó supporter showed up at the meeting? Furthermore, after all the public appeals by the University, in a hall sitting 50 people, only about 25 showed up as reported to us by those who did attend!

GR: Yet they gave as one of the pretexts to bar you from entry that there was “no room”?

AA: Yes, the bottom line is that we are all a witness now of just another example of political persecution and/or media black-out in Canada against those of us across the country who oppose the Trump/Trudeau Venezuela policy.

It was also a victory for us because at the end of the meeting the “ambassador” had to leave the hall and sheepishly walk through our picket and listen to our slogans even more clearly than he had heard it from the inside. He even had to take our leaflet that was handed out to the attendees. I hope he enjoyed it. I would add this message. Do not show your face in Montreal again. You are not welcome!

*

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.

Tulsi Gabbard, who has at best minimal support by Democrats (around one percent), and zero from the corporate DNC, posted the following video earlier today.

.

.

There are so many of you who I’ve met in Iowa and New Hampshire who have expressed to me how frustrated you are that the DNC and corporate media are essentially trying to usurp your role as voters in choosing who our Democratic nominee will be.

This, of course, is nothing new, but thanks to Tulsi for reminding us of how “elections” are conducted. In fact, the state long ago corrupted the process and has selected candidates for long as anybody can remember. 

How is it possible a cognitively challenged and corrupt hack like Joe Biden is number one in the running—or was until Elizabeth Warren took that spot away from him? It’s possible because Biden is a trusted asset eager to do whatever he is told, same as Obama, Bush the lesser, Clinton (a “brother by another mother”), Bush the elder, Reagan… on and on, down the line. Like Hillary Clinton, the Democrat establishment believes it is Biden’s “turn” to read the teleprompter. All the others, well, they’re spoilers. 

They are attempting to replace the roles of voters in the early states, using polling and other arbitrary methods which are not transparent or democratic, and holding so-called debates which are not debates at all but rather commercialized reality television meant to entertain, not inform or enlighten.

That replacement happened decades ago. Trump won the election because our rulers left the election process intact, arrogantly confident their handpicked candidates will win because only those who have come up through the system are permitted to run. It’s left intact as a public relations gimmick designed to fool the proles who are, regrettably, all too easy to control—or were until Trump appeared on the scene. 

Tulsi is spot on about the “debates,” which are nothing of the sort. Indeed, they are a form of televised bread and circuses—bread because most Americans receive some kind of support from the government, and a circus because all circuses are comical, theatrical, and well-scripted. 

As for being informed, that’s the last thing the ruling elite want. They have us believe in fantasies so absurd they may as well be props in a Luis Buñuel film—for instance, killing people in foreign lands is humanitarian and the economy is doing great (never mind the unemployed, the homeless, and record debt, both governmental and personal). 

In order to bring attention to this serious threat to our democracy, and ensure your voice is heard, I am giving serious consideration to boycotting the next debate on October 15th. I will announce my decision within the next few days. With my deepest aloha, thank you all again for your support.

This is commendable, although, sadly, an almost transparent blip on the political radar screen. Big corporate media will certainly not take notice, and if they perchance do it will be with snide commentary. 

The soft totalitarian machine rejects the socialist palliatives of Elizabeth Warren. She appears to be anti-corporatist, and that is inexcusable. Many of our political and social problems are related to the domination of corporations, most of the crony variety. 

Elizabeth Warren will be unable to break the corporate stranglehold on America. It is pure insanity to believe otherwise. The Democrat and Republican parties—one party disguised as two—will not savage corporations with taxation and redoubled punitive regulation, not if they wish to remain in Congress and receive money to run obscenely expensive campaigns. 

Warren will be overshadowed by the Hildabeast, Hillary Clinton, who is determined to be president. She will enter the race sometime next year, overturning the apple cart of other hopefuls, all spouting the same wealth distribution nonsense because, after all, a well-trained and ceaselessly indoctrinated public, most on a modern version of the Roman Cura Annona grain dole, love free stuff (stolen from others).

No way will the DNC accept Elizabeth Warren as the nominee. She will be subverted, the same way Bernie Sanders was. 

Most Americans don’t trust or like Hillary, but that hardly matters. 

The days of Trump may soon be over. If he’s not impeached on spurious grounds, he will enter the race under a toxic cloud of accusation and unproven high crimes and misdemeanors greatly amplified by a propaganda media. Polls consistently show he is losing traction, and the MAGA crowd is increasingly disillusioned, unable to realize its populist agenda. 

I’m sorry, Tulsi. Your effort to unmask the subversion of the election system will largely fall on deaf ears. As of this morning, the above video garnered a mere 800 views.

It will take more than a “debate” boycott to send the message. It will take a revolution to finally drain Trump’s swamp, end the endless wars, and force transnational corporations and foreign governments (most egregiously Israel) out of the bed they have shared for so long with our “representatives,” who are largely nothing more than self-seeking sociopaths on short leashes. 

*

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.

Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Turkey officially announced that it had launched a military operation in northeastern Syria. Over the past years, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other representatives of the country’s leadership have repeatedly announced this idea. However, this time promises were turned into reality.

On October 6, the administration of US President Donald Trump released a statement saying that Turkey will soon carry out its “long-planned operation” into northern Syria. According to the statement, US forces will not “support or be involved in the operation” and “will no longer be in the immediate area”. The announcement came following a phone conversation between the US and Turkish presidents.

On October 7, US forces started withdrawing from their positions along a large chunk of the Syrian-Turkish border. US military garrisons in Tel Abyad, Tel Musa, Tel Hinzir and Tel Arqam were abandoned. US patrols in the border area were halted. The Pentagon provided no details regarding the number of troops withdrawn from the border. US mainstream media outlets mention the numbers from 50 to 100.

Watch the video here.

This US decision caused a kind of panic among leaders and members of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). They simultaneously called the US decision a backstab, asked the US-led coalition to establish a no-fly zone ‘like in Iraq’ and declared their readiness to resume negotiations with Russia and the Assad government, which they just a few weeks ago were calling a ‘bloody regime’.

Kurdish armed groups, mainly the People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Women’s Protection Units (YPJ), are the core of the SDF. The Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) dominates in the self-proclaimed administration of northeastern Syria. Ankara names the YPG, the YPJ and the PYD terrorist groups because of their links to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). This separatist group is engaged in a long-standing guerrilla war against the Turkish state in an attempt to establish an independent Kurdish state on territory of southeastern Turkey. The PYD and its military wings pursue similar goals in northeastern Syria.

Ankara has reasonable concerns that funds, weapons, equipment and training provided by the US to Kurdish armed groups in northern Syria will later be used by the PKK in its fight against the Turkish government. The US-Turkish ‘safe zone’ agreement on northern Syria was designed to remove these concerns. Turkey insisted that Kurdish armed groups should be removed from the border and disarmed, or, at least, the US should stop supplying them with weapons and equipment. However, this did not happen. The peak of the US-Turkish coordination over this question was several joint patrols along the border.

By evening of October 9, Turkey had put its proxy forces on a high alert and the Turkish Air Force had bombed SDF positions near Tell Abyad, Ras al-Ayn, Kobane and al-Qamishli. The Operation Peace Spring started.

President Erdogan says that its goals are to neutralize “terror threats” along the border, establish a real safe zone and facilitate return of Syrian refugees to their homes. Besides the anti-terror declarations, one of the main points of the Turkish public rhetoric is the oppression of Arab locals by Kurdish militias.

If the Operation Peace Spring develops like Turkish operations in al-Bab and Afrin, Ankara will use its proxy groups as a first line of the ground advance and a shield for Turkish personnel deployed on the ground. Artillery, warplanes and special forces of the Turkish military will be the main striking power. Pro-Turkish sources say that about 15,000-20,000 members of pro-Turkish groups have already been mobilized. If this is true, the total number of personnel, including Turkish servicemembers, involved in the operation may reach 30,000.

At the first phase of the advance, Turkey will likely to get control of the area of the non-implemented US-Turkish safe zone. Some Turkish sources speculate that in the event of success the Turkish Army may push even towards Deir Ezzor. However, this remains unlikely in the current military and diplomatic situation in the region.

*

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.

We call upon Global Research readers to 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

Introductory note

Tulsi Gabbard has identified the nature of the electoral fraud committed by the Democratic National Committee in the 2016 primaries.

The 2016 Democratic Primary election was rigged by the DNC and their partners in the corporate media against Bernie Sanders.

In this 2020 election, the DNC and corporate media are rigging the election again, but this time against the American people in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. ( See video and transcript below)

DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton conspired in 2015-16 with a view to undermining Bernie Sanders candidacy in the primaries in favor of Clinton.

There is ample evidence of rigging in 2016. Ironically this was confirmed by The Democratic Party’s DNC chair Donna Brazile who took over upon the resignation of  Wasserman Schultz:

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. (Donna Brazile, Politico, November 2, 2017, emphasis added)

These fraudulent actions including the rigging of the primaries conducted by the DNC of the Democratic Party were instrumental  in triggering Bernie Sanders loosing the primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton.

If he had won the Democratic Party nomination, would he have won the November 8, 2016 presidential elections against Donald Trump?

Without the DNC riggings of the nomination  process, Bernie Sanders could have become President of the United States.

Déjà Vu: What will be the outcome of the 2019-2020 primaries?

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 11, 2019

***

I am giving serious consideration to boycotting the next debate and I want to tell you why:

There are so many of you who I’ve met in Iowa and New Hampshire who have expressed to me how frustrated you are that the DNC and corporate media are essentially trying to usurp your role as voters in choosing who our Democratic nominee will be.

I share your concerns, and I’m sure that all our supporters throughout the country do as well.

The 2016 Democratic Primary election was rigged by the DNC and their partners in the corporate media against Bernie Sanders.

In this 2020 election, the DNC and corporate media are rigging the election again, but this time against the American people in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.

They are attempting to replace the roles of voters in the early states, using polling and other arbitrary methods which are not transparent or democratic, and holding so-called debates which are not debates at all but rather commercialized reality television meant to entertain, not inform or enlighten

In short, the DNC and corporate media are trying to hijack the entire election process.

In order to bring attention to this serious threat to our democracy, and ensure your voice is heard, I am giving serious consideration to boycotting the next debate on October 15th. I will announce my decision within the next few days.

With my deepest, and warmest aloha, thank you all again for your support.

*

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.