At UN Session, US Empire in Decline and Global Solidarity on the Rise

September 27th, 2019 by Kevin Zeese

As the United Nations General Assembly conducts its fall session, Popular Resistance is in New York City for the People’s Mobilization to Stop the US War Machine and Save the Planet. Themes of the mobilization are connecting militarism and climate change and raising awareness that the United States regularly violates international laws, including the United Nations Charter. These laws are designed to facilitate peaceful relationships between countries and prevent abuses of human rights. It is time that the US be held accountable.

The People’s Mobilization arose out of the Embassy Protection Collective after the US government raided the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington DC last May in blatant violation of the Vienna Convention to install a failed coup and arrested Embassy Protectors even though they were in the embassy with the permission of the elected government of Venezuela. This was an escalation of US regime change efforts – the coup failed in Venezuela but the US recognized the coup leader and started turning Venezuela’s assets over to him anyway. Members of the Collective sought to bring the message that it is dangerous for the world and a threat to the future of all of us if the US continues on its lawless path.

We participated in the Climate Strike on Friday where our messages about the impact of US militarism on climate were well-received. On Sunday, we held a rally in Herald Square and on Monday, we held a public event: “A Path to International Peace: Realizing the Vision of the United Nations Charter.” We need to build an international people’s movement that complements work the Non-Aligned Movement and others are doing to bring countries together that are dedicated to upholding international law and take action together to address global crises.

In front of the United Nations after the rally and march with our message. By Yuka Azuma.

The US Military is a Great Threat to our Future

We wrote about the connections between militarism and the climate crisis in our newsletter a few weeks ago so we won’t go too deeply into those details here. The US military is the largest single user of fossil fuels and creator of greenhouse gases on the planet.

It also leaves behind toxic pollution from burn pits and weapons such as depleted uranium (DU). The use of DU violates international law, including the Biological Weapons Convention. As described in David Swanson’s article about a new study, which documents the horrific impact of DU on newborns in Iraq,

“…every round of DU ammunition leaves a residue of DU dust on everything it hits, contaminating the surrounding area with toxic waste that has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, the age of our solar system, and turns every battlefield and firing range into a toxic waste site that poisons everyone in such areas.”

The US military poisons the air, land, and water at home too. Pat Elder, also with World Beyond War, has been writing, speaking and organizing to raise awareness of the use of Per and Poly Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) by the military across the US and the deadly effects it has. Elder states that the military claims to have “sovereign immunity” from environmental laws. In other words, the US military can poison whomever and wherever it chooses without risk of legal consequences.

As scary as the climate crisis and a toxic environment are, another existential threat is a nuclear war. The US military is upgrading its nuclear weapons so it can use them. The US National Security Strategy is “Great Power Conflict” and the new National Security Adviser to Trump, taking John Bolton’s place, Robert C. O’Brien, advocates for more military spending, a larger military and holding on to US global domination. These are dangerous signs. How far is the US military willing to go as US empire clings to its declining influence in the world?

In “Iran, Hong Kong and the Desperation of a Declining US Empire,” Rainer Shea writes, “There’s a term that historians use for this reactive phase that empires go through during their final years: micro-militarism.”

Alfred McCoy defines micro-militarism as “ill-advised military misadventures… [that] involve psychologically compensatory efforts to salve the sting of retreat or defeat by occupying new territories, however briefly and catastrophically.”

Micro-militarism is on display in Venezuela, where the US has been trying for two decades to overthrow the Bolivarian Process without success. It is on display in US antagonism of Iran, a country that has never attacked the US and that upheld its end of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. When the US called for countries to join its escalation of military presence in the Straits of Hormuz, there was little enthusiasm from European allies. And when the US tried to blame the attack on Saudi oil refineries on Iran, even Japan refused to go along. Now, Iran is participating in INSTEX, a mechanism for trade that bypasses institutions controlled by the US.

Micro-militarism is manifested in the US’ failed attempts to antagonize China. With KJ Noh, we wrote an Open Letter to Congress, explaining why the Hong Kong Human Rights Act must be stopped as it will further entangle the US with Hong Kong and Mainland China, providing a foundation for US regime change campaign there. As China celebrates 70 years as the Peoples Republic of China, which ended over a century of exploitation by imperialists, it is in a very strong position and indicates it has no interest in caving in to US pressure. Instead, China is building its military and global relationships to rival US hegemony.

Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese at the People’s Mobe Rally. By Ellen Davidson.

Holding the US Accountable

Micro-militarism is a symptom of the ailing US empire. We are in a period where the US military and government behave in irrational ways, consuming US resources for wars and conflicts that cannot be won instead of using them to meet basic needs of people and protection of the planet. The US is blatantly violating international laws that make regime change, unilateral coercive measures (aka sanctions) and military aggression illegal.

The US is conducting economic terrorism against scores of nations through illegal unilateral coercive measures (sanctions).  In the case of Cuba, the economic blockade goes back nearly six decades since the nation overthrew a US-backed regime there. The US blockade cost Cuba $4.3 billion in 2019, and close to $1 trillion over the past six decades, taking into account depreciation of the dollar. In Iran, sanctions have existed since their independence from the Shah of Iran’s US dictatorship in 1979 and in Zimbabwe, sanctions go back to land reform that occurred at the beginning of this century. The United States is conducting ongoing regime change campaigns in multiple nations among them Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran and now Bolivia.

The US is also abusing its power as the host country of the United Nations by ordering diplomats out of the country for spurious reasons and curtailing the travel of diplomats of countries the US is targeting. This week, the US ordered two Cuban diplomats to leave the United States. The reason was vague, i.e., their “attempts to conduct influence operations against the US.” This undefined phrase could mean almost anything and puts all diplomats at risk if they speak in the US outside of the UN. We expect this is one reason diplomatic representatives from some of the countries that planned to participate in the Monday night event stayed away.

Venezuela’s Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza was the first Foreign Minister to be sanctioned while he was in the United States on official business. Arreaza was sanctioned on April 25, just after he spoke to the United Nations General Assembly as a representative of the Non-Aligned Movement denouncing the US’ attempts to remove representatives of the sovereign nation of Venezuela from the UN.

On July 30, the US imposed sanctions on Iran’s foreign minister Javad Zarif saying he was targeted because he is a ‘key enabler of Ayatollah Khamenei’s policies.’  Does that mean the Foreign Minister was punished for representing Iran? When Zarif came to the UN for official business this July 14, the US took the unusual step of severely restricting his travel,  limiting him to travel between the United Nations, the Iranian UN mission, the Iranian UN ambassador’s residence, and New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport. Traditionally, diplomatic officials were allowed a 25-mile radius around Columbus Circle. The US said Zarif “is a mouthpiece of an autocracy that suppresses free speech” and suppressed his freedom of speech in response.

As the United States becomes more brazen and ridiculous in its attempts to stay in control, it is driving other countries to turn away from the US and organize around it. There are growing calls for the United Nations to consider leaving the US and reestablish itself in a location where the US cannot sanction people for its own political purposes. Perhaps there is a need for a new international institution that does not enable US domination.

Civil society panel at the Path to International Peace event. By Ellen Davidson.

People are Uniting For Peace, Security and Sustainable Development 

The US’ actions point to the need for peace and justice activists to build an international network to demand the upholding the rule of law. Popular Resistance and its allies are contributing to the formation of that transnational solidarity structure through the new Global Appeal for Peace.

This July, delegations from 120 countries of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) united to oppose US policy against Venezuela and demand an end to sanctions as part of The Caracas Declaration.  NAM was founded in 1961 and the UN General Secretary described the importance of the movement highlighting that “two-thirds of the United Nations members and 55% of the world’s population” are represented by it, making it the second-largest multinational body in the world after the UN.

From August 29 through September 6, 38 countries and hundreds of foreign and local companies participated in Syria’s 61st Damascus International Fair despite the threat of US economic sanctions against corporations and countries that participated. The Damascus International Fair is considered the Syrian economy’s window to the world, re-started in 2017 after a 5-year hiatus due to the war against Syria. Despite a NATO bombing of the Fair in 2017, people kept coming and the Fair has continued.

Countries are also working to find ways around US economic warfare by not using the US dollar or the US financial industry to conduct trade. China is challenging the US by investing $400 billion in Iran’s oil and gas industry over 25 years and has added $3 billion investment in Venezuelan oil in 2019. Russia has also allied with Venezuela providing military equipment, and porting Navy ships in Venezuela as well as providing personnel. France has called on the EU to reset its relationship with Russia, and Germany and Russia are beginning to work together to preserve the Iran nuclear agreement.

The Global Appeal for Peace is uniting people to demand of our governments in their interactions with all nations – for the sake of world peace, international security and peaceful co-existence  – to respect the principles of the United Nations Charter and to follow and defend international law. The Global Appeal urges people to immediately join this initiative and help redirect the world toward an era of global stability and cooperation.

We seek to build a transnational movement that is multi-layered. People and organizations from civil society representing different sectors, e.g. laborers, academics, doctors, lawyers, engineers, as well as representatives of governments impacted by violations of international law by the United States, need to join together. The seeds of such a network have been planted and are sprouting. If this transnational network develops and the rule of law is strengthened internationally, we will be able to achieve the goals of peace, economic sustainability, and human rights and mitigate the impacts of a dying empire gone rogue.

Watch part of the People’s Mobe Rally here:

Watch the People’s Mobe March here:

Watch the “Path to International Peace” 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.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

5G Cell Phone Transmission Across Poland: Prime Minister Morawiecki Did not Sign the Global 5G Appeal

September 27th, 2019 by Julian Rose

The Polish Ministry of Digitalisation has denied (June 11) that Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki signed the Global Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space.[1]

The refute was put out by the Ministry of Digitalisation, the government department that deals with telecommunications. It states

“The opponents of 5G are heating-up the mood, serving customers fake news – we want to give Poles a reliable source of information about 5G so that no one misleads them.”

Hopes raised that Prime Minister Morawiecki might have some genuine humanitarian concerns for his people have been proved unduly optimistic.

This week, according to the parliamentary schedule, Mateusz Morawiecki will lead his government into presenting a new Act that will annul the existing law on ‘acceptable levels’ of Electro Magnetic Frequencies (EMF) in order to introduce microwave frequency transmission levels 10 to 100 times more intense than current levels. This is being done to satisfy the telecommunications industry’s ambition to install tens of thousands of 5G transmitters across the length and breadth of the Country.

If this Act is passed, the Prime Minister and government parliamentarians will be complicit in introducing a completely untested technology which over 2,000 scientists and 1,400 medical doctors from all over the World have described as presenting a direct threat to the health of humans, animals, insect and plant life.

The government of Poland appears determined to ignore such warnings. Also to ignore the safety-net known as ‘the precautionary principle’ in which anything judged as causing potential harm cannot be put in the public domain without first undergoing independent assessment for its safety.

This refusal to follow responsible principles demonstrates that the Prime Minister is ready to sell the freedom of Poland, the health of the  electorate and future generations, to corporate interests. The fact is that all decisions on 5G are made without any public consultation or any opportunity to object.

Awareness of the threat that 5G poses is rapidly growing. Protests in different parts of Poland are demonstrating the anger people feel at being forced to accept this highly controversial technology. Some protesters held-off for a while in the hope that Prime Minister Morawiecki had shown a human face. But since it is now officially denied that he supports stopping 5G, resistance will undoubtedly grow, with the effect that in the Autumn election the Polish government (Pis) is likely to be shown a red card for its refusal to listen to the people.

*

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

Julian Rose is author of  ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why humanity Must Come Through,   now available from Amazon and Dixi Books. See www.julianrose.info for more information  www.julianrose.info. Julian is an international activist, writer, organic farming pioneer and actor.  In 1987 and 1998, he led a campaign that saved unpasteurised milk from being banned in the UK; and, with Jadwiga Lopata, a ‘Say No to GMO’ campaign in Poland which led to a national ban of GM seeds and plants in that country in 2006. Julian is currently campaigning to ‘Stop 5G’ WiFi.

Note

[1] https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/

Featured image is from Waking Times

Ukraine’s Federalization: Lavrov vs. Lukashenko

September 27th, 2019 by Andrew Korybko

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Belarusian President Lukashenko are publicly at odds over the issue of Ukraine’s federalizaton as a possible outcome of Kiev finally implementing the Minsk Accords in the event of the “New Detente” succeeding, with this serious disagreement over the future of their mutual neighbor’s domestic administrative system representing yet another geopolitical fault line between the two members of the so-called “Union State”.

***

Belarus has been positioning itself as the foil to its “fellow” “Union State” member Russia on key regional issues over the past year since Moscow discontinued its subsidies of Minsk’s oil imports on which the landlocked former Soviet Republic’s economy was so dependent, with this fateful decision being undertaken in response to the impact that the US’ sanctions pressure has had on the Eurasian Great Power’s ongoing systemic economic transition. Truth be told, however, Belarus was already wandering westward since 2015, but it accelerated this trend in the aftermath of Moscow’s moves at the beginning of this year, with Minsk becoming even more committed to this gradual geostrategic reorientation following the mysterious contamination of a Russian oil pipeline through its territory less than half a year ago last spring.

Belarus is indeed between a rock and a hard place after getting caught in the middle of the New Cold War, but it’s being lured further westward by the carrot of US investments in exchange for purchasing American oil as an alternative to Russian resources and therefore normalizing relations with the same country whose government once denounced President Lukahsneko as presiding over the so-called “last dictatorship in Europe”. As proverbial “icing on the cake”, Belarus might even join (whether informally or officially) the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative” that’s sprouted up in Central Europe and aims to expand further eastward as a means of “containing” Russia in both that country and Ukraine. Still, Lukashenko insists that his government’s recent foreign policy recalibration isn’t aimed against its primary partners in Russia.

Having said that, he’s also not shying away from provoking Russia after directly contradicting practically all of its positions towards their mutual Ukrainian neighbor during a press conference on Thursday with that nation’s media. According to Belarus’ publicly funded international media outlet BelTA, Lukashenko urged Ukraine to remain a unitary state, warned against turning it into the new Yugoslavia, and even praised Western Ukrainians’ “nationalism” despite that part of the country being notorious for its Neo-Nazism, which sharply contrasts with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov encouraging Ukraine to federalize as a possible outcome of Kiev finally implementing the Minsk Accords (the failure of which it’s been previously warned might be what triggers the Yugoslav scenario) and Moscow consistently condemning the same Western Ukrainian “nationalism” as fascism.

The timing of Lukahsneko throwing down the gauntlet on this issue is due to both his rapidly warming relations with Ukraine’s Western patrons and the possibility of a “New Detente” being brokered between the West and Russia which might ultimately lead to Kiev finally implementing the Minsk Accords among many other geopolitical outcomes elsewhere across the world. To remind the reader, that agreement stipulates that “particular districts” of Donetsk and Lugansk Oblasts (i.e. the de-facto independent ones controlled by rebel forces) should be immediately granted a “temporary order of local self-governance” prior to forthcoming constitutional reform which would lead to “decentralization” and permanently institutionalizing the said “special status” of the two aforementioned oblasts.

The Russian position is that “decentralization” should evolve to nationwide federalization in order to take into account the interests of Ukraine’s many minority groups along its periphery, though the Ukrainian and now officially the Belarusian stance as well assert that federalization shouldn’t be a fait accompli, with Lukashenko himself even saying that “It is unnecessary to dramatize the situation regarding Hungarians, Poles and other nations living in Ukraine. These are Ukrainian Hungarians, Ukrainian Poles…This is a sacred thing for me: Ukraine should be united and undivided. On this platform, in hot UN days or without them, we will build relations with our neighbors, first of all, with our Ukraine.” Not only is he against Lavrov’s federalization suggestions, but he also seems to be strongly implying that Crimea should return to Ukrainian occupation.

Lukahsneko never recognized the peninsula’s democratic reunification with Russia and is against Ukraine’s federalizaton because he appears to have bought into the West’s fake news infowar narrative that Russia might replicate the Crimean and Donbas scenarios in the parts of his country where ethnic Russians reside as possible punishment for his pro-Western leanings in recent years. Even so, his rhetoric on these issues is certainly inflammatory, especially his whitewashing of the Western Ukrainians’ Neo-Nazism that has directly led to the deaths of thousands of people in Donbas, but he’s betting that Russia won’t react in any tangible way because it’s eager to enter into a mutually beneficial so-called “economic confederacy” with Belarus. In addition, Russia wouldn’t even think of cutting off energy supplies to Belarus because of this otherwise it’ll “lose” it forever.

The end result is that Belarus’ gradual drift westward is becoming more pronounced in all spheres and its sharp rhetoric against Russia’s position towards regional issues is turning into the “new normal”. The “best” that Russia can do under these circumstances is to avoid any “missteps” that could “provoke” Belarus to further accelerate this trend in parallel with undertaking “damage control” by expanding cooperation in areas of shared interest such as the CSTO and the “economic confederation”, though being keen to recognize the limits of how far they could go so as to not make its partners feel like it’s “pressuring” them to do more than they feel “comfortable” with. It’ll be very difficult for Russian decision makers to exercise the “self-control” needed not to respond to Belarus’ provocations, but failing to do so might prove disastrous for bilateral relations.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Longstanding US Electoral Dirty Tricks. Ukrainegate is a Russiagate Spinoff

September 27th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Along with clear evidence of US meddling in scores of foreign elections, wanting ruling authorities serving its interests installed, the US political process was rife with fraud and other dirty tricks time and again since early in the 18th century. More on this below.

The Russiagate witch hunt hoax was and remains all about delegitimizing Trump’s triumph over media darling Hillary, bashing Russia at the same time, falsely claiming an improper or illegal Trump team connection to Moscow, along with the Big Lie that won’t die accusation of Kremlin US election meddling no evidence suggests occurred because none exists.

Ukrainegate is a Russiagate spinoff, a second bite of the apple, another politicized attempt to vilify Trump for the wrong reasons, aiming to give whoever becomes undemocratic Dem standard bearer an edge in the 2020 presidential election.

Like Russiagate, Ukrainegate is a tempest in a teapot, much ado about nothing. In politics, perception becomes reality in the public mind, notably from a steady manipulative media drumbeat, pushing their worldview, featuring advocacy over journalism the way it should be.

An impeachment inquiry, initiated by Dems, over allegations that Trump asked Ukrainian President Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter on corruption related issues, along with allegedly delaying military aid as a bargaining chip, is a scam likely to backfire like Russiagate.

It’s compounded by CIA involvement, a so-called agency whistleblower, alleging that Trump “is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 US election.”

The individual admitted not being “a direct witness to most of events described.”

Claiming Trump’s actions “pose risks to US national security and undermine the US government’s efforts to deter and counter foreign interference” is politicized malarkey.

Expressing outrage over whatever Trump may or may not have done is like Captain Renault expressing shock about gambling at Rick’s from the film Casablanca – as Emile hands him his winnings and is thanked.

US political shenanigans began in the early days of the republic. In 1824, after no clear electoral winner emerged, a “corrupt bargain” was agreed on after weeks of intense lobbying, John Quincy Adams chosen over Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William Crawford as president. Outrage followed because deal-makers prevailed over voters.

Jackson was later elected and reelected president in 1828 and 1832.

In 1876, Dem Samuel Tilden got over two million more votes than Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. With 20 disputed Electoral College votes uncounted, Tilden led by a 184 – 165 margin.

A secretly struck “bargain of 1877” elevated Hayes to the nation’s highest office, power brokers deciding things, not voters.

In 1948, Lyndon Johnson’s Senate campaign overcame a 20,000 vote deficit to gain an 87-vote victory. According to historian Robert Caro, it wasn’t “the only (US) election…ever stolen, but there was never such brazen thievery” to that time.

Digital age technology, featuring corporate-programmed electronic voting machines, makes electoral fraud easier than ever.

Despite losing to Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, GW Bush served two terms as president — electronic ease and majority Supreme Court justices elevating him to power.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter was chosen to defeat Gerald Ford for a one-term post-Watergate interregnum, following the railroading of Richard Nixon, forcing his resignation, ahead of Republicans regaining control of the White House in 1980.

In 2008, the absurd McCain/Palin ticket was chosen to lose, handing the election to Obama.

Democracy in America is pure fantasy, how it’s been from inception. Secrecy and back room deals substitute for a free, fair and open process.

Party bosses choose candidates. Big money owns them. Ordinary Americans have no say over how they’re governed.

Voters get the best democracy money can buy — what realpolitik’s dark side is all about.

Election 2016 surprised. Media vilified billionaire real estate businessman Trump, a political outsider, triumphed over establishment figure Hillary — groomed and selected to succeed Obama.

How possible? Scandals surrounding her likely made her damaged goods, too contentious to serve – especially with key House Republican committee chairmen promising endless investigations into her wrongdoing to maintain relentless pressure on her.

Trump is a political anomaly – an establishment figure coming across to supporters as populist, effectively enough to elevate him to the nation’s highest office.

Was it by fair or foul means? Favorites don’t usually lose to outliers in America. Make your own judgment.

Investigative journalist Greg Palast believed the 2016 process was rigged, citing “caging, blocking legitimate registrations, and wrongly shunting millions to ‘provisional’ ballots that (were) never be counted,” along with potential millions of people “voting many, many times” in key states.

If so, it wasn’t the first or last time US election results aren’t what they seem. Power brokers have final say on how things turn out.

Dirty tricks like Russiagate and Ukrainegate are part of the US political landscape, each right wing of the one-party state, seeking an edge over the other.

That’s what the Dems-initiated anti-Trump impeachment inquiry  is all about.

It’s also clear proof that politics in America (and most other countries) is no place for the fainthearted.

*

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.

Maduro Thinks Russia and Venezuela Can “Overcome Any Difficulties”, but Is He Right?

September 27th, 2019 by Paul Antonopoulos

During a meeting with Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro held on last Wednesday Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia supports Venezuela’s legitimate government against the continued U.S.-backed coup led by opposition leader Juan Guaidó. However, the Russian president also said he supported the dialogue with different factions of the opposition and stressed that the rejection of talks would be harmful and unreasonable.

“Russia consistently supports all legitimate Venezuelan bodies, including the presidential institution and the parliament. In addition, we support the dialogue you, Mr President, and the government have with the opposition. We regard any refusal of dialogue as irrational, harmful to the country and a threat to the welfare of the population,” Putin said.

The Venezuelan president said Moscow and Caracas “proved that together they can overcome any difficulties.”

“We continue to cooperate in a number of areas. In May this year, a meeting of the high-level intergovernmental commission was held, and many issues that were discussed in that committee were successfully resolved. We are talking about a number of areas, such as food, health, energy, among others,” Maduro said.

The U.S. has not given up their efforts to have Maduro ousted from power, despite increasing and crippling sanctions, assassination attempts and coup attempts.  The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) announced on Wednesday that it will allocate more than $50 million to the Venezuelan opposition.

“Today, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Mark Green, while standing alongside Venezuelan lawmakers, human-rights activists, and the Venezuelan Ambassador to the United States, Carlos Vecchio, announced $52 million in development assistance to help Venezuela’s Interim President Juan Guaido,” said the statement, which also said “this money will go to programs that support the Venezuelan [opposition-controlled] National Assembly, independent media, civil society, and restoration of the health sector.”

This financial aid adds to the “hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian assistance the U.S. Government has already provided in response to the Venezuelan regional crisis,” as well as supporting Venezuelan refugees in Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil, Peru and elsewhere in the region, added the statement.

Venezuela has been experiencing increased political tensions since January, after Guaidó proclaimed himself president of the country and gained support from the U.S. and more than 50 other states. Since Guaidó launched the sustained coup attempt against the Maduro administration, the U.S. has only increased the sanctions against Venezuela, which in turn, has completely destroyed the health sector, the same health sector that the U.S. now claims to be aiding. Over 40,000 Venezuelans since 2017 have been killed as a result of U.S. sanctions, according to a report titled Economic Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela.

“The sanctions are depriving Venezuelans of lifesaving medicines, medical equipment, food and other essential imports,” said Mark Weisbrot, the Center for Economic and Policy Research Co-Director and co-author of the report. “This is illegal under international laws and treaties that the U.S. has signed. Congress should move to stop it,” he added.

Therefore, it must be rejected that the U.S. has the well being of the Venezuelans in mind, especially since U.S. sanctions take out tens of billions of dollars from the economy, meaning the $52 million aid assistance is an insignificant amount. The aid assistance is rather to ensure that the long-sustained coup attempt that is slowly destroying the economy can be sustained.

As the Bolivarian Revolution, that began with Hugo Chávez’s (Maduro’s predecessor) election in 1999, brought an end to rampant neoliberal capitalism in Venezuela, the U.S. has taken every measure bar a military invasion to see the toppling of the ruling democratically elected government. As U.S. corporate interests were under threat in the Latin American country that has the largest oil reserves in the world, it has orchestrated and financed several coup attempts, all ultimately resulting in failure.

With Russia helping Venezuela diplomatically, it also supported the country by expanding economic and military ties. With China also taking a hands-on position by also backing the Maduro government diplomatically and economically, it demonstrates that the Age of Multipolarity has arrived where states now have options against U.S. unilateralism. However, the case of Venezuela is especially unique as it is in the Latin American region that the U.S. has since at least the mid-1800’s called it’s “backyard.” Therefore, Maduro has every right to say that Moscow and Caracas “proved that together they can overcome any difficulties.”

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is director of the Multipolarity research centre.

Just How Swampy Are U.S-Saudi Arms Deals?

September 27th, 2019 by Andrew Cockburn

The old maxim that “the U.S. government exists to buy arms at home and sell arms abroad” was never truer than today. Our defense budget is soaring to previously undreamed-of heights and overseas weapons deals are setting new records.

Indeed, the arms sales industry has become so multi-faceted that while some American corporations push weapons, other U.S. firms are making money by acting on behalf of the buyers. Thus a Lockheed Martin-Raytheon team recently dispatched to Riyadh to negotiate the finer points of the ongoing $15 billion deal for seven Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries jointly manufactured by the two companies, found themselves facing not Saudis across the table, but a team of executives from the Boston Consulting Group. This behemoth, which has $7.5 billion in global revenues, is just one of the firms servicing Mohammed “Bone Saw” Bin Salman’s vicious and spendthrift consolidation of power in the kingdom.

Among other lucrative revenue streams, BCG enjoys a contract to overhaul the defense ministry’s arms buying practices, a challenging task given the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons MBS has on order.

For arms dealers doing business in the kingdom, the most visible overhaul to date has been the consolidation of control over Saudi weapons purchases, and all branches of the armed forces, in the hands of MBS himself.

Previously, control in this area had been distributed among different factions of the ruling family, thus enabling each to enjoy the financial rewards (read: kickbacks) traditionally attendant to such deals. But MBS has made it his business, in every sense of the word, to cut out potentially rival middlemen by centralizing all Saudi defense business under the umbrella of the General Authority of Military Industries, with management in the trustworthy (he hopes) hands of close relatives and henchmen such as Mutlaq bin Hamad Al Murashid, the Princeton-trained nuclear engineer charged with developing the Saudi nuclear program.

The Boston Group has cultivated a market in advising foreign governments on arms buying, promoting the fostering of their own military-industrial complexes, or, as BCG executives demurely expressed the strategy in a 2018 paper: “Unlike the way business was done in the past, today’s buyers want the defense contractor to invest in their country’s infrastructure, help develop their local defense capabilities, and diversify their economies.”

So-called “offset” agreements have long been a feature of major weapons export deals in which the exporter undertakes to award sub-contracts for the weapon system in the purchasing country, or else offer some other quid quo pro in the form of business or technology transfer. Their massive expansion in recent times, as highlighted in the BCG paper, brings an additional benefit for all parties involved. But it comes at a risk of sending U.S. defense jobs overseas, and opens up security vulnerabilities, since sensitive technology is now being shared with foreign arms manufacturers abroad.

But the promise of a lucrative offset contract to a company in which an influential figure on the buy side has an interest could be a powerful inducement to swing the decision in a favorable direction, an elegant solution to pesky prohibitions against bribery, including the hated 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that was inspired in part by revelations of arms-deals bribes by Lockheed and others. 

As the well-informed Paris-based security news service Intelligence Online delicately puts it: “One of the reasons for [the success of such arrangements] is that they are not totally covered by the transparency criteria governing commission payments [AKA bribes] which were brought into force by OECD convention in 1997.” (Not, of course, to suggest that BCG itself has base motivations in facilitating offset deals today.) 

Of course, if the Riyadh based BCG office (“always buzzing with a motivating and inspiring vibe,” according to the corporate website) had the true interests of Saudi Arabia at heart, they would have thrown the THAAD sales force out on their ears. THAAD is a system distinguished not only by its enormous cost ($1 billion plus per six-launcher battery),  but also by its total uselessness for the Saudis.  Presumably, the Saudis have been sold on the THAAD as a defense against Iranian ballistic missiles like the old Soviet Scud and its various Iranian upgrades.

As its name suggests, the THAAD aims to intercept  incoming short range or medium range ballistic missiles arcing down into the top of the atmosphere 25 to 90 miles up and no further away than 125 miles. The THAAD’s radar must therefore “acquire”–spot– the actual missile warhead, distinguishing it from nearby broken up pieces of its spent booster rocket or from  decoys deliberately launched with it. The radar must then track and predict the future trajectory of the warhead itself, not confusing it with any of the accompanying bits and pieces. Relying on the radar’s predictions, the THAAD missile interceptor,  once launched, must quickly accelerate to MACH 8 speed and guide with absolute precision to hit the target warhead  directly, like a bullet. Near misses won’t do.

After a series of early, disastrous failures, the Pentagon is now touting a fifteen out of fifteen string of successful THAAD launchings. Needless to say, not one of these tests has been against a ballistic missile target accompanied by booster debris or decoys, much less against half a dozen of such missiles fired at once.

This alone should be reason enough for the Saudis to toss the deal, but even if the system could perform as advertised, it would have been entirely irrelevant as a defense against the September 14 Houthi attacks on Abqaiq and Kurais.  The drones and cruise missiles employed clearly came in at low altitude, while THAAD is designed to operate against high altitude targets. The Patriot and Hawk batteries already in place are of course no better suited to confront low altitude threats, which are inevitably masked by ground clutter.

Even if the attackers had been obliging enough to send in ballistic missiles with a high-altitude trajectory, the THAAD would have offered little succor, since its infra-red seeker, as noted, cannot distinguish between actual warheads and decoys. Nor would the Russian S-400 system cheekily offered by Putin in the aftermath of the attack have fared better, and for many of the same reasons.

Such realities have found little place in the outpouring of commentary on the attacks, with little or no attention paid to easily available evidence. For example, published pictures of the damage at Abqaiq clearly show a number of liquified natural gas storage tanks pierced in the same place on their western sides.  As former Pentagon analyst Pierre Sprey pointed out to me, this clearly shows that the attacks came from the west, not the north, as claimed in numerous media reports.

The consistent accuracy demonstrated by these impact holes indicates that the terminal guidance was not GPS, but rather human drone controllers, manually steering the slow flying drones, via the drones’ video cameras, into the target.  For control purposes they would have to have been in line of sight to the drones (the only alternative would be an easily detectable satellite link) so they could have been no further than 36 miles away at most, assuming the drones were flying at a likely 300 feet altitude.

Instead of such cogent analysis, we have been presented with unquestioning reports of Saudi “evidence” that the attacks came directly from Iran in the form of pictures of an alleged wrecked Iranian drone discovered somewhere close to the targeted area.

Motivated and inspired, presumably, by the enormous sums of money to be made, the Boston Consultants and others advising the Saudi regime must have little interest in drawing attention to such tiresome details. There are arms to be bought and sold, and that is the whole point, bringing that old maxim, “the U.S. government exists to buy arms at home and sell arms abroad,” into a sharper, and yet more twisted, focus.

*

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.

Andrew Cockburn is the Washington editor of Harper’s Magazine and the author of five nonfiction books, including Kill Chain: The Rise of the High-Tech Assassins (2016). He has written for The New York Times, The New Yorker, Playboy, Vanity Fair, and National Geographic, among other publications. 

Why Didn’t Iraq Retaliate Against Israel?

September 27th, 2019 by Elijah J. Magnier

The US and Israel are manoeuvring between the internal Iraqi differences in order to hit Hashd al-Shaabi, the “Popular Mobilisation Forces” (PMF). These forces have gathered significant domestic support and created many enemies among the Iraqis. The reason for this antipathy is the Iranian fingerprint within the PMF. Yet Iran is supposed to be close to Iraq, a neighbouring country, with which it shares a strong religious bond. Iran supported the country when Baghdad was threatened by ISIS.

It goes back to when Moqtada was terrorising the city of Najaf with his thugs and threatening Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Sistani, Sheikh Bashir al-Najafi and Sheikh Ishac al-Fay’yad. Moqtada was then Iran’s favourite pawn because he took the initiative to stand against the US forces. It was only after five years of Iran’s full support to Moqtada before the relationship started to degenerate in 2008, and became embittered a few years later. Al-Sadr accused Iran of splitting the Sadrist leadership into several groups: “Asaebahl al-Haq”, “Harakat al Nujabaa and “Kataeb Imam Ali”. But Moqtada was not the only one with an issue with Iran.

The Marjaiya held Iran responsible for supporting Moqtada at the start and disapproved of the 2003 and 2004 confrontation with the US forces, even if the Grand Ayatollah Sistani was the one who saved Moqtada’s life and prevented US forces from capturing him. Sayyed Ali Sistani todaymaintains a  cordial relationship with the Sadrist leader – without necessarily endorsing his un-strategic acts– and shares with Moqtada his discontent with Iran’s policy and interferencein Iraqi affairs. Sayyed Sistani wanted to avoid Iraq becoming the theatre for the Iran-US struggle and continues to think along the same lines today. The Marjaiya in Najaf accused Soleimani and Hezbollah, tacitly, of intervening in Iraq and manoeuvring the formation of several governments.

To the displeasure and disagreement of both Sayyed Sistani and Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran played, along with Hezbollah, an essential role in routing a strong ideology among militants and security forces and in the formation of several Iraqi governments from just after the Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari until the current Premier Adel Abdel Mahdi. Sayyed Sistani, for the first time ever, wrote a letter in black and white to prevent al-Maliki from winning a third term. Haidar al-Abadi replaced al-Maliki, to the disapproval of Soleimani. Abadi was very hostile to Soleimani throughout his mandate, but the IRGC commander played an essential role in the election of Adel Abdel Mahdi and helped to bring down Abadi.

When ISIS occupied a third of Iraq and all differences were suspended- but not resolved- Hashd was formed through the call of Sayyed Sistani, armed by Iran who delivered weapons to Baghdad and Erbil to fight a common enemy before it reached the doorstep of Iran itself. Sayyed Sistani formed units within Hashd and armed them using the money of “beit al-mal” (the Islamic treasury).

The US and Iraq are now present within the same perimeter, in different military bases spread throughout Iraq. And the American forces have full control, independence and autonomy over thelarge sections of each base under their control. That was Abadi’s “gift” to the Americans because the (ex) Prime Minister had agreed to give the US forces full immunity and autonomy in the bases.

But the US – according to the Iraqi intelligence services in Baghdad who rely on friendly radar and trusted intelligence– is believed to be using the bases as a logistic support for Israel. The Iraqi sources have reason to believe that the suicide drones used against the Iraqi security forces, and the drone responsible for the assassination against the Iraqi commander, took off from different parts of Iraq itself.

Israel is renowned for its more than adequate reading of the political situation,most of the time, in every country it is operating in or with- essential knowledge for assessing threats and consequences. Indeed, the political situation in Iraq today does resemble the Lebanese political situation in 2006 when Israel decided to wage war on Lebanon. In 2006, Lebanon was divided between the group called the 8thof March that supports the “Axis of the Resistance” and the pro-US group called the 14thof March. Israel benefitted from the domestic internal division among Lebanese and wanted – but failed – to disarm Hezbollah and force its withdrawal from the entire south of Lebanon and the borders with Syria. The Lebanese government led by a 14thof March member unsuccessfully attempted to dismantle the most secret fibre-optic closed circuit Hezbollah communication system linking the various parts of Lebanon, including a few lines that connected with Syrian officials.

Today, in 2019, Iraq is in a similar situation to Lebanon in 2006. Even worse, in Iraq, the Shia are divided over the function and continuity of the Iraqi security force, Hashd al-Shaabi and how to “dilute” it within the Federal Police and the Army so as to avoid the emergence and officialising of an independent entity.

These domestic differences are providing a loophole for Israel to sneak in and fight Iran’s allies in Tehran’s backyard. US-Iran tension has reached its peak and a possible war against Iran continues to loom over the Middle East. Iran is said to have delivered precision missiles to the Iraqi forces. Regardless, the Shia Iraqi leader Sayyed Ammar al-Hakin said: “Iraq is not a warehouse for all non-Iraqi weapons; Iraq is not a theatre in any other war. We should putour differences aside.”

Iran wants Hashd to gain strength because ISIS and the US still have strong presences in Iraq. Tehran wishes to continue benefitting financially from Iraq’s stability to ease the US administration “maximum pressure” on its economy, sell its oil and electricity and promote its commerce. This is allowing the US and Israel to have some sort of free hand in Mesopotamia but not for long. Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu can no longer repeat, against Iraq, his hundreds of attacks on Syria in the last years because he will endanger US forces, for certain. Iraq is now starting, with its serious contacts with Russia, Iran and China, to look for alternative missile capabilities in order to prevent future aggression. Unlike Syria, for now Mesopotamia will not become Israel’s playground.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Didn’t Iraq Retaliate Against Israel?
  • Tags: ,

Forty Years Ago, the Carter Administration Covered Up a Presumed Israeli Nuclear Test

September 27th, 2019 by John Krzyzaniak

On September 22, 1979, a US Vela satellite detected a “double flash” signal far off the coast of South Africa. It was the tell-tale sign of an atmospheric nuclear explosion: US Vela satellites, launched to help enforce the Partial Test Ban Treaty, had detected 41 previous double flashes, and all of them were caused by known nuclear tests. That night, President Jimmy Carter wrote in his diary:

“There was indication of a nuclear explosion in the region of South Africa—either South Africa, Israel using a ship at sea, or nothing.”

His administration would eventually decide, contrary to the evidence, to push the theory that it was the last of these three possibilities that had occurred.

While publicly available information cannot definitively prove that Israel conducted an illegal nuclear test that night, Foreign Policy has published a collection on the 40th anniversary of the event that shows how evidence in support of that theory is mounting, and why the mysterious flash still matters.

At the time, within the White House, there was apparently little doubt about what had happened. Several months after the event, on February 27, 1980, Carter wrote in his diary,

“we have a growing belief among our scientists that the Israelis did indeed conduct a nuclear test explosion in the ocean near the southern end of Africa.”

Still, the administration put together a panel, led by Jack Ruina, to determine the cause of the double flash signal. In May 1980, the panel laid out an alternative theory in its report: that a tiny meteor had hit the satellite and broken into smaller particles that then perfectly reflected the sunlight in such a way as to mimic the signal from a nuclear explosion. Even though the panel hedged on the likelihood that its explanation was the correct one, it nevertheless concluded that, in any event, the signal was “probably not” from a nuclear explosion.

Vela Double Flash Signal

The optical signal recorded by one of the Vela satellite’s sensors on September 22, 1979. Credit: 1980 Ruina Report, shaded for clarity.

In recent years, more data about the event has become available in declassified documents, as Bulletin contributors have previously noted. Drawing on some of this data, Lars-Erik De Geer and Christopher Wright co-authored two scientific papers in which they conducted independent analyses of the raw data. In the first, they obliterate the meteoroid theory. In the second, they examine iodine 131 found in the thyroid glands of Australian sheep that were slaughtered in October and November 1979 and conclude that the data was consistent with a nuclear detonation on September 22.

Once one is convinced that there was in fact a nuclear explosion, it’s only a short step to figuring out who did it. None of the five recognized nuclear weapons states at the time would have had any need to perform a small clandestine test at sea. Pakistan, India, and South Africa could be ruled out too, since such a test would not have been feasible for them given the nuclear development and logistical difficulties it entailed. That left Israel, which had both the motivation and capability, as the sole candidate.

The consequences of acknowledging that Israel had conducted a nuclear test would have been grave, and that’s why the Foreign Policy contributors believe the Carter administration refused to admit it. Such a test would have been a violation of the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which Israel had ratified in 1964. More important, US laws would have required the triggering of sanctions against Israel, which for political reasons Carter was keen to avoid.

Though keeping the matter a secret may have been politically expedient at the time, the opposite may be true now. As Henry Sokolski writes in his contribution, the prospect of the US government sharing what it knows about the incident now “would seem to make sense, as it would help discourage future violations of pledges not to test by countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, South Korea, Japan, and other aspirational nuclear states.” Or, put differently, to acknowledge the test would be to uphold an important nonproliferation norm, whereas continued silence leaves the United States open to the charge of hypocrisy.

*

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

John Krzyzaniak is an associate editor at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

145,000 Tons of Indian Oil at Risk after US Blacklists Chinese Shipping Companies

September 27th, 2019 by Great Game India

The US has put sanctions on several Chinese companies and their top officials for allegedly shipping Iranian oil, putting dozens of supertankers off limits to western energy traders. As a direct impact of the blacklisting of Chinese shipping company Cosco, 145,000 tonnes of Indian Oil is at risk.

The US Treasury department on Wednesday blacklisted two oil tanker subsidiaries of Cosco, a leading Chinese shipping and logistics company, although the parent company remains unaffected.

China Concord Petroleum, Pegasus 88 Limited, Kunlun Shipping Company and Kunlun Holding Company were also sanctioned.

The sanctions against Cosco subsidiaries alone could affect 40-50 tankers, about half of which are very large crude carriers — the giant supertankers used by international oil traders for long-haul voyages, said Erik Broekhuizen, head of tanker research and consulting at Poten & Partners, an energy broker in New York.

The Financial Times reported in August that the Trump administration was tracking the movement of tankers linked to Bank of Kunlun, a subsidiary of China’s biggest state-run oil company China National Petroleum Corporation, amid signs that the vessels are helping to transport Iranian crude to China in defiance of US sanctions against Tehran. In August at least three Kunlun-linked tankers had been spotted interacting with Iranian vessels since May through Planet Labs satellite imagery, which was provided to the Financial Times by TankerTrackers alongside maritime data from MarineTraffic.

Indian Oil Corp is also examining the impact of U.S. sanctions on its chartering of a crude carrier owned by a subsidiary of China’s Cosco Shipping Corporation.

“The matter is being examined,” IOC said in response to a Reuters email seeking comment after the U.S. Treasury Department on Wednesday imposed sanctions on five Chinese nationals and six entities it said had violated Washington’s unilateral curbs on Tehran.

IOC has chartered Da Yuan Hu, owned by Cosco Shipping Tanker Dalian, for the lifting of 145,000 tonnes of Mexican Isthumus oil. The vessel is expected to start its voyage to Paradip port in eastern India on Oct. 10, Refinitiv Eikon data shows.

More than two months and 20,000 kilometers (12,000 miles) ago, the tanker Da Yuan Hu left Singapore and headed to Mexico to pick up a shipment of crude oil. On Thursday, with less than two weeks to go until it reaches its destination, its long quest could be in jeopardy. The ship, along with dozens of others, is now ensnared in the standoff between the U.S. and Iran.

The announcements by the U.S. Treasury and State departments left shipbrokers and charterers scrambling to cancel bookings with sanctioned companies and letting provisional charters lapse. Uncertainty still remains on whether cargoes that have already been loaded onto the vessels of sanctioned firms would be allowed to deliver, or whether they would have to transfer their loads to unsanctioned tankers, reported Bloomberg.

US sanctions come amid a new escalation of tensions in the Middle East after Saudi Arabia’ Aramco Oil facilities were attacked by drones on 14th September. In April, Washington had announced countries including India and China, which are currently important Iranian crude oil, will either have to end their imports completely or be subjected to American sanctions. China and India were the largest importer of Iranian oil.

While the Chinese are resisting what the call their sovereign right to a free and fair maritime trading, India has drastically cutoff its import of Oil from Iran and meanwhile have signed billion dollar deals with Saudi Aramco and American Tellurian Inc.

*

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 GreatGameIndia.

Featured image is from the author

Leaked: Johnson to Use NHS Privatisation Failure as Centre Piece in Snap Election

September 27th, 2019 by True Publica

In 2013, the Conservative party famously went about purging its website and the internet of press releases it made about its 2010 manifesto promises. Basically, they lied to get into power and U-turned on the most significant of promises.

In the week before the 2010 general election, David Cameron promised that there would be no top-down reorganisations of the NHS and no cuts. “What I can tell you is, any cabinet minister, if I win the election, who comes to me and says: “Here are my plans,” and they involve front-line reductions, they’ll be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again. After 13 years of Labour, there is a lot of wasteful spending, a lot of money that doesn’t reach the front line.”

They got into power and have since sacked tens of thousands from the front lines of the NHS, the fire services, emergency ambulance services and police.

In an interview with Jeremy Paxman on 23 April 2010, Cameron said:

“We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT. Our first Budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax.”

VAT was subsequently raised from 17.5 per cent to a record high of 20 per cent in George Osborne’s emergency Budget.

Cameron went on – “I wouldn’t means-test child benefit” and then did. And froze it for everyone else. Other social policies sacrificed to the altar of Conservative economic extremism were Educational Maintenance Allowances, the children’s SureStart programme, the Future Jobs Fund and other ‘pledges’ such as completely reversing on halting excessive banker bonuses, pulling green taxes and government transparency.

So don’t be conned by what Boris Johnson will offer at this snap election.

However, a leaked document (we don’t know if deliberately leaked) now confirms 100 per cent that the Conservative’s privatisation programme for the NHS, is not just a complete failure – but this too will be a huge U-turn. It is in the same vein as putting 20,000 more police officers on the streets to curb increasing violence.

“Privatisation of NHS care will be significantly curbed under confidential plans that health service bosses expect Downing Street to include in the Queen’s speech next month.

Local NHS bodies in England would no longer have to put out to tender any contract worth at least £615,278. That requirement has contributed to a big increase in outsourcing of services and a record £9.2bn of the NHS’s budget now being handed to private firms.

Under NHS England’s proposals, Boris Johnson would have to scrap key elements of Andrew Lansley’s shake-up of the NHS in England in 2012, which bitterly divided the then coalition government.”

The Guardian has obtained an NHS England document which summarises 22 key changes it believes will be included in an NHS reform bill due to be published next month.

“A twin-pronged attempt to severely restrict future privatisation would involve scrapping section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and removing the commissioning of healthcare services from the remit of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.”

I won’t go into the detail as there’s something missing in the Guardian article. Something really big.

Obviously, the reason Johnson will offer this is purely to win votes and has nothing at all to do with the best way to run the NHS. And apparently, the cross-party Commons health and social care select committee has already given its backing to all the proposed legislative changes.

If Boris Johnson does, in fact, go ahead with this proposal, then the US trade deal with America is dead in the water. At least, according to Donald Trump’s negotiating team.

Just two days ago, Johnson reaffirmed that the NHS was off the table in US trade deal negotiations. Mr Johnson claimed he would tell the president “that when we do a free trade deal, we must make sure that the NHS is not on the table, that we do not in any way prejudice or jeopardize our standards on animal welfare and food hygiene in the course of that deal, and that we open up American markets.”

As the snap election call is only a few weeks away now, we’ll soon find out. Whatever happens, after the pollsters accepted huge sums of cash to distort the Brexit outcome by selling illegal information to hedge-funds so they could short the pound Sterling when it came to Brexit – don’t believe anything you read in the papers.

*

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

Washington Sends Arms and Logistic Equipment to Its Occupation Forces in Syria

September 27th, 2019 by Basma Qaddour

Washington had sent over the past hours new reinforcements to its occupation troops in Syria, according to local sources in Qameshli.

The sources said that a convey composed of dozens of cars and trucks carrying weapons plus military and logistic equipment illegally entered the Syrian territories coming from the north of Iraq through Simalka crossing.

The convey crossed the countryside of Malekeyeh city to the north-east of Hasaka and it was delivered to the US occupation troops in the Syrian Jazeera area.

On the 22nd of this month, Washington sent to its militia [the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Its Arabic acronym is QASAD] 175 trucks carrying weapons and logistic equipment.

In the mid of this month, the US occupation forces sent a convey composed of 150 trucks loaded with militarily and logistic reinforcements to the SDF militias through the same crossing.

Within the framework of its plots to devastate and fragment the region, the US troops had sent since last March more than 3000 trucks to Hasaka through illegal crossing with aim of offering military, technical and logistic support to the SDF militia, which step up its aggressive practices against civilians in the northeast of the country.

The U.S. claims that it supports the SDF to fight against ISIS terrorists. However, world reports confirm that there is a strong relation between Washington and ISIS terrorists.

The coalition formed by the US without UN approval has committed scores of massacres against Syrians.

*

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 Real Purpose of the Impeachment Investigation against Trump. Political Power Play

September 27th, 2019 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The Democrats know that there is no impeachable offense.  What they intend to do is to use the investigation to look into every aspect of Trump’s life and try to make dirt out of things unrelated to his talk with the Ukrainian president.  This “impeachment investigation” is a political act to help their candidate win the next presidential election.  

Democrats themselves describe it in this way. For example, here is how Rob Kall, the director of one of the progressive Democrat websites, described the purpose of the investigation:

“The idea should be to keep the impeachment going as long as possible, with new testimonies and new releases of disclosures of alleged corruption and treason on a regular basis.

“Looking at impeachment as a process for removing the president is the wrong way of thinking about it. Looking at it as a key that gives access to investigative tools is the smarter, more strategic, way of looking at it.

“Ideally, it will get so bad for Trump that the Republicans will end up putting up someone else to run in the general election. 

“But keeping him under investigation, at least through the November election, will increasingly erode the support of both Trump and the Republican party brand, making a Democratic takeover of the Senate and the White House, and an increased control of the House even more likely.”

In other words, it is a political power play.

The outcome depends on whether Americans see the impeachment investigation as another orchestrated hoax like Russiagate or whether they fall for the hoax as they iniatially did with the Russiagate investigation.

The United States does not have a media.  It has a propaganda ministry that helps the ruling elites control the explanations that Americans are given.  Polls show that Americans have lost confidence in the media.  If so, the impeachment investigation will backfire on the Democrats.

The ultimate purpose of the constant attacks on Trump is to teach the American voters that electing a president who is disapproved by the Establishment is futile.  The Establishment simply will not permit any change and will frustrate and destroy any president not selected by them as a candidate. 

This is the real way so-called “American democracy” works.  The establishment guides the selection of the Democrat and Republican candidates. Whichever wins, the Establishment wins.  This didn’t happen in Trump’s case, and so he has to be prevented from altering the Establishment’s agendas.

*

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.

Hong Kong Protests: Fading Foreign Tantrum, Not Genuine Revolution

September 27th, 2019 by Joseph Thomas

Just as unfolded in 2014 during the so-called “Umbrella protests” or “Occupy Central” movement, a growing backlash has begun across Hong Kong against US-funded protests that have attempted to disrupt governance and commerce as part of a floundering movement to maintain Western influence in the region.

The Sydney Morning Herald in its article, “Triads linked to violent pro-China gangs as Hong Kong protests enter dangerous new phase,” ignored weeks of violence carried out by US-backed protests in Hong Kong, and portrayed locals retaliating as “violent pro-China gangs.” It should be pointed out that Hong Kong is in China.

The article claims:

Turbulence in Hong Kong has reached a dangerous new phase, analysts say, amid escalating violence and the failure of Chief Executive Carrie Lam to respond to the political crisis. 

Television broadcasts on Monday were dominated by scenes of white-shirted men believed to be triad members caning and chasing train commuters as they hunted for democracy protesters on Sunday evening. People screamed as the gangs entered train carriages at Yuen Long station.

Having failed to attract wider public support, US-backed protesters have begun resorting to increasingly disruptive activities including raiding government buildings, storming commercial districts to intimidate visitors from mainland China and even targeting public transportation.

Backlash Follows Weeks of Violence and Vandalism by Pro-Western Protests

Before the SMH’s “violent pro-China gangs” showed up, US-backed protesters had admittedly stormed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (LegCo) building.

The BBC in its article, “Hong Kong police evict protesters who stormed parliament,” admitted:

Activists had occupied the Legislative Council (LegCo) building for hours after breaking away from a protest on the anniversary of Hong Kong’s transfer of sovereignty to China from Britain.

The BBC also admitted the protesters carried out vandalism inside the building:

Inside, they defaced the emblem of Hong Kong in the central chamber, raised the old British colonial flag, spray-painted messages across the walls, and shattered furniture.

The Financial Times in their article, “Hong Kong protesters target Chinese government office,” mentioned another government building targeted by the protesters, the Liaison Office for Hong Kong representing Beijing. The article reported:

Demonstrators spray-painted over the lenses of security cameras in front of the building and one threw an egg that splattered on its glass facade. Others wrote graffiti on a wall including an insult against China, and defaced lettering on the building’s gate.

The Guardian attempted to conceal the nature of the protests in its article, “Hong Kong protest ends in chaotic clashes between police and demonstrators,” which was ultimately about protesters targeting a shopping centre popular with mainland visitors.

The article would claim:

Violent clashes have erupted between Hong Kong police and protesters at the end of a peaceful demonstration against the controversial extradition bill. The incidents took place late on Sunday in a bustling town between Hong Kong island and the border with China. 

The scene descended into chaos shortly before 10pm local time (1400 GMT), after riot police chased protesters into a shopping centre in Sha Tin.

However, the Financial Times in its article, “Hong Kong protesters try to woo Chinese tourists to their cause,” admitted the protesters intentionally targeted the shopping centre rather than merely being “chased into it.” The article admits:

Hong Kong protesters against a controversial extradition bill for the first time targeted a busy shopping district popular with mainland Chinese tourists in an attempt to raise awareness of the issue across the border.

A recently built high-speed train station connecting Hong Kong with mainland China was also targeted. AFP-JIJI in its article, “Hong Kong protesters march on station to get message across to visiting Chinese mainlanders,” would admit:

Tens of thousands of anti-government protesters on Sunday rallied outside a controversial train station linking the territory to the Chinese mainland, the latest mass show of anger as activists try to keep pressure on the city’s pro-Beijing leaders. 

The US-backed protesters have also targeted journalists. The New York Times in its article, “Hong Kong Protesters’ New Target: A News Station Seen as China’s Friend,” attempted to defend the targeting of journalists perceived as being “pro-Beijing” claiming:

The confrontation on Wednesday, when the TVB journalist was surrounded, was not an isolated incident. Last month, protesters heckled another TVB video journalist, unfurling umbrellas to block his camera and chanting, “TVB news, selling out the people of Hong Kong!”

The New York Times fails to mention that opposition media is almost exclusively funded and supported from abroad, particularly out of Washington DC. If Beijing has no say or influence in Hong Kong, territory literally within its own borders, what say does Washington have so many thousands of miles away?

Together, the increasingly disruptive behaviour of the protesters coupled with growing violence and overt endorsement and even support being provided by the United States and other foreign interests, are attempting to target and impact virtually every aspect of life in Hong Kong linked to stability, peace and prosperity.

If the United States cannot maintain Hong Kong as its foothold inside Chinese territory and enjoy the benefits of its prosperity, no one else will either.

Hong Kong is China 

The government of Hong Kong is elected by both the people and organisations representing influential business communities there. The government is overwhelmingly pro-Beijing because Hong Kong is now firmly part of China. It was handed back to China in 1997 by the UK after over 170 years of British subjugation.

An influx of mainlanders, major infrastructure projects and flourishing business between the former British colony and China’s mainland has begun the irreversible re-integration of Hong Kong back into China.

Notions including “Basic Law” and “one country, two systems” were imposed on Beijing which at the time still lacked the political, economic and military power it now possesses. Both Basic Law and the “one country, two systems” arrangement were imposed on Beijing by London specifically as a means of technically handing Hong Kong over, but in practice, maintaining Western influence and the region’s role as Anglo-American foothold within Chinese territory.

As British influence across Asia-Pacific waned over time, Washington took over. Core leaders of Hong Kong’s ongoing protests against Beijing are funded and directed by Washington with many of these leaders, including Martin Lee, Joshua Wong and Benny Tai having literally travelled to Washington to receive support and even awards for their continuously disruptive behaviour.

Beijing has patiently weathered the West’s disruptive activities within its territory. In addition to Hong Kong, the US has nurtured separatism and terrorism in China’s Xinjiang region as well as armed insurrection and separatism in Tibet that has spanned more than half a century.

All of this is part of an admittedly decades-long strategy of encircling and containing China’s rise as a global power in order to preserve American primacy.

China’s answer has been meeting US-backed identity politics designed to divide and destroy, with massive infrastructure, education and economic programmes that have clearly gained the upper-hand even in places like Hong Kong where Western influence has been so deeply entrenched.

When faced with the choice of political instability or infrastructure and economic prosperity, the choice is very simple for the people of not only Hong Kong, but also Xinjiang and Tibet.

It is no wonder residents in Hong Kong have responded negatively to the violence and disruption perpetrated by US-backed protesters. The majority of Hong Kong has nothing to gain from disrupting commerce, targeting infrastructure, blocking roads and the vandalism of public property especially considering why it is really being done.

It is not being done for the people of Hong Kong or the nation of China of which Hong Kong once again now belongs. It is being done for Washington and is just one small part of a much wider, global slash-and-burn foreign policy. The protests in Hong Kong are also part of that policy failing. As US primacy fades across the globe, Washington has resorted to increasingly desperate and spiteful acts of destabilisation, as seen in Hong Kong.

The protests have no future in Hong Kong. They are led by an increasingly unpopular minority backed by a fading global power, and fighting against a growing global colossus within its own borders. The only real question is; how much damage will Washington and its proxies do as they throw this final tantrum?

*

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

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

Remembering Hisham Ahmed. The Reality of Palestine

September 27th, 2019 by Rick Sterling

Hisham Ahmed was born in Deheisheh refugee camp on the outskirts of Bethlehem, Palestine in 1963.  Blind from birth, Hisham somehow surmounted all odds and ultimately earned a PhD from the University of California at Santa Barbara.  He taught for many years at Birzeit University in Palestine, before coming to Saint Mary’s College of California in 2006. He died of cancer in July 2019, age 56.  The following remembrance was given at his memorial service held on 25 September 2019 at St Mary’s College.

*

Sometimes you meet someone who is unforgettable. Hisham Ahmed was such a person.

I recall the first time I met him. It was about twelve years ago, soon after he came to the Bay Area. He was speaking about the reality of Palestine before a big crowd. The other guest speaker was the Jewish American activist Anna Baltzer. I remember him with his braille computer, reading his prepared speech as his fingers slid across the computer which he kept by his side, supported by his shoulder strap.

That scene of Hisham with his computer and shoulder strap became very familiar. Hisham was always willing to speak at our events, never asking for anything in return. He was an important part of our community outreach and education about Palestine and the Middle East. We were especially happy when he agreed to join the board of the Mt Diablo Peace & Justice Center. He immediately made a mark with his positive suggestions and ideas. He was that kind of person.

Hisham was sensitive to others. In the hospital he would always ask and remember the name of  different nurses and doctors. If time permitted, he would inquire about the background of a nurse or doctor. Hisham would make some insightful comments and suddenly the staff would realize this blind person was very sharp. One of the night nurses was from Florida and was shocked and delighted to learn that Hisham had previously taught at his university there. Suddenly Hisham was not just another patient.

Image on the right: Hisham with Yasser Arafat

At the same time, Hisham stood up for himself and was unafraid to challenge authority.  Whether it was Israeli regime, the PA, or the Kaiser medical bureaucracy …. Hisham was unafraid to speak out. And he got the attention of Kaiser; his constructive criticisms made a difference.

Hisham was diplomatic and full of humor. I noticed that his academic advisor at UC Santa Barbara, from 25 years ago, recommended him highly. In addition to commenting on his academic work and achievements, the professor remarked that Hisham was ……….  “a live wire”. A live wire ….. Hisham lived life to the full, bicycling dangerously around the UC Santa Barbara campus.

Two years ago we had a forum in Orinda. It was ambitiously  titled “Stop the War Machine / Save the Planet”. And we ambitiously had 16 excellent speakers. It was a terrific lineup including the lead organizer from the California Nurses Union, the former Green Party mayor of Richmond, etc. But of course we had to strictly limit the time of each speaker. When his turn came, Hisham warmed up the audience by saying, “If you ever want to know how to punish a professor I will tell you how. Just limit their speaking time to seven to ten minutes …” The audience loved it. Hisham went on to deliver a sharp and prescient analysis of events. He described how Arab Spring had become Arab Hell with the destruction of Libya and war on Syria. He warned of the danger of all out war.

Image below: Hisham and Mother Agnes

Hisham showed his political courage and insight when he invited Mother Agnes Mariam to speak at St Mary’s College and to meet college leaders. Mother Agnes was a Palestinian Lebanese nun who lived in Syria. She  had been demonized in the media for saying the sarin gas attacks in Syria in 2013 were not done by the government. She was later proven correct by the research of Seymour Hersh, Robert Parry, Theodor Postol and others with track records of accuracy and objectivity. But at the time she was viciously attacked in western media, including  by some on the so-called Left. Those who wanted the US to intervene directly attacked Mother Agnes and threatened to disrupt her program at St Mary’s. The opposition even threatened violence at the college. Hisham told me there was enormous pressure to cancel the event. But Hisham was not deterred. The program went ahead and was outstanding.

Hisham was most devoted to his family. He was always talked admiringly of his wife Amneh, how he was worried because she was doing so much. When their son Ahmed was graduating from elementary school, Hisham was in the hospital. They did not want him to leave but he said “Hell no …. I am going to Ahmed’s graduation!” And he did. Later, when Hisham was home and monitoring his own health, his daughter Nour was at his side taking his blood pressure and  temperature. Hisham loved it and proudly called her Dr. Nour.

Because he was so articulate I assumed that Hisham came from the Palestinian upper class. Thus I was surprised to learn that his father was day laborer. Another surprise: Because Hisham taught at St Mary’s College and supported the Palestinian Christian Sabeel movement, I assumed he was Christian. Thus I was surprised to hear the Muslim call to prayer playing on his cell phone when we were in the hospital at 4:30 am. Hisham’s body rests at the Islamic cemetery in Livermore. His spirit and actions represent the best of the religion of peace and the best of all religions because Hisham did not discriminate.

My last memory of Hisham is the night before he passed away. He had arranged for his wife Amneh to have a barbecue dinner at their home. Nancy and Wendy were there, who had helped so much. He said we are missing Marty. I was happy that he said I was like a brother. It was a wonderful feast and party. Hisham ate with gusto, laughing and having a good time. I think he knew it was going to be his last chance to do that. And it was.

But that is how I remember Hisham. Full of fun. Wanting other people to have fun. And living life to the maximum. He was a man of principle, resolute but fun loving, polite but strong.

In some ways, Hisham embodied the Palestinian cause: overcoming huge challenges, resilient, proud, undaunted, steadfast. Let us do as he would want:  continue the fight for peace with justice in Palestine and beyond.

*

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.

Rick Sterling is a journalist on international issues. He lives in the SF Bay Area and can be contacted at [email protected]

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Remembering Hisham Ahmed. The Reality of Palestine
  • Tags:

10 Ways that the Climate Crisis and Militarism Are Intertwined

September 27th, 2019 by Medea Benjamin

The environmental justice movement that is surging globally is intentionally intersectional, showing how global warming is connected to issues such as race, poverty, migration and public health. One area intimately linked to the climate crisis that gets little attention, however, is militarism. Here are some of the ways these issues–and their solutions–are intertwined.

1. The US military protects Big Oil and other extractive industries. The US military has often been used to ensure that US companies have access to extractive industry materials, particularly oil, around the world. The 1991 Gulf War against Iraq was a blatant example of war for oil; today the US military support for Saudi Arabia is connected to the US fossil fuel industry’s determination to control access to the world’s oil. Hundreds of the  US military bases spread around the world are in resource-rich regions and near strategic shipping lanes. We can’t get off the fossil fuel treadmill until we stop our military from acting as the world’s protector of Big Oil.

2.  The Pentagon is the single largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels in the world. If the Pentagon were a country, its fuel use alone would make it the 47th largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, greater than entire nations such as Sweden, Norway or Finland. US military emissions come mainly from fueling weapons and equipment, as well as lighting, heating and cooling more than 560,000 buildings around the world.

3. The Pentagon monopolizes the funding we need to seriously address the climate crisis. We are now spending over half of the federal government’s annual discretionary budget on the military when the biggest threat to US national security is not Iran or China, but the climate crisis. We could cut the Pentagon’s current budget in half and still be left with a bigger military budget than China, Russia, Iran and North Korea combined. The $350 billion savings could then be funnelled into the Green New Deal. Just one percent of the 2019 military budget of $716 billion would be enough to fund 128,879 green infrastructure jobs instead.

4. Military operations leave a toxic legacy in their wake. US military bases despoil the landscape, pollute the soil, and contaminate the drinking water. At the Kadena Base in Okinawa, the US Air Force has polluted local land and water with hazardous chemicals, including arsenic, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos and dioxin. Here at home, the EPA has identified over 149 current or former military bases as SuperFund sites because Pentagon pollution has left local soil and groundwater highly dangerous to human, animal, and plant life. According to a 2017 government report, the Pentagon has already spent $11.5 billion on environmental cleanup of closed bases and estimates $3.4 billion more will be needed.

5. Wars ravage fragile ecosystems that are crucial to sustaining human health and climate resiliency. Direct warfare inherently involves the destruction of the environment, through bombings and boots-on-the-ground invasions that destroy the land and infrastructure. In the Gaza Strip, an area that suffered three major Israeli military assaults between 2008 and 2014. Israel’s bombing campaigns targeted sewage treatment and power facilities, leaving 97% of Gaza’s freshwater contaminated by saline and sewage, and therefore unfit for human consumption. In Yemen, the Saudi-led bombing campaign has created a humanitarian and environmental catastrophe, with more than 2,000 cases of cholera now being reported each day. In Iraq, environmental toxins left behind by the Pentagon’s devastating 2003 invasion include depleted uranium, which has left children living near US bases with an increased risk of congenital heart disease, spinal deformities,  cancer, leukemia, cleft lip and missing or malformed and paralyzed limbs.

6. Climate change is a “threat multiplier” that makes already dangerous social and political situations even worse. In Syria, the worst drought in 500 years led to crop failures that pushed farmers into cities, exacerbating the unemployment and political unrest that contributed to the uprising in 2011. Similar climate crises have triggered conflicts in other countries across the Middle East, from Yemen to Libya. As global temperatures continue to rise, there will be more ecological disasters, more mass migrations and more wars. There will also be more domestic armed clashes—including civil wars—that can spill beyond borders and destabilize entire regions. The areas most at risk are sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and South, Central and Southeast Asia.

7. US sabotages international agreements addressing climate change and war. The US has deliberately and consistently undermined the world’s collective efforts to address the climate crisis by cutting greenhouse gas emissions and speeding the  transition to renewable energy. The US refused to join the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Climate Accord was the latest example of this flagrant disregard for nature, science, and the future. Similarly, the US refuses to join the International Criminal Court that investigates war crimes, violates international law with unilateral invasions and sanctions, and is withdrawing from nuclear agreements with Russia. By choosing to prioritize our military over diplomacy, the US sends the message that “might makes right” and makes it harder to find solutions to the climate crisis and military conflicts.

8. Mass migration is fueled by both climate change and conflict, with migrants often facing militarized repression. A 2018 World Bank Group report estimates that the impacts of climate change in three of the world’s most densely populated developing regions—sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America—could result in the displacement and internal migration of more than 140 million people before 2050. Already, millions of migrants from Central America to Africa to the Middle East are fleeing environmental disasters and conflict. At the US border, migrants are locked in cages and stranded in camps. In the Mediterranean, thousands of refugees have  died while attempting dangerous sea voyages. Meanwhile, the arms dealers fuelling the conflicts in these regions are profiting handsomely from selling arms and building detention facilities to secure the borders against the refugees.

9. Militarized state violence is leveled against communities resisting corporate-led environmental destruction. Communities that fight to protect their lands and villages from oil drills, mining companies, ranchers, agribusiness, etc. are often met with state and paramilitary violence. We see this in the Amazon today, where indigenous people are murdered for trying to stop clear-cutting and incineration of their forests. We see it in Honduras, where activists like Berta Caceres have been gunned down for trying to preserve their rivers. In 2018, there were 164 documented cases of environmentalists murdered around the world. In the US, the indigenous communities protesting plans to build the Keystone oil pipeline in South Dakota were met by police who targeted the unarmed demonstrators with tear gas, bean-bag rounds, and water cannons—intentionally deployed in below-freezing temperatures. Governments around the world are expanding their state-of-emergency laws to encompass climate-related upheavals, perversely facilitating the repression of environmental activists who have been branded as “eco-terrorists” and who are subjected to counterinsurgency operations.

10. Climate change and nuclear war are both existential threats to the planet. Catastrophic climate change and nuclear war are unique in the existential threat they pose to the very survival of human civilization. The creation of nuclear weapons—and their proliferation–was spurred by global militarism, yet nuclear weapons are rarely recognized as a threat to the future of life on this planet. Even a very “limited” nuclear war, involving less than 0.5% of the world’s nuclear weapons, would be enough to cause catastrophic global climate disruption and a worldwide famine, putting up to 2 billion people at risk. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has set its iconic Doomsday Clock to 2 minutes to midnight, showing the grave need for the ratification of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The environmental movement and the anti-nuke movement need to work hand-in-hand to stop these threats to planetary survival.

To free up billions of Pentagon dollars for investing in critical environmental projects and to eliminate the environmental havoc of war, movements for a livable, peaceful planet need to put “ending war” at the top of the “must do” list.

*

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. For a full understanding of the intersection between war and the climate, read Gar Smith’s War and Environmental Reader.

Challenges to US Hegemony: America Will Remain the World’s Strongest Nation for Years to Come?

September 27th, 2019 by Shane Quinn

It was always an impossible challenge for America to retain the unrivalled power she enjoyed in 1945, when the country controlled both ends of the earth and had a massively powerful economy. At the end of World War II, the United States’ competitors were lying in ruins, including the USSR, which had almost been destroyed by the Nazis. Britain’s economy was decimated and its role as a great imperial power was long over.

America controlled about half of the world’s wealth in 1945, until the first blow swiftly fell in 1949 with the “loss of China”, the world’s fourth largest country, as communist forces took charge in Beijing. From therein, there has been a further decline of American power, but a gradual one. South-east Asia was threatening to pull free of Washington’s control, resulting in the highly destructive war in Vietnam, and other American-led interventions such as in resource-rich Indonesia during the mid-1960s.

By 1970, America’s share of global wealth had declined to about 25%, with the world economy becoming “tripolar”, shared between the affluent countries of western Europe along with Japan in east Asia. Since the early 1970s America’s financial decline has largely stabilised, and her share of world wealth still stands at over 20% today.

The greatest challenge to American hegemony is now undoubtedly China, a nation that has emerged at a rapid rate, catching the unsuspecting West by surprise. China’s vast financial programs, such as her Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), are a threat to the American and European financial order.

China is a very old country with a rich history dating thousands of years – and it is not easily bullied. When Washington shakes its fist occasionally at Europe or even Israel, their leaders usually acquiesce; but China has a habit of ignoring American wishes, and that is a disconcerting outcome for those in the US capital.

Unlike America, however, China has significant issues within its own borders, because of political and social unrest occurring in north-west China, and likewise in Hong Kong, which is an important commercial hub with trade links to the West. China also has a decades-long dilemma relating to the large island of Taiwan, which lies just over 400 miles east of Hong Kong.

In January this year, China’s president Xi Jinping said that Taiwan “must and will be” reunited with China and that “independence will only bring hardship”. Yet these aspirations could result in a military confrontation with the US, which nobody desires.

American governments have long pursued a close relationship with the Taiwanese, and the Donald Trump administration is attempting to increase collaboration with Taipei, Taiwan’s capital city. This year, American warships have sailed with growing frequency through the strategically important Taiwan Straits, a narrow stretch of water separating south-eastern China from Taiwan’s coastline.

Beijing has expressed “deep concern” over these policies, which are indeed highly provocative and a demonstration of American military power. The US government has also approved recent arms sales to Taiwan, including the selling of dozens of F-16 fighter jets to the island worth a potential $8 billion.

Western media reports on China’s “increasingly muscular military posture” in the South China Sea, while the United States pursues “freedom of navigation patrols” in the Eastern hemisphere. There are of course no Chinese warships sailing through the Caribbean or near the coast of California, which provides a revealing picture of America’s far greater strategic superiority. These navy patrols, beside the Chinese mainland and South China Sea, are resulting in rising tension between our planet’s two strongest nations. America and China are also nuclear-armed and have advanced weapons systems, meaning that any incident could have very serious consequences.

Since Mao Zedong’s death in 1976, China has shifted more towards a capitalist-style economy. Unfortunately, China’s modern health and education systems have significantly declined in standards over the past four decades.

The death rate is today higher in China than during the Maoist years; while since the early 1980s, China’s education system has mostly been decentralised and privatised, moving it away from government control and funding to vested interest groups – borne out by the introduction of fee-paying initiatives in Chinese education, having impacts upon poorer families the most.

Further proof of China’s drift towards capitalism is relating to the rise of income inequality in the country, which is approaching that of America. Conservative estimates reveal that the level of China’s private wealth has increased four times over from 1978 until 2015: Rocketing from 115% to 478% in the decades following Mao’s death; while the share of China’s public property has fallen from around 70% in 1978 to 30% in 2015.

Moreover, the level of national income among the top 10% of Chinese society has increased from 27% in 1978 to 41% in 2015 – while, over the same years, income totals of the bottom 50% of Chinese earners has declined from 27% to 15%.

Figures relating to the Human Development Index (HDI) are also revealing, which is a format that measures a combination of life expectancy, education, per person income, etc. In 2017, China ranked 86th on the Human Development Index, just two places ahead of war-torn Ukraine and 13 slots behind Cuba in 73rd, which has been under a crippling US embargo for six decades. America holds 13th position in the HDI table, Russia is in 49th and India ranks as low as 130th.

It may worth highlighting that it was a remarkable achievement on the part of the Castro government, to have produced an overall higher standard of living in Cuba by comparison to great nations like China, India and also Brazil – the latter country was situated six places below Cuba on the 2017 HDI. Led by Fidel Castro for almost 50 years, and succeeded by his brother Raul earlier this century, Cuba maintained its position in the “High Human Development” bracket, despite decades of intense pressures enacted by American governments.

Altogether, the United States remains the planet’s richest nation. No other country can afford to dispense each year with hundreds of billions of dollars on its armed forces. America’s position as 13th in the above index, is a reflection of the growing chasm between rich and poor in the country. Since the 1970s until today, wealth has accumulated in the top 1% of US society, who comprise the elite that largely dictates government strategy. About 70% of the American population has become disenfranchised over these past 40 years, effectively excluded from policy-making.

Income levels for the bulk of America’s populace have stagnated, while the health and education systems deteriorate. The death rate in America is increasing for young and middle-aged adults, which is almost unheard of in the developed world. Offshoring of production has been harmful too for American communities, as urban infrastructure crumbles. Cities that were once commercial heartlands like Detroit and Pittsburgh are today strongly associated with the “Rust Belt”.

China’s share of national wealth, on a per capita (per person) basis, has in fact gradually decreased from the late 1970s until today, while her Gross Domestic Product (GDP) sharply increases, papering over the cracks. The vast majority of China’s wealth has gathered in the pockets of the minority. There are now hundreds of thousands of millionaires in China, and the number is rising, while homelessness becomes a growing issue.

Meanwhile, America has a much larger military by comparison to China, not in terms of manpower, but relating to her overall apparatus, ranging from expensive warships and submarines to missiles and drones. In 2018, Washington spent at least three times more on its military than Beijing – while the Pentagon has shifted about two thirds of its armed forces to Asia-Pacific regions, with China surrounded by hundreds of US army bases.

One of the core elements of US foreign policy is regarding her armed capacities: Gunboat diplomacy. We have seen this with NATO’s 70 year existence, which was founded on the basis of “keeping the Russians out”. When the Russians disappeared in the early 1990s, NATO almost instantly expanded eastwards by absorbing the reunified Germany, in violation of verbal promises made to the Russians. NATO membership has almost doubled in size since 1999, taking in countries that border Russia like Estonia and Latvia, while North Macedonia will soon become the 30th NATO state.

In spite of appearances, NATO is fast losing its relevance as Washington becomes somewhat disinterested with the organisation. Then president-elect Trump had gone so far as to describe NATO as “obsolete”. Trump, like his predecessors this century, has largely been fixated on China.

The George W. Bush administration had expressed fears over growing Chinese influence, but Washington’s real shift in focus towards China can be traced to Barack Obama. It was president Obama who outlined America’s “pivot” to Asia in November 2011.

Beijing’s challenge to Washington is more a financial and industrial one, rather than a military conundrum. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), also called the “alliance of the east”, is a Chinese-led political and economic association that ranks as its members other major powers like Russia, India and Pakistan – which in addition are all nuclear-armed nations.

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), founded in 2015 and headquartered in Beijing, is a Chinese-led multilateral institution which has attracted dozens of nations, including long-time American allies such as Germany, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Australia and South Korea.

A remarkable development in international affairs is Beijing’s ability to lure American-friendly states, much to the dismay of US political leaders. It is a reflection of China’s elite financial scope, which is now challenging World War II-era organisations like the IMF and World Bank.

In addition there is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which is a Chinese-designed infrastructural program including investments in over 150 countries, and spanning thousands of miles across Eurasia. All of these developments have been of increasing concern to the Americans.

*

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.

Marijuana Goes to House Floor with Landslide Victory for Safe Banking Act

September 27th, 2019 by Kevin Zeese

For the first time since the war on marijuana was declared by President Richard Nixon, progressive marijuana law reform was considered on the Floor of the House of Representatives, and won by a landslide. Now, it is likely to be considered by the Senate.

Yesterday, members of the House of Representatives voted 321 to 103 in favor HR 1595: The SAFE Banking Act, which amends federal law so that banks and other financial institutions may explicitly work directly with state-legal marijuana businesses.  If the SAFE Banking Act becomes law, it will be a major advancement for legal and medical marijuana sales.

This historic vote marks the first time that a chamber of Congress has ever held a successful floor vote on a stand-alone piece of marijuana reform legislation. NORML reports the Act won with 79% of the vote and it was bi-partisan. It included 99% of the Democratic majority caucus and 47% of the Republican minority caucus. For the first time, a supermajority of the House voted affirmatively to recognize that the legalization and regulation of marijuana is a superior public policy to prohibition and criminalization.

There are very positive signs that the Senate is likely to approve the legislation as well. Politico reports that the likelihood of passage in the Senate is looking good and President Trump has not expressed opposition. They write,

“The Senate is poised to take up legislation to boost the nation’s booming cannabis industry, with its backers feeling bullish and selling it as a bill that is more about banking than marijuana.”

The fact that 33 states and counting that have legalized marijuana in some form present the Senate with a reality that cannot be ignored.  Public opinion by more than 60% supports legal adult use of marijuana with even higher percentages for medical marijuana. Current federal law is out-of-step with the views of people in the United States as well as with state law. The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), who after months of weighing the issue, said he wants to advance the legislation.

The Senate bill also includes banking for the hemp industry, making it more likely that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, from a hemp producing state, will likely support the SAFE Banking Act. It is not only the marijuana law reform movement supporting the law but the banking and insurance industries. Politico reports the “American Bankers Association President and CEO Rob Nichols said the cannabis bill will be a “key priority” when the group’s members visit Washington to meet with lawmakers this fall.”

NORML explains why this law should be supported by reformers writing in an email:

“Federal law currently defines all marijuana-related endeavors as criminal enterprises, including those commercial activities that are licensed and legally regulated under state laws. Therefore, almost no state-licensed cannabis businesses can legally obtain a bank account, process credit cards, or provide loans to small businesses and entrepreneurs.”  It is absurd that a rapidly growing multi-billion dollar industry must operate largely on a cash-only basis.

Today’s vote is a significant first step, but it must not be the last. Much more action will still need to be taken by lawmakers. We demand that lawmakers in the Senate Banking Committee hold true to their commitment to move expeditiously in support of similar federal reforms. And in the House, we anticipate additional efforts to move forward and pass comprehensive reform legislation like The MORE Act — which is sponsored by the Chair of the House Judiciary — in order to ultimately comport federal law with the new political and cultural realities surrounding marijuana.”

NORML has a call to action demanding Congress do MORE.

The Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment, and Expungement (MORE) Act, bipartisan legislation introduced by House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, removes the marijuana plant from the Controlled Substances Act, thereby de-scheduling the substance at the federal level and enabling states to set their own regulatory policies absent the threat of federal interference.

The MORE Act also seeks to address many of the past wrongs of marijuana criminalization. Specifically, it would appropriate a portion of the federal taxes collected from the legal industry to pay for the expungement of past criminal records and to partially fund reentry services, job training, and community improvements in jurisdictions that have been most disproportionately impacted by the war on marijuana. Furthermore, the MORE Act allocates a portion of federal taxes collected to the Small Business Administration to support small businesses and entrepreneurs who seek to engage in the emerging legal marketplaces.

*

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

Kevin Zeese co-directs Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

Official Reforms and India’s Real Economy

September 27th, 2019 by Sunanda Sen

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Official Reforms and India’s Real Economy

Mark Taliano’s “Voices from Syria”: An Antidote to Anti-Syria Propaganda

September 26th, 2019 by Mark Taliano

Mark Taliano talks and listens to the people of Syria. He reveals the courage and resilience of a Nation and its people in their day to day lives, after more than six years of US-NATO sponsored terrorism and three years of US “peacemaking” airstrikes.

Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Special Offer: Click here to order Mark Taliano’s book “Voices from Syria” at a discounted price

Reviews:

Voices from Syria is a powerful account of a message from the Syrian people telling the West to stop killing innocent civilians in pursuit of their fake “war on terrorism”

–Prof James Petras, Bartle Emeritus Professor, University of Binghampton, New York.

Mark Taliano exposes the barbarity of Washington’s latest regime change aspirations. The West’s political spin is laid bare in the words of the Syrian people.

–Felicity Arbuthnot, Veteran Middle East War Correspondent.

Taliano brilliantly and poignantly explains what everyone needs to know – an antidote to disgraceful anti-Syria propaganda,

–Stephen Lendman, Award-winning Author and Progressive News Radio Host

Canadian Mark Taliano has brought together an excellent mix of anecdotes and analysis to create a very accessible short book on the terrible Syrian conflict. It should serve as a primer for all those who feel curious, dissatisfied or cheated by the near monolithic war chorus of the western corporate media.

–Tim Anderson, Distinguished Author and Senior Lecturer of Political Economy, University of Sydney, Australia

**Special Offer: Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

A Word from Mark Taliano

The Western corporate-state apparatus of control and repression has successfully engineered consent for an overseas holocaust.  This is well-documented.

Syria is on the front lines of civilization in opposition to this globalizing cancer of death and destruction.

In this expanded print edition of Voices from Syria, I present solutions to our current enslavement by those who would enrich themselves at the expense of humanity.

We need to assemble as a unified voice – rather than as a multitude of conflicting voices – against the root causes of the cancer that is killing us and the habitable planet.

Mark Taliano, August 2017

Excerpt from Preface:

Between 15 and 23 September 2016, I travelled to war-torn Syria because I sensed years ago that the official narratives being fed to North Americans across TV screens, in newsprint and on the internet were false.

The invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya were all based on lies; likewise for Ukraine. All of the post-9/11 wars were sold to Western audiences through a sophisticated network of interlocking governing agencies that disseminate propaganda to both domestic and foreign audiences. But the dirty war on Syria is different. The degree of war propaganda levelled at Syria and contaminating humanity at this moment is likely unprecedented. I had studied and written about Syria for years, so I was not entirely surprised by what I saw. What I felt was a different story. Syria is an ancient land with a proud and forward-looking people. To this ancient and holy land we sent mercenaries, hatred, bloodshed and destruction. We sent strange notions of national exceptionalism and wave upon wave of lies. As a visitor I felt shame, but Syrians welcomed me as one of them. These are their stories; these are their voices.

Image: Author Mark Taliano

Special offer on Mark Taliano’s “Voices from Syria”. Expanded print edition with one new chapter. Click to order.

Excerpt from Foreword by Michel Chossudovsky

We bring to the attention of our readers Mark Taliano’s Book entitled Voices from Syria. In contrast to most geopolitical analysts of the Middle East, Mark Taliano focusses on what unites humanity with the people of Syria in their struggle against foreign aggression. Taliano talks and listens to the people of Syria. He reveals the courage and resilience of a Nation and its people in their day to day lives, after more than five years of US-NATO sponsored terrorism and more than two years of US “peacemaking” airstrikes which have largely targeted Syria’s civilian infrastructure.

Taliano refutes the mainstream media. The causes and consequences of the US-led war on Syria, not to mention the extensive war crimes and atrocities committed by the terrorists on behalf the Western military alliance are routinely obfuscated by the media. He is committed to reversing the tide of media disinformation, by reaching out to Western public opinion on behalf of the Syrian people. Voices from Syria provides a carefully documented overview of life in Syria, the day to day struggle of the Syrian people to protect and sustain their national sovereignty.

Special: Voices from Syria + The Dirty War on Syria (Buy 2 books for 1 price!) 

Author Name: Mark Taliano / Tim Anderson

ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-1-6 / 978-0-9737147-8-4

Year: 2017 / 2016

Pages: 128 / 240

List Price: $41.90

Special Price: $19.95

Click to order

Bulk Order: Click here to order multiple copies at a discounted price (North America only)

3 copies: Save 48%,  $28.00 instead of $53.85

10 copies: Save 61%,  $70.00 instead of $179.50

PDF/e-book version available here

Voices from Syria is also available via Amazon here

German language print version also available here

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Mark Taliano’s “Voices from Syria”: An Antidote to Anti-Syria Propaganda

Shadow Politics and the “Kremlin’s Hand”, To Whom Does It Belong? The Historic Role of Sergei Shoigu

September 26th, 2019 by Michael Kim

A fair face may hide a foul heart. This idea will never lose its relevance, especially when it comes to the appearance of public officials – senior executives, businessmen and presidents. Their appearance, or rather their image, is what we picture to ourselves when reading news publications and television reports. However, there are things that it is customary to stay quiet about.

Putin’s country got its name “Russian Federation” only under President Yeltsin, who had brought an aura of “trash” to the Kremlin and the White House, which people keep recalling either with a smirk or with regret. But more importantly, Yeltsin brought a team of new managers with him, some of whom were destined to preserve the new Russia and accompany it into the new millennium.

And here everyone will certainly spare a thought for Vladimir Putin, whom Yeltsin handed over his post to exactly ahead of the millennium, on new year’s eve 1999, because since then he has ceaselessly been in power and is the country’s image.

But everyone is sensible of the fact that there is a decision-making center and influence mechanisms behind this person – anything that is in the shadow of flashbulbs and lights of TV cameras.

Getting a good look at the shadow side of Kremlin’s policy, one can rightfully though with amazement trace the personality of current Defense Minister and former Emergencies Minister Sergei Shoigu, who has been heading a separate direction of Russian politics since the early 1990s. This spring marked 28 years of Sergei Shoigu’s holding senior government positions. In terms of modern Russia, this is an all-time record for a government job.

Is it by chance that such a long-liver has managed to survive in the “Kremlin jungle”?

Many of Shoigu’s surroundings have noted his demonic aggressiveness and determination, as well as his inexplicable gift of the gab bordering on hypnotism that helped him push his line and affect the outcome of many situations.

There is a good reason that behind the scenes Sergei Shoigu is referred to as “the one who addresses the issues.” It has become obvious during the 28 years of his work in the country’s top state agencies. On the surface it may seem that countering disaster consequences, whether natural, man-induced or political, is his lifetime mission.

It all started way back on April 17, 1991, when a decree of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR appointed Sergei Shoigu, a native of a small Asian province at the border between Russia, Mongolia and China, where most of the people are Buddhists by faith with traditional shamanic cults preserved, Chairman of the Russian Rescue Corps.

This service was destined to become one of the world’s best. It was at that time when he developed his own, trademark management approach. He was often called “the Minister without a tie and portfolio” because thanks to his huge life experience he always run operations not from the office with a high chair in the capital city, but on the ground where it was necessary to deal with the rigorous force of nature and at the peril of life. But why was it him whom Moscow always sent to “address issues”?

Earthquakes, landslides, avalanches, floods and fires have become Shoigu’s everyday life. He happened to “extinguish” the fire of strife in the hot spots as well. In 1992, Shoigu was tasked to reverse the effects of the Ossetian-Ingush conflict in the Caucasus. The ability to find a common language with each of the parties and to show true grit at the same time, helped resolve this situation, as well as many other similar challenges in the future. Sergei Shoigu became not just Russia’s chief rescuer, but also a peacemaker.

At the height of the Georgian-South Ossetian war, Shoigu arrived unguarded in the battle-torn South Ossetian city of Tskhinvali and ended the bloodshed. In Transnistria, he headed a Russian humanitarian expedition. And then there was Tajikistan with the need to evacuate the Russian-speaking population. Chechnya, Abkhazia, the Balkans. Shoigu assisted at all the hot spots of modern Russia and acted everywhere not only as a rescuer, but also as an agent of the country’s highest state interests.

Apart from the wars, the Minister established contacts with high-ranking officials of foreign countries, which ran far beyond his formal power. In various photos, he can be seen in an informal setting with former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi or former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

These meetings reflect only a tiny bit of all the assignments carried out abroad on behalf of the Kremlin by “direful” minister Shoigu, because such visits typically go unnoticed by the media. The minister does not wear his usual military uniform, but it is this deceptively relaxed “home” atmosphere that life-changing events are formed against.

We will never learn about the subject of Shoigu’s conversations with them, but the fate of these politicians was rather thorny, and the Russian minister was but a few steps to them. Maybe in those cases he was also needed to help in an emergency, to cast aside an imminent peril and offer help. After his visits, help from the Kremlin comes to these regions through channels both official and unofficial; a Russian intelligence network is gradually emerging there, as well as peacekeeping and sometimes military contingent, or even the “non-existent” Russian private military companies. In each case, Shoigu tried to prevent the emergence of another “color revolution” by means of implementing Moscow’s “hybrid policy”.

Provided that we are talking about countries being a bur in the throat for Russia’s Western opponents, one may talk of success achieved by the Kremlin, which implicitly but confidently holds out its hand to the key spots of countering the threats to Putin on the global stage.

The events of recent years prove yet another confirmation of Shoigu’s super-awareness. There is a photo where he shakes hands with Defense Minister of the Republic of Zimbabwe Sydney Sekeramayi. Back then, Zimbabwe either did not believe Sergey Shoigu or waived his services, thinking that they would deal with the problems singlehandedly, but just a couple of years ago the country experienced a coup and regime change.

Shoigu also met with Vietnamese leader Trần Đại Quang, who died a month after the meeting of an unknown cancer type. Aren’t there too many coincidences?

The contents of Shoigu’s meeting with Portuguese Prime Minister Guterres are also a mystery, but the latter did eventually go for promotion and became Secretary General of the United Nations. Following Russia’s further actions in foreign affairs, we can see that the UN has become the main platform for di,sclosing Russia’s stance to the global community. This was especially important to the Russians during the information blockade.

For the time being, Shoigu as Defense Minister keeps communicating with numerous representatives of foreign countries. Over the past year alone, the minister has taken part in more than 50 meetings at the international level, at least a dozen of which have proven crucial for current world processes and reinforced positions of top international officials whom Shoigu communicated with. For instance, a split occurred in NATO recently, when the Russian minister convinced the Turkish side of the need to cooperate in the military sphere and arranged S-400 system supplies.

In October 2018, Shoigu was accepted by Chinese leader Xi Jinping. And now we have witnessed joint Russian-Chinese military exercises that are going to remold the entire balance of power in the world!

But how did the country’s leadership know where to send Shoigu? How could Moscow predict the deaths of various states’ leaders, as well as conflicts, coups, enemy strikes based on intelligence alone? There is an answer to these questions. As it turned out many years later, Moscow had had its own special units to predict various kinds of events.

After the manner of America, which in 1972-95 began developing its top-secret CIA spy program called “Stargate” engaged in the psywars, Moscow had launched its self-design project in this sphere. In contrast to the overseas Stargate, December 15, 1989 witnessed the Soviet Union create a secret think tank for unusual human abilities and special weapons. The so-called “Military Unit 10003” was headed by Lieutenant General Alexei Savin, doctor of technical and philosophical sciences.

There were many unusual experiments, sometimes bordering on fantasy. Not so long ago, General Savin gave an interview to a Russian media source, partially pulling back the curtain on secret developments of the USSR, namely the work of Military Unit 10003 in the poorly studied area of the so-called “torsion fields”. Besides, officers of this unit had to analyze psychological warfare programs of the United States and other NATO countries, to hammer out methods of energy and informational influence on the enemy, protection of our leaders from enemy psychological attacks and lots more. At the secret center they studied various human engineering methods in Asian, South American, European, African, Altai, Siberian, Tibetan cultures, altered states of consciousness, and scrutinized the nature of the phenomenal human abilities.

Working for the unit there were over 120 organizations of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and Academy of Medical Sciences, the Ministry of Defense, as well as industry and education, including the Moscow State University, the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, the Russian Academy of Sciences’ institutes of philosophy and psychology, etc. Of course, they did not know the one who requested this research; each performed its part of experimentation and analysis. The military unit’s documents were notable for their highest secrecy.

The tactical unit was able to characterize people visually, by photos, personal belongings, initial letters, recollections of their acquaintances; to read out information from the human brain; to learn the contents of books without opening them and those of secret documents without reading them. Officers were taught to evaluate enemy plans and intentions, to predict the way combat operations were going to develop, to revel facts of the enemy’s intelligence activities, to determine coordinates of safe houses, caches, hideouts and many other things. In his interview, Savin dwells on some special operations like the one when their unit helped conveying information about the target of US strikes against Yugoslavia.

However, after the USSR collapsed, Military Unit 10003 ceased its activities like many other covert research organizations. Or did it? Has this research really come to an end? And what happened to military parapsychology after Sergei Shoigu was appointed Defense Minister?

According to the Russian media, this topic has long been familiar to the new defense department head. Work turned out to have resumed in the recent years. One of the 2019 editions of the Russian Defense Ministry’s official magazine Army Digest featured an article on the Russian military knowing combat parapsychology methods enabling to penetrate the enemy thoughts and hack computer programs. The February edition article titled “Super Soldier for the Wars of the Future” by reserve Colonel Nikolai Poroskov reports on parapsychology methods the Russian military have a decent grip on.

The article claims the Russian special forces used “military parapsychology techniques” in Chechnya. The one who mastered the metacontact skill can, for example, take witness’s evidence in nonverbal ways. He sees the captured enemy soldier through, namely what kind of person he is, what his strengths and weaknesses are, whether he could be won over, etc. The reliability of such an interrogation is virtually one hundred percent. “Special forces soldiers are taught the technique to counter this kind of interrogation in case of being captured, and the country’s top officials or leaders of large industrial and banking structures – to protect state or commercial secrets,” the article says.

Assessing the contents of the publication in the Defense Ministry’s official magazine, analytical department chief of the Soldiers of Russia magazine Anatoly Matviychuk has said combat parapsychology is “not a fantasy” and keeps being developed today.

Among other things, a successful accomplishment has been reached as regards such experiments as reading documents inside the safe, definition of persons being part a terrorist network, exposure of terrorist groups’ potential candidates, the article states. Moreover, it proved possible to influence even the technical equipment. By force of thought, one can, for instance, off-tune computer programs, burn generator crystals, monitor conversations or disrupt television and radio transmissions and communications.

It is perhaps due to these practices that the world has got obsessed with cyberphobia caused by the activity of unknown hackers whom international research agencies associate with Russia and Shoigu’s team. It’s kind of amazing that despite the United States’ total control over the global software industry and the Internet, the country appeared so vulnerable to hostile attacks. What if Shoigu has never wrapped up activities of Military Unit 10003 and just reinterpreted it into new organizational forms, as private companies, providing them with a new focus area? And while earlier the Kremlin had to send Shoigu abroad to establish contacts and solve various issues, today the minister uses cyber weapons to convince those unwilling to communicate with him personally.

Ultimately, it is surprising how Russia, with its military budget 12 times smaller than that of the United States, is aggressively extending its influence in various regions of the world. Why haven’t US expeditionary bases around the world, particularly in Europe and the Middle East, secured control of the “Russian bear”? Why is Russia successfully thwarting CIA plans to orchestrate “color revolutions” in its territory? Why isn’t it possible to stop the flywheel of international cyberwarfare. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Shadow Politics and the “Kremlin’s Hand”, To Whom Does It Belong? The Historic Role of Sergei Shoigu

Will China’s Belt and Road (BRI) Diplomacy Facilitate a Rapprochement Between Myanmar and Bangladesh?

September 26th, 2019 by Andrew Korybko

China’s active diplomatic efforts in trying to resolve the “Rohingya” issue can facilitate a rapprochement between Myanmar and Bangladesh that strengthens their trilateral cooperation through the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) and secures a second corridor for Beijing to the Afro-Asian (“Indian”) Ocean complementing the one that it’s already pioneered through the global pivot state of Pakistan via CPEC.

Xinhua reported earlier this week that China, Myanmar, and Bangladesh held their third informal Foreign Minister meeting since last year on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly and agreed to three points of consensus on the “Rohingya” issue that’s plagued bilateral relations between Beijing’s two Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) partners for the past two years already. The outlet described the outcome of their talks as resulting in “the strong political will and important political consensus of the three parties to realize the repatriation as soon as possible”; “unanimously agree[ing] to establish a China-Myanmar-Bangladesh Joint Working Group mechanism…to be responsible for the concrete implementation of repatriation-related work”; and that “development is the fundamental way to solve the Rakhine issue”. Interestingly, this is exactly what the author proposed in his September 2017 analysis about “The Rohingya Crisis: Conflict Scenarios And Reconciliation Proposals“.

China’s interest in the “Rohingya” issue stems from the lasting impact that it could have on the stability of Myanmar and Bangladesh if it’s not responsibly resolved, which could in turn jeopardize its investments in both of them and especially the viability of its planned China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC) that will run parallel to its existing pipelines through the country to connect the Yunnan capital of Kunming with the port of Kyaukphyu. This corridor to the Afro-Asian (“Indian”) Ocean is expected to complement the existing one that China already pioneered through the global pivot state of Pakistan via BRI’s flagship project of CPEC and thus ensure the reliability of the Silk Road across the Eastern Hemisphere’s centrally positioned body of water by avoiding the increasingly militarized South China Sea and the US Navy-controlled choke point of the Strait of Malacca. As regards China’s interests in Bangladesh’s stability, the South Asian state is one of its closest regional partners and has already been the recipient of approximately $38 billion worth of investments.

China originally envisaged directly connecting the Silk Road through both of those countries and India through the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) Corridor, but New Delhi stonewalled the initiative following its grand strategic reorientation away from Eurasia and towards the US’ “Indo-Pacific” policy of “containing” China in recent years and therefore made this project all but impossible. That said, China is relentless in its desire to see the Silk Roads succeed, hence why it’s modified its relevant strategy to functionally exclude India and unofficially create a BCM Corridor instead that would connect the People’s Republic with Bangladesh through CMEC and then onward across the Bay of Bengal to the South Asian state. For that plan to succeed, however, relations between Myanmar and Bangladesh must first normalize, which can’t happen without resolving the “Rohingya” issue. Both countries have been unable to do so on their own owing to their zero-sum stances towards this crisis, hence why they sought out China’s diplomatic services in facilitating a solution.

Seeing as how they’re all connected through the Chinese-led BRI, it can be said that Beijing is therefore practicing BRI-plomacy (a portmanteau of BRI and diplomacy) because its end goal directly relates to actualizing this global initiative’s regional plans for the BCM Corridor. In pursuit of this, China might even begin experimenting with what the author previously called BRI-Aid, which would be that country’s form of USAID that contributes to social development in underdeveloped areas like Myanmar’s northern Rakhine State where the “Rohingyas” fled from but doesn’t lead to covert interference in the recipient’s domestic affairs like its American counterpart does. This isn’t mere speculation on the author’s part either, but a between-the-lines reading of the third point agreed to by all three countries’ Foreign Ministers this week about how “development is the fundamental way to solve the Rakhine issue”. Standard BRI investments can only go so far in a conflict-ravaged region, which is why it might be necessary to expand their scope to include humanitarian aid too.

What makes China’s BRI-plomacy with Myanmar and Bangladesh so interesting is that it’s literally unprecedented since Beijing had thus few refrained from politically involving itself in its partners’ domestic problems and bilateral disputes with their neighbors, but was called upon by both in this instance to act as a neutral mediator given the deeply trusting relations that it’s formed with each of them and their collective interests in intensifying their connectivity through BRI. China was already engaged in “military diplomacy” with both of them along the lines of the Russian model by selling large amounts of arms to these neighboring states in order to retain the balance of power between both of them and thus facilitate a political resolution to their problems, so it’s sensible that it would expand these indirect outreach efforts to something more directly relevant to their current challenges through its ongoing BRI-plomacy over the “Rohingya” issue. If successful, then this approach could possibly be applied towards solving problems with other BRI countries elsewhere, too.

Originally published on One World.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Will China’s Belt and Road (BRI) Diplomacy Facilitate a Rapprochement Between Myanmar and Bangladesh?

Trump Frees Himself From Bolton – but Robert O’Brien Will Be Just as Bad

September 26th, 2019 by Philip Giraldi

After months of rumors, John Bolton was finally fired from the White House but the post mortem on why it took so long to remove him continues, with the punditry and media trying to understand exactly what happened and why. Perhaps the most complete explanation for what occurred came from President Donald Trump himself shortly after the fact. He said, in some impromptu comments, that his national security advisor had “…made some very big mistakes when he talked about the Libyan model for Kim Jong Un. That was not a good statement to make. You just take a look at what happened with Gadhafi. That was not a good statement to make. And it set us back.”

Trump has a point in that Bolton was clearly suggesting that North Korea get rid of its nuclear weapons in exchange for economic benefits, but it was the wrong example to pick as Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave up his weapons and was then ousted and brutally killed in a rebel uprising that was supported by Washington. The Bolton analogy, which may have been deliberate attempt to sabotage any rapprochement, made impossible any agreement between Kim and Trump as Kim received the message loud and clear that he might suffer the same fate.

More recently, Bolton might have been behind media leaks that scuttled Trump’s plan to meet with Taliban representatives and that also, acting on behalf of Israel, undercut a presidential suggestion that he might meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Trump summed up his disagreements with Bolton by saying that the National Security Advisor “wasn’t getting along” with other administration officials, adding that

“Frankly he wanted to do things — not necessarily tougher than me. John’s known as a tough guy. He’s so tough he got us into Iraq. That’s tough. But he’s somebody that I actually had a very good relationship with, but he wasn’t getting along with people in the administration who I consider very important. And you know John wasn’t in line with what we were doing. And actually in some cases he thought it was too tough, what we were doing. Mr. Tough Guy.”

Trump’s final comment on Bolton was that “I’m sure he’ll do whatever he can do to spin it his way,” a throw-away line that could well set the stage for what comes next. Bolton has many supporters among hardliners in the GOP and the media and will no doubt be inclined to respond to the president in kind, but once the back and forth starts many other factors and relationships will come into play.

After the firing, it was widely believed that Donald Trump might have actually gotten rid of Bolton for all the right reasons, namely that as president he is disinclined to start any new wars and seeks negotiated solutions to existing conflicts, both of which concepts were no doubt regarded as anathema by the National Security Advisor. Unfortunately, that argument runs into problems where rhetoric and deeds disconnect if one considers actual actions undertaken by the president, to include the man that Trump has now named as Bolton’s replacement, Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs Robert O’Brien.

O’Brien might well have been ranked among the worst possible choices among the names floated in the media for the National Security Advisor position, mostly because he is almost completely lacking in actual experience related to the job. To be sure, he looks more presentable than the wild-eyed and walrus mustachioed Bolton, but Trump has repeatedly been overly deferential towards the bona fides of hardliners like O’Brien who boast of American Exceptionalism. The president will also likely appreciate that the sycophantic O’Brien’s lack of experience will mean that he will be completely deferential to the Chief Executive’s point of view at all times.

Trump’s cabinet choices have been so bad that they have led to musical chairs in nearly all senior positions. The president is to blame for having appointed Bolton, a man he disliked, though admittedly under orders from Israeli-American casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, and he also did not have to elevate Mike Pompeo first as CIA Director and then as Secretary of State. There is no one around who outdoes Pompeo when it comes to avoiding diplomacy and negotiations while also threatening dire consequences for America’s “enemies.” O’Brien’s hardline credentials are largely indistinguishable from those of Pompeo and Bolton and it is widely believed that his appointment was due to advocacy by the Secretary of State, who is reportedly assembling his national security team.

And it should be observed that Trump’s claimed avoidance of war credentials are pretty thin. Far from fulfilling campaign promises to end the wars he inherited, Donald Trump has continued and even escalated those conflicts. He has withdrawn from agreements with Russia and Iran that enhanced US national security. Drone strikes under Trump have increased dramatically and have exceeded the number occurring during both of Obama’s terms, while new rules of engagement have led to a major increase in civilian casualties from US bombing directed against ISIS and the Taliban. Most recently in Afghanistan, 30 farm workers were killed in a drone strike. Trump is also doubling down on his support for the Saudi genocide against Yemen.

And the president has demonstrated that he is willing to attack countries that do not threaten the US and with which Washington is not at war. He has twice illegally bombed Syria based on phony intelligence and even when he decided at the last minute not to use force, as he did earlier this year with Iran, there was no serious evidence that he was truly seeking dialogue. He is waging “maximum pressure” economic warfare against both Iran and Venezuela, in both of which countries he has called for regime change. He has threatened Russia over Crimea and Ukraine and is in a trade war with China. Transparent regime change policies coupled with willy-nilly imposing of sanctions are destructive, hostile steps that kill people in the targeted countries and make enemies where none previously existed.

America’s new National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien recently featured in a taxpayer funded trip to Stockholm to obtain the release of rapper ASAP Rocky, who had been arrested after getting involved in a fist fight. O’Brien had orders to threaten unspecified retaliation against the Swedish government if it did not accede to White House demands. That exercise in international bullying means that O’Brien is quintessentially Trump’s kind of guy. He has written a book entitled While America Slept: Restoring American Leadership to a World in Crisis, calling on the United States to end any “appeasement and retreat,” and has described the nuclear agreement with Iran, in predictable neocon fashion, as a repeat of 1938, Hitler and Munich. He was Mitt Romney’s foreign policy adviser and is a Mormon, which means he basically lines up alongside the Christian Zionists when it comes to Israel.

The Israel Lobby has predictably welcomed O’Brien. Sandra Parker or Christians United for Israel (CUFI), enthused how

“CUFI enjoys a close working relationship with many officials throughout the Trump Administration, and we look forward to working with Ambassador O’Brien on strengthening the US-Israel relationship, confronting the Iranian menace, and curtailing the threat posed by terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.”

Mort Klein President of the Zionist Organization of America observed how

“Mr. O’Brien is a great friend of Israel, and is now the top-ranking Mormon in the pro-Israel Trump administration. He is also best friends with ardent Zionist US Ambassador to Germany [Richard] Grenell … And you can’t be a great friend of evangelical Christian Grenell unless you support Israel.”

So, does the firing of John Bolton and replacement by Robert O’Brien mean that there will be a change of direction in US foreign policy? The answer has to be no. Trump might well be maneuvering to avoid a new war as he will be in full 2020 campaign mode and wants to avoid falling into a quagmire, but the basic belligerency of the administration and its strong tilt towards supporting feckless allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia is certain to continue.

*

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

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Frees Himself From Bolton – but Robert O’Brien Will Be Just as Bad

Trump Regime “War on China by Other Means”

September 26th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Trump regime hardliners are going all-out to escalate bilateral differences over seeking resolution.

Latest steps taken include imposing illegal sanctions on six Chinese entities and five individuals involved in buying Iranian oil, their legal right.

China’s Concord Petroleum Company, COSCO Shipping Tanker (Dalian) Co., COSCO Shipping Tanker (Dalian) Seaman & Ship Management Co., and other firms were targeted.

According to Pompeo, newly imposed sanctions on China

“blocks all property and interests in property of (its targeted) entities that are in the United States or within the possession or control of a US person, and provides that such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in,”

adding:

“The United States is also imposing restrictions or bans on visas into the United States on the five (Chinese) individuals…”

Separately at the UN, he said: “(W)e are telling China and all nations: know that we will sanction every violation” — of lawless US actions, he failed to explain.

Unilaterally imposed US sanctions are null and void under binding international law.

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang slammed the Trump regime’s actions, saying:

“Despite the legitimate rights and interests of all parties, the United States wielded a wanton stick of sanctions, which is a gross violation of the basic norms of international relations.”

Separately, the so-called US Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 appears headed for adoption.

The measure’s aim is polar opposite its Orwellian claim to be all about “renew(ing) the historical commitment of the United States to uphold freedom and democracy in Hong Kong (sic) at a time when its autonomy is increasingly under assault (sic).”

It calls for imposing “punitive measures against government officials in Hong Kong or mainland China who are responsible for suppressing basic freedoms in Hong Kong (sic).”

It’s another example of how the US illegally meddles in the internal affairs of other nations, a flagrant breach of international and constitutional law.

China’s official People’s Daily broadsheet responded to the measure, saying the following:

“Hong Kong is at a critical moment to reclaim law and order. However, it seems that some US lawmakers are trying to stand in the way.”

“In an apparent move to fan flames of disorder in Hong Kong, two US congressional committees on Wednesday voted to advance the deeply flawed Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, citing groundless accusations about the ‘loss of freedom’ and ‘human rights’ issue in Hong Kong.”

“International studies have repeatedly shown that the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong residents have been fully protected in accordance with the law.”

According to the Canada-based Fraser Institute’s latest Human Freedom Index, Hong Kong ranks third after New Zealand and Switzerland — ahead of the US, other Western countries and Israel.

US dirty hands are all over months of Hong Kong violence and chaos, a color revolution attempt to sow discord in China through its soft underbelly.

Beijing authorities are well aware of US involvement in what’s going on, so far showing no signs of easing.

Perhaps Trump regime hardliners intend trying to spread things to the mainland.

Anti-China congressional legislation and newly imposed illegal sanctions on its entities and individuals ups the stakes for greater confrontation.

They make resolving bilateral difference all the harder as long as US war on China by other continues without letup.

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Regime “War on China by Other Means”

How Yemen’s Houthis Are Bringing Down a Goliath

September 26th, 2019 by Pepe Escobar

“It is clear to us that Iran bears responsibility for this attack. There is no other plausible explanation. We support ongoing investigations to establish further details.”

The statement above was not written by Franz Kafka. In fact, it was written by a Kafka derivative: Brussels-based European bureaucracy. The Merkel-Macron-Johnson trio, representing Germany, France and the UK, seems to know what no “ongoing investigation” has unearthed: that Tehran was definitively responsible for the twin aerial strikes on Saudi oil installations.

“There is no other plausible explanation” translates as the occultation of Yemen. Yemen only features as the pounding ground of a vicious Saudi war, de facto supported by Washington and London and conducted with US and UK weapons, which has generated a horrendous humanitarian crisis.

So Iran is the culprit, no evidence provided, end of story, even if the “investigation continues.”

Hassan Ali Al-Emad, Yemeni scholar and the son of a prominent tribal leader with ascendance over ten clans, begs to differ. “From a military perspective, nobody ever took our forces in Yemen seriously. Perhaps they started understanding it when our missiles hit Aramco.”

A satellite image from the US government shows damage to oil and gas infrastructure from weekend drone attacks at Abqaig on September 15.

Al-Emad said:

“Yemeni people have been encircled by an embargo. Why are Yemeni airports still closed? Children are dying without treatment. In this current war, the first door [to be closed against enemies] was Damascus. The second door is Yemen.”

Al-Emad considers that Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Sayed Nasrallah and the Houthis are involved in the same struggle.

Al-Emad was born in Sana’a in a Zaydi family influenced by Wahhabi practices. Yet when he was 20, in 1997, he converted to Ahlulbayat after comparative studies between Sunni, Zaydi and the Imamiyyah – the branch of Shi’ite Islam that believes in 12 imams. He abandoned Zaydi in what could be considered a Voltairean act: because the sect cannot withstand critical analysis.

I talked and broke bread – and hummus – with Al-Emad, in Beirut, during the New Horizon conference among scholars from Lebanon, Iran, Italy, Canada, Russia and Germany. Although he says he cannot get into detail about military secrets, he confirmed: “Past Yemeni governments had missiles, but after 9/11 Yemen was banned from buying weapons from Russia. But we still had 400 missiles in warehouses in South Yemen. We used 200 Scuds – the rest is still there [laughs].”

Al-Emad breaks down Houthi weaponry into three categories: the old missile stock; cannibalized missiles using different spare parts (“transformation made in Yemen”); and those with new technology that use reverse engineering. He stressed: “We accept help from everybody,” which suggests that not only Tehran and Hezbollah are pitching in.

Smoke billows from the Aramco oil facility in Abqaiq in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern province after the Sept 14 attacks. Photo: AFP

Al-Emad’s key demand is actually humanitarian: “We request that Sana’a airport be reopened for help to the Yemeni people.” And he has a message for global public opinion that the EU-3 are obviously not aware of: “Saudi is collapsing and America is embracing it in its fall.”

The real danger

On the energy front, Persian Gulf energy traders that I have relied upon as trustworthy sources for two decades confirm that, contrary to Saudi Oil Minister Abdulazziz bin Salman’s spin, the damage from the Houthi attack on Abqaiq could last not only “months” but even years.

As a Dubai-based trader put it:

“When an Iraqi pipeline was damaged in the mid-2000s the pumps were destroyed. It takes two years to replace a pump as the backlogs are long. The Saudis, to secure their pipelines, acquired spare pumps for this reason. But they did not dream that Abqaiq could be damaged. If you build a refinery it can take three to five years if not more. It could be done in a month if all the components and parts were available at once, as then it would be merely a task of assembling the components and parts.”

On top of this, the Saudis are now only offering heavier crudes to their customers in Asia. “Then,” adds a trader,

“We heard that the Saudis were buying 20,000,000 barrels of heavier crudes from Iraq. Now, the Saudis were supposed to have as much as 160 million barrels a day of stored crude.  So what does this mean?  Either there was no stored crude or that crude had to go through Abqaiq in order to be sold.”

Al-Emad explicitly told me that Houthi attacks are not over, and further drone swarms are inevitable.

Now compare it with analysis by one trader:

“If in the next wave of drone attacks 18 million barrels a day of Saudi crude are knocked out, it would represent a catastrophe of epic proportions. The US does not want the Houthi to believe that they have such power through such fourth generational warfare as drones that cannot be defended against. But they do. Here is where a tiny country can bring down not only a Goliath such as the US, but also the whole world.”

Asked about the consequences of a possible US attack against Iran – picking up on Robert Gates’ famous 2010 remark that “Saudis want to fight Iran to the last American” – the consensus among traders is that it would be another disaster.

“It would not be possible to bring Iranian crude on line for the world to replace the rest of what was destroyed,” said one.

He noted that Senator Lindsey Graham had “said he wanted to destroy the Iranian refineries but not the oil wells. This is a very important point.  The horror of horrors would be an oil war where everyone is destroying each others’ wells until there was nothing left.”

While the “horror of horrors” hangs by a thread, the blind leading the blind stick to the script: Blame Iran and ignore Yemen.

Originally published on Asia Times. 

Feature image from Asia Times: An image taken from a video made available on July 7, 2019 by the press office of the Yemeni Shiite Houthi group shows ballistic missiles, labeled ‘Made in Yemen,’ at a recent exhibition of missiles and drones at an undisclosed location in Yemen. Footage showed models of at least 15 unmanned drones and missiles of different sizes and ranges. Photo: AFP/ Al-Houthi Group Media Office

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Yemen’s Houthis Are Bringing Down a Goliath

From the Western Inspired Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864) to the Hong Kong Protest Movement

September 26th, 2019 by Miguel Iradier

The Taiping Rebellion was a terrible Chinese civil war between the central power of the north and the south of the country which lasted from 1850 to 1864 and dwarfs in number of victims all the conflicts experienced by Europe until that time. Leaving aside the massive displacements of population, conservative estimates speak of 20 to 30 million dead, most of them caused by hunger and epidemics.

By way of comparison, the number of casualties in the American Civil War (1861-1865) was just over six hundred thousand.

Despite the magnitude of this tragedy, which sank in chaos and darkness the Middle Kingdom after a long downward trajectory, historians have not been too inclined to delve into the more than dubious circumstances of its origins, which even such an Anglo-Saxon medium as Wikipedia does not bother to disguise.

The story goes that Hong Xiuquan, an aspiring unsuccessful civil servant, proclaimed himself Heavenly King, son of God and younger brother of Jesus Christ, and with this brilliant resume he managed to put nearly half the population of the Empire on his side. 

Coincidentally, Hong had been studying in 1847 with the American Baptist missionary Issachar Jacox Roberts, at a time when missionaries were seen as barely disguised intelligence agents, though forcibly tolerated by the humiliating treatise of Nanking’s in 1842 at the end of the First Opium War.

Roberts remained in Canton during much of the civil war to return to the capital of the new kingdom of Taiping, which was none other than Nanking, in 1860, where he would again serve as counselor to the distant relative and right-hand man of Xiuquan, the prime minister and later foreign minister Hong Rengan.

By chance again, it turns out that Rengan, too, had been working closely with the diligent envoys of the London Missionary Society in Hong Kong in the midst of the civil war between 1855 and 1858, and his intervention from then on was decisive in keeping the rebels armed until the end the Second Opium War (1856-1860), in which the British, now seconded by the French, obtained the desired access to the interior of the vast country. 

After these new concessions London no longer had much interest in prolonging the conflict, and it was clear that they preferred to deal with an extremely weakened emperor in Beijing rather than with such a huge people in arms. No time to waste, and the talented Rengan, whose measures had been so providential for the survival of the movement shortly before, was inexplicably ousted in 1861, as soon as the new treaty was signed. 

The First Opium War had taken the Qing dynasty completely by surprise, but once that factor was lost it was required a much larger deployment in order to reach the next list of objectives. Without the tremendous wear and tear of Beijing’s fight with the rebels, even with the Western coalition’s overwhelming armament advantage, everything would have been much more costly and complicated. 

After the ratification of the treaty of Tientsin and the mysterious cessation of Rengan the rebels quickly began to lose ground. The British, who had adopted an official position of neutrality, ultimately intervened on Beijing’s behalf to finally decide the war. Until then, the King of Taiping and his followers were always led to think that the Westerners were sympathetic to the uprising. After many years unscathed, Hong appeared unexpectedly poisoned in 1864 and shortly afterwards Nanking fell under the instrumental intervention of English troops. It was also in an English gunboat that Reverend Issachar Roberts had escaped from the city two years earlier. 

Characteristically, the English press was sympathetic to the rebellion until the ratification of the hoped-for treaty; then they began to spread stories in which Taiping leaders cut children’s heads and smashed them against the wall. Sounds familiar. 

Hong’s creed sounds incoherently millenarian, puritanical and “modern”, if you think that the bulk of the target audience were illiterate Chinese peasants in the middle of the nineteenth century. Abolition of private property, suppression of the cue imposed under death penalty by the Manchus, strict equality and separation of sexes, prohibition of life in common and sexual intercourse even between marriages, separates armies of men and women, substitution of Confucian texts by the Bible as the main subject for civil service examinations. 

Think about it. Marx elaborating on the long historical process that mediated between the medieval peasantry and the class consciousness of the industrial proletariat, and it turns out that in China these same peasants had already embraced the most radical extremism at the first opportunity. 

There was talk of the suppression of “Confucian idol worship”, though everyone knew that Confucianism long predated the Manchus and was the foundation of society. It’s unthinkable: an autochthonous Chinese ideology betting on Christianity at the expense of its own culture and roots.

It is a commonplace that rebellion could not have spread like wildfire without the inevitable Chinese triads or mafias and their deep penetration into the fabric of rural life. Triads had existed for many centuries, but it was only at this time, with the massive influx of opium and the new rules of trade, that a legendary subculture of the underworld was forged, with its networks of spies, cambalaches, dens and slums. 

The murky became the norm. Rebel leaders anathematized drug use, prostitution and everything else, while corruption among them became rampant. “Do what I say, not what I do”. Western powers claimed to be neutral while their arms traffickers made a killing.

Meanwhile south and west the great Indian Rebellion of 1857 took place which led to an overall administrative change in the main colony. Faced with the challenge that China posed after 1842, there were all sorts of doubts about which was the most profitable model of penetration and exploitation. For Rothschild, Elgin, Disraeli and company, the Chinese civil war was also a great testing ground to “wait and see” how far the resistance of the central power and the whole people could go. 

For the rest of it, the “divide and rule”, the determined and systematic interference under the guise of false neutrality, was always the supreme principle of the British abroad and was applied with expert hand every time there was a favorable juncture. The split between the north and the south was a recurring theme in the history of the great power of the Far East, and of course the people had a thousand motives for embracing the rebellion against the oppressive Manchu. To open such a large melon all it took was a good knife. 

Despite the telling accumulation of coincidences in the where, when, what, how and to whom the rebellion benefited, I still have not found a Western version of the facts that points to British responsibility in the origin and development of the revolt, which I find simply incredible. It can be assumed that Chinese historiography will have a different opinion, but if that is the case, it has not managed to make itself heard among us. The fact that Taiping is considered to have inspired the subsequent revolutionary movements of Sun Yat-sen and the Chinese Communist Party should not cloud the judgment in the face of what seems so obvious. 

Needless to say, by now we are not going to find any smoking gun, as even Chinese historians have to rely on the testimonies of Reverend Roberts to the English press, missionaries and other Western diplomats since they are almost the only thing available, even when their own co-religionists admitted his erratic behavior and the unreliability of his accounts. After all, who could give Roberts credit? We are further told that the missionary had suffered from leprosy since the 1830s, which seems very convenient to keep the curious away, though not quite a seeker of truth like Hong Xiuquan. 

The whole story sucks from beginning to end. But if we still have some doubt, we only need to see what is happening at this very moment, all distances saved. Today we see how the United States, Great Britain and Atlanticism not even hide that they do everything they can to destabilize China and introduce as deep a wedge as possible to break her apart —for Hong Kong is only the handiest cleft to open well the cracks in Taiwan, Tibet or Xinjiang. 

If we are now witnessing such a effort to introduce chaos in a world where interdependence multiplies consequences, what could not happen in 1850 when for these countries impunity was almost absolute and the only thing to fear was that excessive Chinese bleeding would reduce profits too much. 

Of course, today’s China has nothing to do with that dark era. However, the strategy of the Atlantic powers has hardly changed over time, and where it once used missionaries, it now employs devoted pro-democracy and human rights foundations such as the NED funded by the relevant government agencies. 

But democracy has little to do with the real problems of today’s Hong Kong. Hong Kong never had democracy with the British, who made it a condition for retrocession so that the fox could keep putting her foot in the henhouse —so not much nostalgia in that regard. What really squeezes the shoes of the Hong Kong people are the economic hardships, the foolish price of housing and the property crisis, coupled with the lack of prospects in the face of the loss of status of the former colony. It’ all about the decline in the standard of living and how to get ahead in life.

This is the only thing that can mobilize people for months and months. Ironically, at heart the main discontent is against the turbo-capitalism that Hong Kong, Britain and the United States have championed, a model that only cares of speculators and oligarchs. How can it be then that this discontent has been deflected against the Beijing government? It is repeatedly stated that the rulers of the capital have made a deal with the local oligarchy in exchange for their political support.

Now, this is what happens routinely in the US client states scattered all over the world including Euroland itself, although here there is another hierarchy in subservience that passes through Brussels and Berlin. And when it comes to autonomy and sovereignty, we can ask the Greeks, for example, what degree of self-determination they enjoy. And they are certainly not the only ones, as the Spaniards know very well. In fact, elections only serve to make us forget a little about it. 

As for depressed environment and precariousness, it is becoming more and more widespread, also in affluent Europe and even in Germany itself; but in Hong Kong it stings much more because the rest of China grows as much as they shrink. Nor does one want to remember that her welfare was built on the enormous inequality with mainland China, from which it benefited in every sense. 

One would even say that the Hongkongers have been respected much more than the Greeks. The local oligarchies sell us everywhere, the only difference being the ultimate power centre. Washington is obviously the global capital of the oligarchy and they don’t want to lose clients anywhere. 

So we can hardly see the conflict in Hong Kong as a struggle between liberalism and autocracy. The “really existing neo-liberalism” is an oligarchy that only uses elections as an excuse, and there is little more to talk about. It is true, however, that this is a “complicated” issue, and not just because a few have taken on the task of complicating it.

In the Greek case we have already seen openly how decisions emanates from central banks, not from the ballot boxes; but central banks are not really public entities but the coordinating body of private banks. And so the world of private interests puts its foot directly in the shoes of the public policy without going through the slightest democratic control. This breaks any symmetry and balance of powers from the outset, and makes the opposition between effective liberalism and central power completely misleading. 

The Federal Reserve is as centralist in its structure as a power can be, with the difference that its absolute priority is the interest of an extractive and speculative oligarchy. It is centralist and hierarchical, not at all decentralized. Neoliberalism has nothing to do with decentralization.

In China, by comparison, there is a “changed foot reality”, so to speak: one of the feet of political power gets into one of the shoes of economic power, while in the West the banks not only put one foot directly in one of the shoes of politics, but take the helm too.

The Chinese system still has more room for maneuver to regain the balance than the Western system, since the line between private and public banking was always unclear; it could take advantage of this clearance to look decisively at the future and take in-depth measures. Of course, we know all too well that “politics” is not synonymous with transparency or the priority of the common good. 

In any case, this system does have room to break out of the vicious circle of public and private debt, while in the West ending the fractional reserve system that make it possible threatens to destroy the axis and lever of plutocratic power —in the end our only, truly reference. 

China and Hong Kong could even engage in a monetary decompression chamber experiment in relation to international markets, which would still maintain continuity with the dynamics operating since 1949. And since reality shows a slow-motion turning point, the challenge would be to lead the change of sign: from money as debt pumping upwards and towards speculative interests, of which the Hong Kong skyline is the most eloquent manifestation, to public money transferring monetary sovereignty downwards to the citizens, not to another monetary authority at the service of private banks. 

This would change the economic and political landscape top to bottom; today economic democracy, public sovereign money, is a hundred times more important than polls. Even the Governor of the Bank of England pondered at the last meeting in Jackson Hole the convinience of ending the Federal Reserve system —and he was talking side by side with its current Chair Jerome Powell. But the aim of this change would be to grab still more power through the new options that electronic money and criptocurrencies allow. More plutocracy and more impunity, as they only would set the rules. 

But, so they say, it seems that the Chinese government also has plans in this regard.

An island within an island: such is the ideogram, the emblem of the current situation. But which two islands? There are several metaphorical and literal candidates, and a number of surprising combinations. As always, reality keeps winking at us, even if we don’t know what to think about it.  

*

In contrast with Opportunity, reigning supreme as blinders in politics, there are glimpses of Synchronicity in events that escape whatever machination; they are often noticed by those most alien to power, even by historians at the end of the day when they stop working and pursuing their theses. Thus, for example, the Taiping rebellion preceded and coexisted in time with the American civil war. So what?

For me it is full of meaning that China acquired its maximum territorial expansion with the Qing  around 1800, only a few years before its ruin and darkest stage began. These things happen all too often, and we don’t need to say that external expansion has nothing to do with the welfare of the people or even with the consolidation of power. 

The American Civil War had an almost diametrically opposite sign. The historical moment that presides over it is certainly not the liberation of the oppressed, in this case the black slaves, but the expansion of the Union and of the future empire, with the concentration of powers of the federal government. In short, it was the first great shock of an unstoppable expansive wave.

Now, if we keep thinking in terms of maximums and minimums, things seem to return the other way back to describe a semicircle. The Anglo-Saxon influence has reached its peak, and one would say that since 2016 —Brexit and Trump in the polls- has begun a certain decline, and if it is more or less pronounced only time will tell. 

This really matters as the centrifugal tendencies that exist in any state also depend to a great extent on the evolution of its sphere of influence. The European Union itself, after a rushed expansion, soon began to experience melancholy and the effect of disintegrating forces, and that’s the current state of affairs. The United States of America seemed immune to these ailments until now only because the increase of its influence grew unstoppable, but since Trump the forces of discord take command, no longer at the party level, but between “business models” for the empire or in the internecine wars between the multiple bodies and agencies. No doubt there is a great potential for fission, just as there are plenty of cracks to exploit it.

As the ultimate expression of capitalism, the United States finds in expansion its raison d’être, and the day it reaches the limit, its impatient internal elements, so used to growth, can come to a boil. As for the disintegrating horizon of the current Britain or of a European Union incapable of approaching Russia, what can be said? There’s all kind of signs that the fate of the West is reaching a limit in respect to its expansion, and and that will profoundly affect its internal dynamics.

At such a delicate juncture it is not very intelligent to sow seeds of discord in the ground of your neighbor and ally with centrifugal forces, even if that is what you have been doing all your life, because everything is entering a new dynamic. While you are so attentive to their opponent’s face, you could be getting a pimple in your ass, or even at the very tip of your nose. There are more reasons for concern than those we have indicated here, but since they are so astute, let them worry about finding them.

Originally published in Spanish on Hurqualya

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on From the Western Inspired Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864) to the Hong Kong Protest Movement

Heated Climate Change Debate Rages after Climate Action Summit at UN General Assembly

September 26th, 2019 by Sarah Abed

The 74th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) is in full swing in New York this week with discussions and debates ranging from climate change to trade deals and the growing tensions in the Middle East.

A few days prior to the UNGA however, there was a climate strike that took on September 20th, Participation took place in dozens of cities around the world with the largest being in New York and led by Greta Thunberg a Swedish youth climate activist who began the “Fridays for the Future” movement last year.

On Monday, the UNGA was mostly focused on the Climate Action Summit and for the first time high-level meetings and discussions about Universal Health Care (UHC) were covered in what is considered to be the most significant political meeting on UHC thus far.

The Climate Action Summit was hosted by Secretary General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres who started his speech by saying that nature is angry and we fool ourselves if we think we can fool nature because nature always strikes back and around the world nature is striking back with fury. Young adults and children demanded a response for climate change. A few took the stage including Greta Thunberg who started her first climate strike a year ago. When asked her message to world leaders she passionately began with “my message is we’ll be watching you”… she said we are in the beginning of mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and economic growth, how dare you”.

Mr. Guterres gave a sense of urgency that we are in a race against time and must do everything in our power to stop the climate from warming before it stops us.

After the Climate Action Summit scientists and researchers have new data to study from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The United Nations Environmental Program delegation was in NY for the UNGA and highlighted how governments, citizens, civil society can take productive action when it comes to the environment, climate and sustainable development goals. UNEP highlights and updates are outlined on their site.

The Philippines representatives delivered a statement on behalf of their country on Monday, during a meeting on Universal Health Coverage (UHC) stating that President Rodrigo Duterte passed a UHC law earlier this year that provides free basic services to all.

The Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi said that his nation will be spending $50 billion on water conservation in the new few years, signaling the high importance of water management and he also pledged to more than double India’s non-fossil fuel target to 400 gigawatts.

President Trump stated on Tuesday, that he is “ready, willing and able” to mediate the “complex” Kashmir issue if both Pakistan and India wanted him to get involved.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, a Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) took place.

Also on Tuesday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke about global injustice and highlighted a number of problems which threaten global peace and security saying, “The international community is losing the ability to find lasting solutions to challenges such as terrorism, hunger, misery, climate change” he criticized world powers for failing to take appropriate action to deal with crises around the globe. He also called for world leaders to support his plan for a safe zone to be established in Syria, he said that if the “peace corridor” is extended to the Deir El-Zor-Raqqa area that 3 million Syrian refuges can safely return home.

During his speech President Erdogan held up four maps illustrating Israel’s disregard for borders and its gradual occupation of Palestinian land. He also held up a map showing the safezone he wants to establish in Syria on his southern border. Erdogan likened the suffering of the people of Gaza to that of the holocaust.

President Erdogan also called on UN members to help support Turkey’s efforts to ensure security in Syria’s Idlib. He has mentioned previously that with or without the US’s support he will establish a safe zone on his southern borders to push back US-sponsored and backed Kurdish militias and help Syrian refugees currently living in Turkey return home.

US President Donald Trump led the Global Call to Protect Religious Freedom and introduced initiatives to end religious persecution on Tuesday, as well. During his press conference on Wednesday he proudly proclaimed that he is the first to lead a global call on this matter.

The launch of Hello Global Goals Collaboration took place on Tuesday with Japanese character Hello Kitty in the SDG Media Zone which has been a main feature of the UNGA high-level week conference since 2016. The SDG Media Zone brings together UN Member states, content creators, activists, influencers, media partners and highlights actions and solutions in support of Sustainable Development Goals. The SDG Media Zone offers impactful in-depth interviews, Ted-style talks, panel discussion and advances the 2030 Agenda, using impactful, dynamic, and in-depth conversations with decision makers, etc. Its events are live streamed on UN WebTV and focused on the main themes of the week including climate change, universal healthcare, financing for development and small island developing states.

On Thursday, a dialogue on Financing for Development (FFD) and a meeting on the elimination of nuclear weapons is taking place.

On Friday, the UNGA is holding a meeting to review progress made in addressing the priorities of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) through the implementation of the SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Pathway.

All of this relates to the 2030 UN Agenda, which is a plan of action for people, the planet, and prosperity and is supposedly meant to strength universal peace in larger freedom, however some think this plan has a sinister underlying agenda and should be looked into further.

Original published by InfoBrics
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Heated Climate Change Debate Rages after Climate Action Summit at UN General Assembly

Colonial Reparation: Repatriation and Restitution of Treasures Looted by Former Colonizers

September 26th, 2019 by Colonialism Reparation

Colonialism Reparation asks the repatriation of the remains and the permanent restitution of the treasures looted by former colonizers as a first step in the direction of the Reparation of the damages of the colonialism, stopping to procrastinate about a necessary step of human evolution.

In recent months there have been some repatriations of remains.

On March 23, 2019 the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Sport of Ethiopia Hirut Kassaw repatriated two locks of hair of Emperor Tewodros II, returned by the National Army Museum in London.

From 9 to 15 April 2019 the representatives of the Yidindji and Yawuru originary peoples and of the Australian Government repatriated the remains of fifty-three ancestors, returned by the Five Continents Museum in Munich, the University of Freiburg, the Linden Museum in Stuttgart, the State Ethnographic Collections in Dresden and the Martin Luther University in Halle-Wittenberg.

On May 5, 2019 the National Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa repatriated the remains of one hundred twenty-one Māori and Moriori ancestors, returned by the Charité University Hospital in Berlin and the Vrolik Museum of the AMC University Hospital in Amsterdam. On August 9, 2019 the representatives of the Sami originary people repatriated the remains of twenty-five ancestors, returned by the National History Museum in Stockholm.

In the meantime requests for definitive restitution of the treasures have continued.

On March 20, 2019 the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Sport of Ethiopia Hirut Kassaw requested to the British Museum in London the return of eleven tabots, replica of the Ark of the Covenant, and to the Victoria and Albert Museum in London the return of Maqdala treasure, already requested since 2007.

On March 28, 2019 the Minister of Cultures, Arts and Heritage of Chile Consuelo Valdés requested and obtained from the Kon-Tiki Museum in Oslo the repatriation of the remains and the return of the treasures collected by Thor Heyerdahl during his expeditions to Rapa Nui (Easter Islands).

On August 6, 2019 the King of the ≠Nukhoen originary people Justice //Garoëb requested to Germany the return of the treasures looted during the colonial period. On August 20, 2019 the Chairman of the Museum and Heritage Cooperation between France and Benin Committee Nouréini Tidjani-Serpos requested the restitution without delay of the twenty-six works promised by the French President on November 23, 2018.

Unfortunately the main former colonizers procrastinate trying to obstruct the definitive restitution of the treasures. In the United Kingdom the Victoria and Albert Museum in London proposed a long-term loan, immediately rejected by Ethiopia, while the British Museum in London categorically refused the definitive restitutions, despite the resignation of one of its administrators.

In France, while the return “without delay” to Benin of the twenty-six works promised by the French President on November 23, 2018 is still awaited, the Minister of Culture Franck Riester proposed more cooperation and less restitution. In Germany the Association of German Museums presented the revision of the ambiguous code of conduct for museum handling of the treasures looted during the colonial period.

Colonialism Reparation asks the repatriation of the remains and the permanent restitution of the treasures looted by former colonizers (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, etc.) as a first step in the direction of the Reparation of the damages of the colonialism, stopping to procrastinate about a necessary step of the human evolution.

Colonialism Reparation  http://www.colonialismreparation.org/
Press Office: [email protected] 

Colonialism Reparation is part of the movement for the condemnation, the reconciliation, the apologies and the compensation for colonialism.

Colonialism Reparation promotes, supports and spreads non-violent activities aimed to create awareness of the current world situation and thereby to encourage the achievement of its objective

  • that the colonizing nations condemn their colonial past recognizing it as a crime against humanity and that the colonized nations exert pressure to make it happen
  • that the colonizing nations reconcile with their past, permanently distancing themselves from it by officially apologizing the colonized nations
  • that the colonizing nations compensate the colonized nations for the atrocities and abuses committed thus allowing an improvement in their socio-economic conditions.

The contribution of every person who recognizes the importance of this activity to the creation of a climate of friendship and cooperation between peoples is necessary and appreciated. This contribution will create an extremely positive precedent in international relations as well, promoting the supremacy of the “force of law” on the “law of force”.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Colonial Reparation: Repatriation and Restitution of Treasures Looted by Former Colonizers

9/11 Truth: World Trade Center Building Seven Was A ‘Controlled Implosion’. CNBC Anchor Ron Insana

September 26th, 2019 by Ted Walter

On the 18th anniversary of 9/11, CNBC senior analyst and former anchor Ron Insana went on Bernie and Sid In the Morning on New York’s 77 WABC Radio to share his haunting experience of that horrible day.

Approximately eight minutes into the interview, Insana made a statement regarding the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 — which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11 — that is truly stunning, especially considering his access to the scene and his job as a prominent news anchor:

“Well, remember 7 World Trade had not yet come down. And so when I went down to the [New York Stock] Exchange that Wednesday morning [September 12], I was standing with some military and police officers, and we were looking over in that direction. And if it had come down in the way in which it was tilting, it would have wiped out everything from where it stood to Trinity Church to the Exchange to, effectively, you know, the mouth of the Hudson. And so there were still fears that if that building had fallen sideways, you were going to wipe out a good part of Lower Manhattan. So they did manage for one to take that down in a controlled implosion later on. And the Exchange was up and running the following Monday.” [Emphasis added.]

Before addressing questions about Insana’s timeline, let us establish the aspects of his story that are clear and unambiguous. First, he clearly identifies Building 7 as the building he is talking about. Second, he clearly states that Building 7 was taken down in a “controlled implosion,” which flatly contradicts the official explanation that it collapsed due to office fires.

Insana’s matter-of-fact remark is particularly significant because the manner in which he delivers it and the context in which he came to believe that Building 7 was brought down in a “controlled implosion” suggest that he was told this information and that it may have been fairly common knowledge at the scene. (The only other possibility is that he deduced it was a “controlled implosion” based on his own observation of it.) Indeed, Insana is not the only person to report that a demolition of Building 7 was being considered or was imminent.

For instance, FDNY Lieutenant David Restuccio told MSNBC’s Brian Williams just minutes after the collapse: “We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down.”

Another is volunteer EMT Indira Singh, who, in 2005, told radio host Bonnie Faulkner: “All I can attest to is that by noon or one o’clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.” Faulker replied, “Did they actually use the word ‘brought down,’ and who was it that was telling you this?” “The fire department, the fire department,” Singh answered. “And they did use the word ‘we’re going to have to bring it down.’”

Then there are the unidentified construction workers and law enforcement officers captured on video just moments before the collapse, saying: “You hear that?” “Keep your eye on that building. It’ll be coming down.” “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” “We are walking back. There’s a building about to blow up. Flame, debris coming down.”

Insana’s statement is all the more remarkable because it appears that he is unaware of the debunked official story of Building 7’s collapse — according to which office fires leveled a skyscraper for the first time in history — and of the controversy that this story has caused over the past 18 years. Insana might be surprised to learn that there is controversy at all, given what he appears to have been told during his reporting and given the manner in which Building 7 came down — namely, that of a perfectly executed controlled demolition.

Image: Ron Insana, covered in pulverized concrete from the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers earlier that morning, reports from NBC’s studios on September 11, 2001.

Now for the confusing aspects of Insana’s timeline. Building 7 collapsed at 5:20 PM on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. He says he went down to the Financial District on the morning of Wednesday, September 12, where he looked in the direction of Building 7.

There appear to be three ways to make sense of what he said (assuming he is speaking honestly, which there seems little reason to doubt).

One, when he talks about looking in the direction of Building 7, he could mean that he was looking at the debris pile of Building 7, which had already been brought down neatly into its own footprint. In this scenario, he and others were inferring that if the building had tipped over instead of having been brought down, which had already occurred, it would have done significant damage to the surrounding area.

Two, he may have gone down to the Financial District and had the conversation he describes before 5:20 PM on September 11, rather than on September 12. This scenario seems the least likely, though, because he is very specific about not going back down to the stock exchange until September 12, having already made his way up from the scene to NBC’s midtown headquarters by midday on September 11. (Insana’s first appearance in the studio on September 11 was around 12:41 PM, when he vividly described how the first tower had “started to explode.”)

Three, he may have observed the damage to Building 7 or somehow learned about it on September 11, but he is incorrectly placing that observation or the receipt of that information within his experiences on September 12. One possibility is that the conversation he remembers having with military and police officers and/or his observation of the damage to Building 7 actually took place before he left the scene on September 11.

One can only hope that Insana clarifies his story, but the real question for Insana and CNBC is this: Who told him that Building 7 was brought down in a “controlled implosion”? And, for the countless reporters and government officials who were at Ground Zero in the hours and days after the attacks, how many of them were told that Building 7 would be demolished or had been demolished, and why have they not come forward with that information?

Sadly, it is all too likely that the same media malfeasance that has managed to suppress the truth about the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 for 18 years will manage once again to ignore or explain away this newest revelation. But for those of us who exist in reality and care about truth, this revelation — which is merely one of countless corroborating pieces of evidence — will not be ignored or misconstrued.

The only correct way to understand this revelation is that Ron Insana — a reporter who intimately covered the events in New York City on 9/11, such that those events are seared into his mind and he received an Emmy nomination for his reporting — believes that Building 7 was brought down in a “controlled implosion,” most likely based on what he was told by authorities at the scene.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 9/11 Truth: World Trade Center Building Seven Was A ‘Controlled Implosion’. CNBC Anchor Ron Insana

17 States File Suit to Stop Trump Administration’s Crippling of Endangered Species Act

September 26th, 2019 by Andrea Germanos

Seventeen states on Wednesday sued the President Donald Trump administration over its recent move “to eviscerate” the Endangered Species Act.

“As we face the unprecedented threat of a climate emergency, now is the time to strengthen our planet’s biodiversity, not to destroy it,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who’s leading the coalition. “The only thing we want to see extinct are the beastly policies of the Trump Administration putting our ecosystems in critical danger.”

The suit (pdf), brought by 17 states and the District of Columbia and the City of New York, was filed in the District Court for the Northern District of California. It comes a month after the administration finalized a series of rollbacks to the law—a move Mass Audubon president Gary Clayton called “another example of the Trump administration’s continuing war on the nature of America.”

As Jonathan Hahn explained at Sierra magazine last month, the new regulations, which are set to take effect Thursday,

significantly weaken the process for listing and enforcing Endangered Species Act protections and inject economic and potentially political considerations into that process where none had existed before. They will bring to an end automatic protections for threatened species, make it easier to delist species (by raising the bar for what evidence is required to show that a species is threatened or endangered), and limit the ways in which climate change can be factored into listing decisions in “the foreseeable future”—essentially removing climate change as a consideration just as the global climate crisis is accelerating.

According to the new lawsuit, the new rules

“violate the plain language and purpose of the ESA, its legislative history, numerous binding judicial precedents interpreting the ESA, and its precautionary approach to protecting imperiled species and critical habitat.”

The legal action also accuses the Trump administration of failing “to consider and disclose the significant environmental impacts of this action in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.”

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who joins with Becerra and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh in leading the leagal action, wrote on Twitter Wednesday: “The Trump Administration wants to eviscerate the Endangered Species Act. We won’t let them threaten our environment just so oil and gas companies can make a quick buck.”

The other states involved in the suit are Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

They aren’t the first group to launch a legal challenge to the administration’s weakening of the ESA, as a coalition of environmental and animal advocacy groups filed suit (pdf) last month.

“We’re coming out swinging to defend this consequential law,” Becerra said in his statement, “humankind and the species with whom we share this planet depend on it.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 17 States File Suit to Stop Trump Administration’s Crippling of Endangered Species Act

Detroit Struggle to End Facial Recognition Spying

September 26th, 2019 by Abayomi Azikiwe

After a long-delayed vote by the Detroit Board of Police Commissioners (DBOPC), a resolution to essentially endorse the existing facial recognition technology being utilized in the city was passed by a margin of 8-3 at a meeting on September 19.

Three of the Commissioners who have exercised a more independent policy stance from corporate-imposed Mayor Mike Duggan voted against the utilization of this form of surveillance in a city which is approximately 80% African American.

Police Commissioners Willie Bell, Elizabeth Brooks, Shirley Burch, Lisa Carter, Eva Garza Dewaelsche, Evette Griffie, Annie Holt and Jim Holley voted in support of the policy. The three which voted in opposition were Willie Burton, Darryl Brown, and William Davis.

The City Council must now discuss and vote on the issue. This will provide the public an extended opportunity to engage the administration further on the matter which has drawn significant interest.
A vote by the Commissioners was carried out prior to any public comment on this issue or other concerns raised by the audience. After the vote, members of the public who were in attendance denounced the 8-3 decision along with expressing outrage over the fact that a vote was held before community members could weigh in on the topic.

The resolution approving the utilization of the facial recognition technology says that there are safeguards within the policy which would ban its use against minors, during demonstrations and for immigration enforcement. Nevertheless, the entire concept of utilizing such technology has drawn mounting opposition.

In events leading up to the Board of Police Commissioners vote, several important developments have occurred.

Detroit-based State Representative Isaac Robinson has submitted a bill to declare a moratorium on facial recognition technology pending further investigation. In addition, newly-elected Detroit-based United States Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib has also come out in opposition to the current policy which is being considered for usage in federally-funded public housing complexes.

State Rep. Robinson said during early September that: “My bill is a five-year moratorium. Let’s have a pause so we can have a debate and discussion. We don’t need Big Brother watching our every move.”

Robinson believes that there is bipartisan support for the passage of such a bill in the State House in Lansing. By a margin of 48-10, State Rep. Robinson claims that there is majority support for the proposed moratorium. There are similar efforts underway within the State Senate as well.

The Michigan ACLU has come out solidly against the policy filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request demanding records to reveal how the technology has been used over the last two years absent of any public oversight.

Rodd Mont of the ACLU said of the current situation:

“If they’re going to use the technology, then at least be accountable to use so that we know when you’re using it, what you’re using it for, what you’re doing what you’re collecting, and what the results of that are. Facial recognition is a very capable investigative tool, but that doesn’t really address the things that result in crime. Instead of spending millions of dollars on cameras and software, we’d rather see that money invested in our neighborhoods.”

Technology Has Been In Use for At Least Two Years

What has caused so much consternation among the public is the fact that facial recognition technology has been in effect for a period of time. The people of Detroit and its elected bodies such as the City Council, state representatives and senators along with several of the appointed and elected members of the DBOPC were not informed about the existing policy.

This came to light after the release of a study by the Georgetown University Center on Privacy and Technology which exposed the widespread surveillance being undertaken and its link with the so-called “Project Green Light” program which has been in effect since 2016. The Green Light project has been encouraged by the Duggan administration as a purported mechanism to reduce criminal activity.

Businesses and other establishments have been given incentives to install “real time” cameras which feed images directly into local police stations. There is also a broader monitoring command station where video images from several areas of the city are feed into a centralized location.

The software was purchased by the Duggan administration in July 2017 with tax dollars in excess of $1 million. The Data Works Plus software emanating from Greenville, South Carolina is supposedly capable of processing over 100 real time video feeds operating from numerous areas of the city where the Green Lights cameras have been installed.

Nonetheless, it appears as if the participants in the Project Green Light program were not aware that the video feeds emanating from their locations are being manipulated by the Data Works Plus facial recognition technology. As unwitting enablers of this massive surveillance operation, the veracity of the Duggan administration and its supporters on the DBOPC is brought into further question by those who were convinced that the program was genuinely designed to enhance safety in Detroit communities.

Moreover, since the city of Detroit is overwhelmingly African American with a rising population of people of Latin American and Middle Eastern descent, the racial factors are important in assessing the social impact of facial recognition technology. The failure of the Duggan administration to adequately address the public outcry has further damaged its waning credibility which has deteriorated as a result of various scandals involving the use of federal funds for housing demolitions and other matters.

The Center on Privacy and Technology study entitled “America Under Watch: Face Surveillance in the United States”, raises the ominous racial implications of the utilization of this spying methodology.

Detroit has been a target for many years being subjected to illegal and unwarranted attacks on its right to self-determination through the imposition of emergency management and bankruptcy by the State of Michigan at the aegis of financial institutions which have ensnarled the municipality for decades in usurious credit schemes and bond issues.

“America Under Watch” says of its findings:

“The risks of face surveillance are likely to be borne disproportionately by communities of color. African Americans are simultaneously more likely to be enrolled in face recognition databases and the targets of police surveillance use. Compounding this, studies continue to show that face recognition performs differently depending on the age, gender, and race of the person being searched. This creates the risk that African Americans will disproportionately bear the harms of face recognition misidentification.”

Struggle Escalates to End Process

Many organizations have publicly denounced both Project Green Light and the Data Works Plus facial recognition technology. The chief legal advisor for the Detroit City Council has already issued a statement saying the municipal legislative body should reject the policy recommendation passed by the DBOPC.

A Detroit News article emphasized that:

“David Whitaker, director of the council’s legislative policy division staff, expressed in a Sept. 6 memo his concerns that police could abuse the software, and that white juries would be unable to render fair verdicts in trials with [B]lack defendants whose photos had been flagged by facial recognition technology.”

Detroit Police chief and Deputy Mayor James Craig immediately rejected Whitaker’s findings saying that his study was faulty even though the law-enforcement official who is an appointee of the Duggan administration has no credentials as a legal researcher. Duggan has contradicted himself on many occasions in relationship to this issue saying there was no need for public alarm and that he was also opposed to real time usage of facial recognition.

Yet it is Duggan and the political and economic interests he represents in Detroit which is behind the adoption of facial recognition technology. Consequently, it will be up to the mass organizations, progressive elected officials and legal organizations to wage the necessary struggle to eliminate the state-sanctioned usage of this spying software.

The City Council of Oakland, California has voted to ban facial recognition technology in this municipality. Other municipalities will undoubtedly follow the same pattern.

One distortion within the Georgetown University Center for Privacy and Technology report is that it references the use of facial recognition technology in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) implying that this is somehow a policy which is ostensibly alien to the U.S. In fact intelligence agencies and law-enforcement entities have engaged in massive surveillance operations against people in the U.S. and abroad for well over a century.

African American social justice organizations and their leaders have been subjected to political repression which has resulted in the destabilization, disruption and dismantling of various movements throughout history. African American, Left-wing, Labor,

Environmentalists, Immigrant Rights and other progressive groups are still the focus of hostile propaganda, selective prosecution, unjust imprisonment, deportation and assassinations at the direction of the national security state apparatus.

Therefore, this campaign to abolish facial recognition spying must acknowledge the history of this policy and the danger it poses for oppressed people. Only the social transformation of U.S. society can eliminate this threat where genuine freedom of expression and association can become a reality embedded in the legal framework of the 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.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Detroit Struggle to End Facial Recognition Spying

Yemen: US-made Bomb Used in Deadly Air Strike on Civilians

September 26th, 2019 by Amnesty International

A precision-guided munition made in the USA was used in a Saudi and Emirati-led air strike carried out on 28 June of this year, on a residential home in Ta’iz governorate, Yemen, killing six civilians – including three children, Amnesty International said today.

The laser-guided bomb, manufactured by US company Raytheon and used in the attack, is the latest evidence that the USA is supplying weapons that are being used by the Saudi and Emirati-led coalition in attacks amounting to serious violations of international humanitarian law in Yemen.

“It is unfathomable and unconscionable that the USA continues to feed the conveyor belt of arms flowing into Yemen’s devastating conflict,” said Rasha Mohamed, Amnesty International’s Yemen Researcher.

Image: US-made bomb used in deadly air strike on civilians

“Despite the slew of evidence that the Saudi and Emirati-led coalition has time and again committed serious violations of international law, including possible war crimes, the USA and other arms-supplying countries such as the UK and France remain unmoved by the pain and chaos their arms are wreaking on the civilian population.”

Amnesty International spoke to two family members and two local residents, including two witnesses to the attack. The organization also analysed satellite imagery and photo and video materials of the aftermath of the attack to corroborate the witness reports.

The organization’s arms expert analysed photos of the remnants of the weapon dug out from the site of the strike by family members and was able to use product data stencilled on the guidance fin to positively identify the bomb as a US-made 500 pound GBU-12 Paveway II.

A family ripped apart

Among the six civilians killed in the attack, which took place in Warzan village in the directorate of Khadir, were a 52-year-old woman and three children, aged 12, nine and six.

One family member told Amnesty International:

“We buried them the same day because they had turned into severed limbs. There were no corpses left to examine. The flesh of this person was mixed with that person. They were wrapped up [with blankets] and taken away.”

Image: Analysis of satellite imagery

One eyewitness told Amnesty International:

“I was around three minutes’ walk away working at a neighbouring farm. I heard the plane hovering and I saw the bomb as it dropped towards the house. I was next to the house when the second bomb fell… and I got down onto the ground.”

The closest possible military target at the time of the attack was a Huthi Operations Room on Hayel Saeed Farm – approximately 1km away. However, that stopped operating more than two years ago after being struck by several coalition air strikes in 2016 and 2017. Witnesses told Amnesty International there were no fighters or military objectives in the vicinity of the house at the time of the attack.

A second air strike occurred in the same spot approximately 15 minutes after the first, indicating that the pilot wanted to guarantee the destruction of the al-Kindi family’s house. The home was struck again five days later while family members were at the house inspecting the site. No one was injured or killed in the latter attack.

Since March 2015, Amnesty’s researchers have investigated dozens of air strikes and repeatedly found and identified remnants of US-manufactured munitions.

“This attack highlights, yet again, the dire need for a comprehensive embargo on all weapons that could be used by any of the warring parties in Yemen.” said Rasha Mohamed.

“Serious violations continue to take place under our watch, and it is as crucial as ever that investigative bodies, namely the UN-mandated Group of Eminent Experts, are fully empowered to continue documenting and reporting on these violations.

“Arms-supplying states cannot bury their heads in the sand and pretend they do not know of the risks associated with arms transfers to parties to this conflict who have been systematically violating international humanitarian law. Intentionally directing attacks against civilians or civilian objects, disproportionate attacks and indiscriminate attacks that kill or injure civilians are war crimes.

“By knowingly supplying the means by which the Saudi and Emirati-led Coalition repeatedly violates international human rights and international humanitarian law, the USA – along with the UK and France – share responsibility for these violations.”

Background

A recent report by the Group of Eminent Experts on Yemen, established by the UN Human Rights Council, concluded that the repeated patterns of air strikes carried out by the coalition raise “a serious doubt about whether the targeting process adopted by the coalition complied with [the] fundamental principles of international humanitarian law.”

The report further documents a range of serious violations and abuses by all sides to the conflict in Yemen – a conflict, which the UN states will have killed over 233,000 Yemenis by year end both as a result of the fighting and the humanitarian crisis. The UN Human Rights Council is slated to vote on the renewal of the Group of Eminent Experts today or tomorrow. Amnesty International, in coalition with other organizations, is urging states to support the Human Rights Council resolution extending and enhancing this group’s mandate.

According to the Defence Security Cooperation Agency, in 2015 the US government authorized the sale of 6,120 Paveway guided bombs to Saudi Arabia; in May 2019, President Trump bypassed Congress to authorise further sales of Paveway guided bombs to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Yemen: US-made Bomb Used in Deadly Air Strike on Civilians

Saudi Coalition Air Strikes Kill Seven Children in Yemen

September 26th, 2019 by Middle East Eye

Saudi-led coalition air strikes killed seven children in Yemen on Tuesday, a local official and doctor said.

The seven children were among 16 people killed during the air strike, as Saudi Arabia continues to pound the country already facing a humanitarian disaster.

“Sixteen people, including women and children, were killed and nine others injured” in a raid targeting a home in Daleh, a local official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

A doctor at Al Thawra hospital in nearby Ibb province, which received the bodies of those killed, told AFP that seven children and four women were among them.

The Houthi rebels condemned the coalition for its “continued aggression” against the Yemeni people.

“The aggressors do not understand the message of peace… but only messages of drones and of missile power,” said a statement carried by the rebels’ Al Masirah television.

The victims were in an apartment in Al Fakher, in the southern district of Qataba, Al- Daleh province. One of the injured children lost her entire family in the explosion. After the attack, most injured were brought to a hospital supported by Save the Children.

Save the Children, whose staff treated some of the casaulties, said one of the wounded children had lost her entire family in the explosion. The aid group called for an urgent investigation into the attack on the civilian area and said it “simply cannot accept that such an atrocity is carried out with impunity.”

“Attacks like this happen almost on a daily basis – the use of explosive weapons in populated areas is sadly all too common in the Yemen conflict… Only yesterday four children were killed in another attack in Amran that killed an entire family, including a pregnant mother,”

Tamer Kirolos, Country Director for Save the Children in Yemen, said.

“These children should not be victims of this conflict. Yet, they have paid the highest price imaginable. We’re calling for an independent investigation into the attack and for perpetrators to be held to account.”

The coalition could not be immediately reached for comment.

The raid came days after the Houthis offered to halt drone and missile attacks on Saudi Arabia as part of efforts to end Yemen’s ongoing civil war.

The group claimed responsibility for attacks on Saudi oil installations that knocked out half of Riyadh’s oil production.

The United States and Saudi Arabia, however, blamed Iran, saying the strikes were carried out with advanced cruise missiles and drones.

Britain also claimed that the Saudi oil facility attacks were not perpetrated by Houthi rebels.

Tuesday’s air strikes on Qatabah, in southern Yemen’s Daleh province, which is partly controlled by the Houthis, marked the first major attack believed to have been carried out by the coalition since the group’s offer was made.

Saudi Arabia had given a cautious response on Saturday to the Houthis’ offer to de-escalate.

“We judge other parties by their deeds, actions and not by their words, so we will see (whether) they actually do this or not,” said Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir.

“Regarding what prompted them to do this… we have to do more intensive studies,” he said at a news conference in Riyadh.

The UN Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths welcomed the rebels’ proposal, saying it could bring an end to the bloody conflict.

Its implementation “in good faith could send a powerful message of the will to end the war”, he said.

Tens of thousands of people, most of them civilians, have been killed since Saudi Arabia and its allies intervened in March 2015 in support of the beleaguered government after the rebels captured the capital Sanaa.

The fighting has left 24.1 million – more than two-thirds of the population – in need of aid.

The United Nations has described Yemen as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Saudi Coalition Air Strikes Kill Seven Children in Yemen

Ankle Deep in Britain’s Dirty Politics. Brutal Verbal Exchange in House of Commons

September 26th, 2019 by Hans Stehling

‘Bully, mobster, yob, ruffian, criminal, roughneck, gangster, hoodlum ..’

Just some of the adjectives used to describe each of the current leaders in both London and Washington.

In an unprecedented and brutal verbal exchange, politicians in the House of Commons yesterday exhibited some of the worst behaviour ever seen in the chamber of one of the oldest legislative assemblies in the world.

In Washington, initial steps have yesterday been taken to institute impeachment proceedings against an elected leader alleged to have been involved in criminal, political machinations with a foreign state in order to prejudice the eventual result of the next US presidential election.

Whereas in recent modern times, we have taken for granted the integrity and propriety of our elected leaders in both London and Washington, (and Tel Aviv), we now find ourselves ankle deep in political excrement that threatens the entire democratic governance of the Western world.

Illegal behaviour, bribery, corruption, greed and dishonesty will lead inevitably to violence and eventually to killings. In Israel, investigations have been continuing for some time and indictments are expected. In Britain and the United States, enquiries of alleged criminality have now commenced.

These are extraordinary and febrile times for Western democracies which have seen a dramatic and sudden deterioration in the conduct of elected politicians to the extent that the very fabric of civilised behaviour and political integrity has been torn and shredded.

The overall position is exacerbated by the fact that the leaders of all three claimed Western democracies are men who control deadly nuclear arsenals that could wipe out civilisation, at a stroke. Perhaps we should all reflect on that fact because unless there is an immediate paradigm shift to remove all three current leaders then any one of them could cause a global nuclear conflagration that could decimate and contaminate our cities for hundreds of years.

These are times that are unprecedented in the history of human existence for mankind has never before faced such extraordinary and terrible threats. There needs to be coordinated action by all three electorates representing over 400 million people whose livelihoods and very lives, and the lives of our children, are now endangered by political leaders intent on seeking and maintaining power for themselves and their families, at any cost. They must all be removed and replaced through democratic action.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ankle Deep in Britain’s Dirty Politics. Brutal Verbal Exchange in House of Commons

Dr. Gottschalk’s “World War II Heat Bump”: Did the War Contribute to Air Pollution and Global Warming?

September 25th, 2019 by Ian Baldwin

On January 19, 2017 a New York Times front-page story, “For Third Year, the Earth in 2016 Set Heat Record,” featured a complex NOAA chart showing multiple global temperature readings taken from 1880 to 2016.

Studying the front-page chart, Harvard physicist Dr. Bernard Gottschalk noticed an intriguing anomaly, a brief but suggestive ‘bump’ in temperatures that coincided with WW2 (1939-1945).

Relative to the big sweeping curve of climbing temperatures over the prior hundred years, the bump was not particularly noticeable, at least to the average person.

 

But it was noticeable to Gottschalk’s expert eye. He decided to see whether or not the WW2 temperature bump was a robust feature of the NOAA data. He applied what statisticians call ‘curve fitting’ techniques and ‘parametric analysis’ to eliminate the scatter in the data and discern the forest from the trees. He submitted his results to Cornell University’s online archive [Type here] 2 of scientific pre-publication articles in March 2017. Here is what Gottschalk’s curve-fitted ‘bump’ looks like.

Gottschalk showed the rise-and-fall behaviors common to eight of the NOAA data-set measurements, four land-based and four ocean-based, during WW2.

Of the possible explanations for the WW2 heat bump, Gottschalk concluded the “simplest and most likely” one was that it was “a consequence of human activity.” [1]

The following year, in 2018, a colleague showed Gottschalk’s online paper to geoscientist J Marvin Herndon. Herndon was immediately struck by the WW2 heat bump. If CO2 had caused the sudden rise in temperatures in 1939, their abrupt fall in late 1945 and 1946 could not have happened, because CO2 has a very long residence time in the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere, CO2 and its presumed heat effects don’t suddenly disappear.

Moreover, ice core data showed “no significant increase in CO2 during the war years 1939– 1945.” [2] What then could have ramped up the heat in 1939-40 and subsequently caused it to plummet in 1946, after the war had ended?

Gottschalk’s WW2 temperature bump was a provocative anomaly in the 136-year global heat record, especially given the ‘consensus’ that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause of global warming.

Herndon surmised that unlike greenhouse gases, air pollution particles have a short residence time in the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, time measured in days and weeks. If war-related particulate air pollution had caused the heat bump, then Earth’s surface temperatures could be expected to fall abruptly with the cessation of global hostilities. As in fact happened.

Herndon decided “to consider the broader activities of WW2,” especially the role of particulate matter that might act to alter Earth’s delicate energy balance. Particulate air pollution is comprised of small, including microscopically small, solid or liquid particles light enough to float in air. Aerosols are particulates that are immersed in a gas or liquid and are produced by fires, fossil fuel use, agriculture, industry, mining, marine-aviation-and-vehicular transport (especially diesel), unpaved roads, construction and demolition, among other human activities, all producing dust (vehicular road traffic), fly ash (coal), soot (coal and diesel), smoke (forest fires), and fumes (mining and metallurgy).

Relative to earlier years, WW2 produced significantly more amounts of particulate aerosols.

“A great spike in wartime air pollution inevitably occurred from maximized industrial production,” Herndon wrote in his first of six papers on the role of particulate pollution in global warming, “from smoke and coal fly ash spewing out of smokestacks of industries, utilities, and locomotive engines, from greatly increased marine and aeronautical transport, and from extensive military activities that polluted the air with aircraft, ship, and vehicle exhaust and with the consequences of vast numbers of munition detonations.” [3]

Early in the war the Allies, possessing superior airpower and led by Great Britain’s Royal Air Force (RAF), developed the practice of ‘area bombing’—to an extent already carried out by Japan in China, and by Germany in Poland—that deliberately targeted civilian and non-military zones for wholesale demolition. [4] In early March 1945, to take but one notable example, [Type here] 4 hundreds of US B-29 Superfortress bombers dropped 1,700 tons of incendiary explosives over Tokyo, creating a firestorm that burned for days, incinerating 16 square miles and killing as many as 100,000 humans, all in one blow. The near-total instantaneous destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki five months later ended the war in the Pacific. By war’s end in 1945, the Allied Forces had dropped over 2.7 million tons of bombs in Europe alone, creating maelstroms of smoke, debris, dust, and soot, with fires that could rage for days.

Coal was still the world’s primary energy source during WW2, essential to iron and steel production, electricity generation, and rail transport, among other uses fundamental to the conduct of the war. The United States, the Allies’ industrial workhorse, consumed 12.5 quadrillion Btu of coal in 1940. By 1945 US coal consumption had grown to 16 quadrillion Btu. By 1949 US coal consumption had plummeted 25 percent to 12 quadrillion Btu—less than was consumed at the war’s outset. [5]

Herndon noted that “the aerosolized particulates settled to the ground after the war, Earth radiated its excess trapped energy, and global warming abruptly subsided. But only for a brief time, as particulate pollution began to rise again from ramped-up post-WW2 industrial growth, initially in Europe and Japan, and later in China, India, and the rest of Asia, dramatically increasing worldwide aerosol particulate pollution.” [6] Global warming soon resumed its steeply rising course.

Lacking “reliable, historical, global aerosol-particulate data” to measure the growth of particulate pollution during WW2, Herndon decided to use proxies “to demonstrate the reasonableness of the proposition that increases in aerosolized particulates over time is principally responsible for the global warming increase.” [7] To Gottschalk’s figure (see Figure 3 above) he added three “relative-value” proxy curves illustrating three major industrial sources of air pollution: global coal and oil production, and global aviation fuel consumption. When burned, these fuels emit both gases and aerosol particulates.

With Herndon’s first peer-reviewed paper on the subject published in September 2018, Gottschalk’s WW2 heat bump due to “human activity” launched a serious scientific case for particulate pollution as the primary, unheralded anthropogenic cause of global warming.

The question that needed to be answered was: How do particulate aerosols alter Earth’s delicate thermal balance? How do they heat the planet?

To maintain its thermal balance, “Earth must return to space virtually all the energy it receives from the sun as well as the energy it produces internally.” [8] The two most important ways Earth thermoregulates are via convection, the “mass-transport of energy” in the lower atmosphere or troposphere, and via infrared radiation from Earth’s surface. According to Herndon, the climate science community focuses almost exclusively on the role of radiation transport, and generally “fails to understand the significant role atmospheric convection plays” in the removal of heat from Earth’s surface. [9]

The troposphere is the lowest region of Earth’s atmosphere, the region where the air mixes and roils, where 99 percent of Earth’s water vapor is, and where the weather happens. It is also the region where convection—the uptake of Earth’s surface heat—occurs.

Convection is a natural, ongoing, and constant process whereby the heat from Earth’s surface is transported to the upper troposphere, and from there eventually back into space. It is driven by the temperature difference between the upper and lower surface layers of air in the troposphere. (The Greek tropo means turning or changing.) Hotter, lighter surface air rises and colder, denser air falls, driving the atmosphere’s turbulence, which allows heat to escape. This difference in temperatures between layers causes the natural disturbance that is the troposphere’s signature characteristic, its continually changing movement of air, moisture, and weather.

Convection’s efficiency depends on what scientists call the ‘adverse temperature gradient’, meaning the amount or degree of difference between Earth’s surface atmospheric temperature and its upper troposphere temperature. The less difference, the less adverse temperature gradient. The less adverse temperature gradient, the less efficient the removal of Earth’s surface heat by convection.

To show how convection works, Herndon described a simple classroom-demonstration experiment in which he used “a 4 liter beaked-beaker, nearly filled with distilled water, and heated on a regulated hot plate.” As an indicator of convection, celery seeds were added to be “dragged along by convective motions in the water.” Due to the constantly maintained temperature difference between the heated bottom and the cooler top of the beaker, with heat venting out the top, a constant, regular circulation of the fluid was established, signaled by the movement of the seeds. “When stable convection was obtained a ceramic tile was placed atop the beaker to retard heat loss, thereby increasing the temperature at the top relative to that at the bottom, thus decreasing the adverse temperature gradient.” [10]

The whole process was videotaped. [11]

The video shows a dramatic reduction in convection when the lid is placed on top of the beaker, with a “markedly” rapid decrease in the movement of the beaker’s celery seeds, “demonstrating the principle that reducing the adverse temperature gradient decreases convection” and warms the planet. In other words, don’t place an aerosols-pollution ‘lid’ on the open tropospheric air beaker if you want Earth to thermoregulate properly. There is a common misunderstanding, both among climate scientists and the press covering future geoengineering schemes, that air particulate pollution acts to shut out sunlight and cool the atmosphere. This does in fact happen when particulates are placed deep in the stratosphere—high above the troposphere, which itself only extends to about 10 km or 6-7 miles above sea level. We have seen the example of the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption, when the Philippine volcano “ejected 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide…more than 1 cubic mile of material that rose in an ash cloud 22 miles into the air” deep inside the stratosphere “and caused global temperatures to drop from 1991 to 1993 by about 1º F (0.5º C).” [12].

But air particulate pollution is primarily a tropospheric phenomenon, not a stratospheric one.

Indian scientists, measuring the heating rates of the lower atmosphere over the Indian Ocean, found that the “atmospheric heating rate…due to aerosol over the tropical Indian Ocean was many times larger than that due to CO2.”[14] Coal fly ash is a known efficient radiation absorber, prominently due to its components of iron, iron oxides such as hematite and magnetite, carbon and carbon black, as well as other elements (e.g., aluminum, magnesium). India is heavily dependent on coal and mortally dependent on its monsoon. Recently Indian researchers used state-of-the-art instruments to measure the effects of pollution particulates such as black carbon on the movement of the monsoon. They discovered a “higher amount” of black carbon particulates that “can disturb the normal upward movement of moist air” because they heat the atmosphere and reduce convection. [15]

The adverse thermal gradient directly affects the lives of billions of human beings. And not only in Asia, but the whole world.

“The one generalization that can now be made,” Herndon asserts in his sixth and most recently published paper, “is that virtually all tropospheric aerosol particulates, including cloud droplets and their aerosol components, absorb short- and long-wave solar radiation, and absorb longwave radiation from Earth’s surface.” [16]

When millions of tons of heat-absorbing particulate pollution in the form of soot, dust, smoke, and coal fly ash are deposited in the troposphere they heat the surrounding air masses and, acting as a lid on the atmospheric ‘beaker’, they directly lower the adverse temperature gradient between Earth’s surface and the troposphere’s upper layer. Such interference directly reduces atmospheric convection and allows incident solar radiation to build up and warm the planet.

Herndon concludes: “The lowering of the adverse temperature gradient in the lower atmosphere is the primary way global particulate pollution causes global warming.” [17]

The Geoengineering Stakes

Over the last two decades geoengineering has been much discussed and hyped as a possible anthropogenic antidote to human-caused CO2 global warming. The two have been coupled as a single problem/solution conundrum in the minds of scientific and political elites at least since the National Academy of Sciences’ massive 1992 report Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming. [18] The ‘the Pinatubo option’ of ameliorating CO2-caused heat by spraying millions of tons of sulfur dioxide or aluminum nanoparticulates into the stratosphere, what geoengineers call ‘stratospheric radiation management’, is their currently favored solution to the problem of global warming. [19] And political elites are peering over the engineers’ shoulders with close attention to the political intricacies of eventual implementation. [20]

The problems with this ‘solution’ are manifold and obvious, yet underappreciated. The problem posed, for instance, by aerosolized pollution nanoparticulates to the stratospheric ozone layer, which shields the entire biosphere from ultraviolet radiation, though mentioned, is rarely stressed. Even in the dry stratosphere, which is far less turbulent than the moisture-laden troposphere, gravity operates. Particulates precipitate out, falling first into the troposphere where the weather occurs in form of rain and drought (among other events), and from the troposphere onto agricultural fields and gardens, into reservoirs and lakes, into the ocean, and into vertebrate lungs.

Even though the residence time of particulates in the stratosphere is measured in years (one, two, or three), not days and weeks, to keep ‘managing’ incoming solar radiance the stratospheric pollutant shield will have to be continuously renewed, and aerosols more or less constantly sprayed, at least for decades, and possibly longer. [21]

Leaving the long-term effects on local, regional, and global weather systems aside, once in the troposphere aerosols have mortal effects. Indeed, humanity and all other living beings would have to adapt to unprecedented levels of invisible aerosol pollution whose health effects are known [22] but grossly underappreciated. Last October the head of WHO warned that “the simple act of breathing is killing 7 million people a year and harming billions more.” He added that “air pollution now causes more deaths annually than tobacco,” and that “over 90% of the world’s population suffers toxic air…with profound impacts on the health of people, especially children.” [23].

There is, as readers of Herndon’s [24] or my work [25] know, another form of geoengineering. It takes place in the lower atmosphere, and constitutes a different, covert kind of enterprise, conducted by the military and its subcontractors, whose purpose can only be speculated upon.

What can no longer be denied, however, is that deep state tropospheric geoengineering’s principal and most significant result is to warm the planet.

In the early post-WW2 years John von Neumann, one the last century’s most influential scientists and mathematicians, claimed that “using computer-generated predictions…weather and climate systems ‘could be controlled, or at least directed, by the releases of perfectly practical amounts of energy’.” [26] Humans now possess those ‘perfectly practical amounts of energy’ in the form of globally dispersed ionospheric heaters and electrically conducting aerosols.

Toward the end of his life, von Neumann pronounced: “All stable processes we shall predict. All unstable processes we shall control.” [27]

Von Neumann spoke for a community whose power has grown steadily over the last 60 years, the community Eisenhower warned of in his Farewell Address. The weather and the climate are preeminent examples of ‘unstable processes’ whose complexities, though huge, do not appear to daunt von Neumann’s scientific and military heirs.

Meanwhile, our civilization is profoundly dependent on fossil-fuel energy. Virtually all official sources indicate that we will remain heavily dependent on fossil fuels for at least another generation. Given our dependency, there are two reasons for optimism.

One, it is technically more feasible to reduce particulate air pollution than to reduce carbon dioxide.

Two, if the NOAA WW2 temperature data as interpreted by Gottschalk and by Herndon is correct, then reducing particulate emissions will have an immediate beneficial effect on global warming.

Ian Baldwin is an environmentalist and co-founder of Chelsea Green Publishing Company in Vermont. He has written on geoengineering issues  under the rubric “Our Geoengineering Age” at www.vermontindependent.net.”

Notes: 

[1] Bernard Gottschalk, “Global surface temperatures trends and the effect of World War II: a parametric analysis (long version),” arXiv, March 19, 2017; expanded October 15, 2018. http://arxiv-export-lb.library.cornell.edu/pdf/1703.09281. Accessed Sep 06, 2019.

[2] J Marvin Herndon & Mark Whiteside, “Further Evidence that Particulate Pollution is the Principal Cause of Global Warming: Humanitarian Considerations,” Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, 21 (1), May 08, 2019. http://www.journaljgeesi.com/index.php/JGEESI/article/view/30117. Accessed Sep 06, 2019.

[3] J Marvin Herndon, “Air Pollution, Not Greenhouse Gases: The Principal Cause of Global Warming,” Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, 17 (2), September 22, 2018. http://www.journaljgeesi.com/index.php/JGEESI/article/view/11231. Accessed Sep 06, 2019.

[4] Richard Overy, The Bombing War: Europe 1939–1945 (London: Penguin, 2014).

[5] “History of Energy Consumption in the United States, 1775–2009,” US Energy Information Administration, February 09, 2011. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10. Accessed Sep 06, 2019.

[6] J Marvin Herndon “Role of Atmospheric Convection in Global Warming,” Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, 19 (4), March 13, 2019. http://www.journaljgeesi.com/index.php/JGEESI/article/view/30091. Accessed Sep 06, 2019.

[7] Herndon, “Air Pollution, Not Greenhouse Gases…,” Op. Cit.

[8] J Marvin Herndon, “Fundamental Climate Science Error: Concomitant Harm to Humanity and the Environment,” Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, 18 (3), December 28, 2018. http://journaljgeesi.com/index.php/JGEESI/article/view/28790. Accessed Sep 06, 2019.

[9] Herndon, “Further Evidence…”, Op. Cit.

[10] Ibid. [Type here] 10

[11] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFD6VoL3F_s&feature=youtu.be.

[12] Herndon, “Further Evidence…”, Op. Cit.

[13] Ian Baldwin, “Origins of the ‘Climate Change’ Threat to National Security—and the Geoengineering Response,” vermontindependent.net, June 13, 2017. https://vermontindependent.net/origins-of-the-climate-change-threat-to-national-securityand-the-geoengineering-response-our-geoengineering-age-part-6/. Accessed Sep 06, 2019.

[14] M V Ramana et al, “Albedo, atmospheric solar absorption and heating rate measurements with stacked UAVs,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 133 (629), September 18, 2007. https://www.academia.edu/25247234/Albedo_atmospheric_solar_absorption_and_heating_ra te_measurements_with_stacked_UAVs. Accessed Sep 06, 2019.

[15] Shamitaksha Talukdar et al, “Influence of Black Carbon Aerosol on the Atmospheric Instability,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124 (10), April 29,2019. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JD029611. Accessed Sep 06, 2019.

[16] J Marvin Herndon, “Geophysical Consequences of Tropospheric Particulate Heating: Further Evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is Principally Caused by Particulate Pollution,” Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, 22 (4), August 19, 2019. http://journaljgeesi.com/index.php/JGEESI/article/view/30157. Accessed Sep 06, 2019.

[17] Herndon, “Role of Atmospheric Convection…”, Op. Cit.

[18] Baldwin, Op. Cit.

[19] Douglas G MacMartin, Katharine L Ricke & David W Keith, “Solar Geoengineering as Part of an Overall Strategy for Meeting the 1.5 Degrees Celsius Paris Target,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, April 02, 2018. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsta.2016.0454. Accessed Sep 07, 2019.

[20] Oliver Geden & Susanne Dröge, “The Anticipatory Governance of Solar Radiation Management,” Council on Foreign Relations, July 02, 2019. https://www.cfr.org/report/anticipatory-governance-solar-radiation-management. Accessed Sep 07, 2019.

[21] David Keith, A Case for Climate Engineering (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2013). [Type here] 11

[22] Mark Whiteside & J Marvin Herndon, “Geoengineering: The Deadly New Global ‘Miasma’,” Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research, 29 (12), June 20, 2019. http://www.journaljammr.com/index.php/JAMMR/article/view/30151. Accessed Sep 06, 2019.

[23] Damian Carrington & Matthew Taylor “Air pollution is the ‘new tobacco’, warns WHO head,” The Guardian, October 27, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/27/air-pollution-is-the-new-tobaccowarns-who-head. Accessed Sep 06, 2019.

[24] http://nuclearplanet.com/Geoengineering_Science_Articles.html.

[25] https://vermontindependent.net/geoengineering-for-real-the-latest-research-revealed/.

[26] James R Fleming “The Climate Engineers,” The Wilson Quarterly, Spring 2007. http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/essays/climate-engineers. Accessed Sep 06, 2019.

[27] Ibid.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dr. Gottschalk’s “World War II Heat Bump”: Did the War Contribute to Air Pollution and Global Warming?

A Future Labour Government Would Provide Generic Drugs for the NHS Through New State-owned Company. Jeremy Corbyn

September 25th, 2019 by Hans Stehling

Jeremy Corbyn announced yesterday at the 2019 Labour Party conference that a future Labour government would set up a British national drug company to manufacture generic and other drugs at a much lower cost than at present thereby avoiding the burden of import tariffs and the substantial contribution to the profits of overseas manufacturers.

Furthermore, a Labour government would seek to override the patents of drug companies deemed to be overcharging patients. One specific drug, for example, for cystic-fibrosis, is officially listed at a price of more than £100,000 per year per patient.

The other strand of the Labour policy would ensure taxpayers benefited from new pharmaceutical drugs developed by larger companies in collaboration with public research bodies. Currently, Britain’s National Health Service spends billions of pounds every year on generic drugs and pharmaceuticals manufactured by foreign companies such as TEVA Pharmaceutical Industries, a multinational pharmaceutical company headquartered in Israel. (**)

Tens of thousands of patients suffering from illnesses such as breast and other cancers, cystic fibrosis and hepatitis C “are being denied life-saving medicines by a system that puts profits for shareholders before people’s lives”,  Jeremy Corbyn said. Last night, patient groups welcomed the announcement.

According to the BBC, ‘Latest figures show annual research-and-development spending by pharmaceutical companies is £4.3bn, while public-funded bodies spend £2.4bn and medical research charities £1.3bn.’

Labour quotes the example of Humira (used to treat arthritis and some other conditions), which is said to be the best selling prescription drug in the world but which was based on government-funded research in a Cambridge laboratory.   The Party says if private corporations take forward these drug discoveries, they should make them available to the NHS at lower prices and ensure there is a financial return for the public sector investment’.

Note

** Legal issues: TEVA Pharmaceutical.  (Wikipedia)

In December 2016, the attorneys general of 20 states filed a civil complaint accusing Teva Pharmaceutical of a coordinated scheme to artificially maintain high prices for a generic antibiotic and diabetes drug. The complaint alleged price collusion schemes between six pharmaceutical firms including informal gatherings, telephone calls, and text messages. 

In May 2019 Teva Pharmaceuticals USA was one of 19 drug companies sued for price fixing in the United States by 44 states for inflating its prices, sometimes up to 1000%, in an illegal agreement among it and its competitors.

In May 2019, Teva Pharmaceuticals agreed to pay $85 million to the U.S. state of Oklahoma to settle an opioid over prescription lawsuit.

In July 2019, Teva had to pay $69 million to settle pay-for-delay claims.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Future Labour Government Would Provide Generic Drugs for the NHS Through New State-owned Company. Jeremy Corbyn

Why Doesn’t India Follow China’s Iranian Oil Policy?

September 25th, 2019 by Paul Antonopoulos

Iran’s ambassador to India claimed that the U.S. urges New Delhi to suspend its Iranian oil purchases, worth about $5 billion a year, through the threat of sanctions. The Iranian ambassador also called for India to become more active in its implementation of the Chabahar project which could rival the nearby Chinese-controlled Gwadar port in Pakistan.

India consumes about 3 million barrels of oil every day and Iran is one of the closest major oil producing countries to it. With the two countries having significant cultural, economic and political exchanges for thousands of years, will the U.S. be successful in downgrading their relations? Indian-Chinese relations are facing some challenges over differences because of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). New Delhi believes the BRI encroaches on its sphere of influence. India has been significantly warming their relations with Washington and therefore it is unlikely New Delhi will follow China’s Iranian oil policy of ignoring U.S. threats of sanctions.

With China and the U.S. engaged in a destructive trade war initiated by President Donald Trump, it is unlikely India is willing to face Washington’s so-called punishments for buying oil from Iran. China is becoming increasingly closer to Pakistan as the South Asian country has become a linchpin of the BRI with hundreds of billions of dollars invested into Pakistan’s infrastructure and economy.

India has close links with Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia who now exports much of its oil to the country. India also has infrastructural plans with Arab countries, including the important Oman to Mumbai pipeline and another pipeline for India to provide Arab countries with drinking water. Therefore, despite the thousands of years of relations, in the Indian view, New Delhi has no necessity today to be under economic attack from the U.S. over Iranian oil when it is easily replaced by nearby Arab countries.

However, this does not mean that Iran is useless to India. As India has hostile relations with Pakistan, and are less than amicable with China, its only access to markets in Central Asia is through the Iranian Chabahar port. It is unlikely that the U.S. will attempt to persuade India from using this port as it has no other means to reach Central Asia. Therefore, it is likely that middle and small-scale operations and trade between India and Iran will continue, but major imports and exports will be discouraged and resisted by Washington.

When considering the millenia-old civilizational connection between India and Iran, it would be in the interest of New Delhi to maintain positive ties with Tehran. This includes purchasing its oil and pursue its country’s destiny without the interference of Great Powers. With New Delhi submitting to Washington’s demands, it suggests that India has a long way to go before it achieves Great Power status like the U.S., Russia and China, all of whom can pursue their own state destinies and have enough economic and military might to defend their interests.

With Russia challenging Washington’s hegemonic designs over the Middle East by successfully defending Syria from U.S.-backed terrorism, and China rolling out the BRI across the globe, including in the U.S.’ Latin American backyard, they have proven they are capable of defending their interests against the U.S.’ unilateralism.

Lidil Powell, head of the energy group at the Observer Research Foundation, a think-tank based in Delhi, explained that India can legally resume oil imports from Iran as it would adhere to the United Nations. However, because India lacks global power like China, it does not have the capacity to challenge Washington, and therefore cannot pursue China’s policy of ignoring U.S. demands against Iran.

Hindu-chauvinism against Islam is on the rise in India, which has correlated with Israel growing popularity in Israel. T while India receives financial incentives from Saudi Arabia like discounted oil to replace Iranian oil.

Although India does not have the capacity just yet to act as a Great Power to serve its interests primarily, it has significant experience in balancing relations between rivals. During the Cold War, New Delhi was able to balance its relations with the U.S. and Soviet Union and appears to be doing so now between Washington and Tehran, and Washington and Moscow. New Delhi maintains positive diplomatic relations with both Russia and Iran, despite pressures from Washington and making some economic concessions in the name of balance.

In the case of its relations with China, India is motivated by its self-interests that also happens to align with the U.S.’ plans to limit Chinese and Russian influence in the Indo-Pacific region as outlined in the Pentagon’s Indo-Pacific Strategy. Despite India and China having frosty relations, the Indians are pursuing the same policy of balancing its relations with the U.S. and their other rivals. In this manner, New Delhi is likely to benefit from rival regional and international powers based on their own national interests and will continue to balance their foreign relations at all levels.

Paul Antonopoulos, director of the Multipolarity research centre

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Doesn’t India Follow China’s Iranian Oil Policy?

US Supported “Rebels” Fired Live Rounds at Syrian Families in Rukban Concentration Camp

September 25th, 2019 by Syria News

Syrian families held captive by Trump Regime Forces and their ISIS affiliates of Maghaweer Thawra terrorists at al-Rukban Concentration Camp went out of their tents in the high heat of the desert to protest for food the day before yesterday, 11th of September, they were faced with live bullets by the US occupation forces.

Russian Coordination Center called on the US occupation forces in Rukban Concentration Camp to exert pressure on US-sponsored Maghaweer Thawra terrorists to stop their terrorist acts against the displaced Syrians held in the camp, these terrorist acts have exacerbated the already dire humanitarian situation of the families there.

A statement by the head of the Russian Coordination Center Major General Alexei Bakin stated: ‘We urge the US command in Al-Tanf area to exert pressure on the terrorist groups under its influence to secure the safety of the refugees at Rukban, and to distribute evenly the humanitarian aid, and to arrange for the swift evacuation of the displaced who are still in the camp.’

The Russian military official pointed out that ‘the Syrian state in cooperation with Russia and the United Nations continue to make every effort to resolve the humanitarian crisis in the camp Rukban, which is witnessing a situation is greatly complicated by the practices of terrorist groups supported by the US occupation forces.’

Major General Bakin added: ‘according to information received from the residents of Rukban camp, these terrorist groups forcibly seized a large part of the humanitarian aid that was delivered to the camp in the previous days by the representatives of the United Nations and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent.’

 

The terrorists have stolen the aid and stored it in one of its headquarters in Al-Tanf area.

The Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) in cooperation with the United Nations on the eighth of this month, managed to deliver a humanitarian convoy to the US-IS styled Rukban Concentration Camp. The camp is located in Al-Tanf area at the farthest southeast of Syria deep in the desert. The aid consisted of 22 trucks loaded with food relief materials including 3,100 food baskets, 3,100 bags of flour of 50 kg each, high-energy of dates biscuits and peanut butter.

Syria has constantly condemned and called on the United Nations to pressure the US occupying forces in Syria to leave the country voluntarily where it is acting as a destabilizing force violating Syria’s sovereignty establishing camps within Syrian territories against international law, against the UN charter which the US should honor and protect being a permanent member of the UNSC not to be the one breaching it. The Syrian state has relentlessly and repeatedly called on the US forces to free the civilians in the concentration camps of Rukban and Al-Houl it runs in southeast and northeast of the country respectively.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Supported “Rebels” Fired Live Rounds at Syrian Families in Rukban Concentration Camp

The Global Climate Movement is Failing: Why?

September 25th, 2019 by Robert J. Burrowes

It has been satisfying to note the significant response to two recent climate campaigns: the actions, including the recent Global Climate Strike, initiated by school students inspired by Greta Thunberg and the climate actions organized by Extinction Rebellion.

While delighted that these campaigns have finally managed to mobilize significant numbers of people around the existential threat the climate catastrophe poses to life on Earth, I would like to briefly raise some issues for consideration by each of those involved in the climate movement as well as those considering involvement.

I do this because history provides clearcut and compelling lessons on how to make such movements have the impact we need and, so far, the climate movement is not doing several vital things if we are to indeed be successful. And I would like to be successful.

So here are five key issues that I would address as soon as possible.

1. Analyze the climate catastrophe within the context of the ongoing and broader environmental disaster that is currently taking place.

2. Analyze the climate catastrophe and environmental disaster to better understand the political, economic and social systems and structures, as well as the individual behaviours, that are driving them.

3. Based on these analyses, reorient the movement’s strategic focus: that is, who and what is the movement trying to change?

4. And then identify the nature of the behavioural changes we are asking of people and their organizations, and how these will be achieved.

5. In what timeframe?

Let me briefly elaborate why I believe these issues are so important.

1. Earth’s biosphere is under siege, not just the climate.

There is no point mobilizing action to halt ongoing destruction of the climate while paying insufficient attention to the vast range of other threats to key ecosystems that make life on Earth possible. I understand that most movements, whether concerned with peace, the environment or social justice, for example, tend to confine their concern to one issue. Unfortunately, however, we no longer have the luxury of doing that given the multifaceted existential threats to life on Earth.

The biosphere is under siege on many fronts with military violence, radioactive contamination (from nuclear weapons testing, nuclear waste from power plants including Fukushima and Chernobyl, depleted uranium weapons…), destruction of the rainforests and oceans, contamination and depletion of Earth’s fresh water supply, geoengineering, 5G and many other assaults inflicting ongoing and uncontained damage on Earth and its species. See, for example, ‘5G and the Wireless Revolution: When Progress Becomes a Death Sentence’.

This has critical implications for the strategic goals we set ourselves in our struggle to save not only the climate but the many vital ecosystems of Earth’s biosphere. In short, if we ‘save the climate’ but rainforests are destroyed or nuclear war takes place, then saving the climate will have been a pyrrhic victory.

2. Politicians are a ‘sideshow’ with negligible power.

Hence, it is a waste of time lobbying them to do such things as ‘declare a climate emergency’, ‘phase out all fossil fuel extraction and transform our economy to 100% renewable energy by 2030’, ‘recognize indigenous sovereignty’ and ‘implement a Green New Deal’.

The global elite, which is insane, is ‘running the show’, including the key political, economic, military and social structures and the bulk of the politicians we supposedly elect. This means that the global elite holds the levers of power over the world capitalist system, national military forces and the major international political and economic organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. For brief explanations of this, with references to many more elaborate accounts, see the section headed ‘How the World Works: A Brief History’ in ‘Why Activists Fail’, as well as ‘Exposing the Giants: The Global Power Elite’ and ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

But separately from the role of the global elite in managing the major political, economic and social systems and structures in order to extract maximum corporate profit, individual behaviours, particularly the consumption patterns of people in industrialized countries, are also driving the destruction of Earth’s biosphere. Why? Because our parenting and teaching models are extraordinarily violent and leave the typical human living in an unconsciously terrified, self-hating and powerless state and addicted to using consumption as a key means to suppress awareness of how they feel. See ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’ and ‘Do We Want School or Education?’ and, for more detail, ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

3 & 4. If we understand the above two points, we can reorient our efforts.

This means that instead of powerlessly lobbying politicians, we can change our strategic focus to maximize our strategic impact. So, on the one hand for example, we can tackle corporations profiting from the manufacture, sale and use of military weapons, the extraction and sale of fossil fuels or the manufacture and sale of the poison glyphosate (‘Roundup’), by designing and implementing thoughtful strategies of nonviolent action to end their manufacture and sale of these life-destroying products. For comprehensive guidance on campaigning strategically, see Nonviolent Campaign Strategy. For a list of the strategic goals necessary to effectively tackle the climate catastrophe or end war, for example, see ‘Strategic Aims’. And for a brief explanation of how to make a nonviolent action have maximum impact, see ‘Nonviolent Action: Why and How it Works’.

On the other hand, we can encourage responsible and systematic reductions of consumption in all key areas – water, household energy, transport fuels, metals, meat, paper and plastic – while dramatically expanding individual and community self-reliance in 16 areas in industrialized countries as outlined in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’. Or, more simply, we can encourage people to make the Earth Pledge (below).

Once enough people commit to one or the other of these two approaches (to substantially reduce consumption and increase local self-reliance), then three vital outcomes will be achieved:

1. it will progressively reduce resource extraction from, and pollution of, Earth’s biosphere,

2. it will functionally undermine capitalism and the ongoing industrialization process, and

3. it will remove the fundamental driver of the global elite’s perpetual war: our collective demand for the goods and services made available by the elite’s theft of resources from countries they invade and exploit on our behalf.

I am well aware of the captivating power of turning up in a shared space with a vast bunch of other people  with whom we agree. Unfortunately, while it might be a lot of fun, it is usually a waste of time strategically. Even the largest worldwide mobilization in human history (against the imminent US-led war on Iraq) on 15 February 2003, in which 30,000,000 people participated in more than 600 cities around the world, was ineffective. See ‘Why Activists Fail’.

Of course, if you still want a large public action, then you need to make sure the gathering has strategic focus. For example, instead of using it to powerlessly beg politicians to fix things for us, make it an occasion where participants can publicly commit to taking powerful action themselves by signing the Earth Pledge.

The Earth Pledge

Out of love for the Earth and all of its creatures, and my respect for their needs, from this day onwards I pledge that:

1. I will listen deeply to children (see explanation above)

2. I will not travel by plane

3. I will not travel by car

4. I will not eat meat and fish

5. I will only eat organically/biodynamically grown food

6. I will minimize the amount of fresh water I use, including by minimizing my ownership and use of electronic devices

7. I will not buy rainforest timber

8. I will not buy or use single-use plastic, such as bags, bottles, containers, cups and straws

9. I will not use banks, superannuation (pension) funds or insurance companies that provide any service to corporations involved in fossil fuels, nuclear power and/or weapons

10. I will not accept employment from, or invest in, any organization that supports or participates in the exploitation of fellow human beings or profits from killing and/or destruction of the biosphere

11. I will not get news from the corporate media (mainstream newspapers, television, radio, Google, Facebook, Twitter…)

12. I will make the effort to learn a skill, such as food gardening or sewing, that makes me more self-reliant

13. I will gently encourage my family and friends to consider signing this pledge.

To reiterate: It is delusional to believe that we can sustain the existing levels of consumption and preserve Earth’s biosphere. Because, in the end, it is our over-consumption that is driving the destruction. As an aside, this is also why the various Green New Deal proposals being put forward are misconceived: each of the versions that I have checked is essentially a wish-list of desirable changes ‘demanded’ of governments while missing the fundamental point that if people still want to fly, drive, eat meat and fish, or food that is poisoned, use electronic devices…, they are paying the elite to maintain existing structures of violence and exploitation, to continue killing people (to steal their resources) and to destroy the biosphere. And this, of course, means that we are directly complicit in the violence, exploitation and destruction. After all, why should the elite listen to our demands for change when we spend our money supporting their existing profit-maximizing, people-killing and biosphere-destroying behaviours?

If this all seems too challenging, then I invite you to consider doing the emotional healing necessary so that you can act powerfully in response to this crisis. See ‘Putting Feelings First’. If you want to help children to do so, consider making ‘My Promise to Children’ which will require capacity in ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’.

5. The timeframe to which we are working is vital.

Given the ever-increasing body of evidence that suggests human extinction will occur by 2026, there is no point working to the elite-sponsored IPCC timeframe, designed to maximize corporate profits-as-usual for as long as possible. We do not have, for example, until 2030 to contain the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees celsius above the pre-industrial level or, say, mid-century to fully reign in carbon, methane and nitrous oxide emissions. We have nothing like this much time. Moreover, anyone paying attention to the state and ongoing destruction of the world’s rainforests and oceans, the ‘insect apocalypse’ and the accelerating rate of species extinctions (with one million species now under threat) should perceive this intuitively unless (unconsciously) terrified and hence delusional.

But for a fuller elaboration of the short timeframe we have left, if we take into account the synergistic psychological, sociological, political, economic, climate, ecological, military and nuclear considerations that each play a part in shaping this timeframe, see ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’.

Conclusion

By now, of course, many people will be overwhelmed by what they have read above (if they got this far). So this is why those who feel able to grapple with the evidence presented are also the ones most likely to have the courage to join me in taking the action outlined and gently encouraging others in the movement to reconsider and reorient movement strategy too.

It also means that the climate movement and those with whom we must work, such as those in the labour, women’s, antiwar, indigenous rights and environment movements, have considerably more work to do if we are to achieve the outcomes we all want.

Unless enough of us are able to embrace the path outlined above, human extinction in the near term is inevitable because our efforts will be wasted on actions that cannot have the necessary impact given the full dimensions of the crisis.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Global Climate Movement is Failing: Why?

Deliver Us From “Evil People”: The “Crazy Evils” and the “Caring Evils”

September 25th, 2019 by Philip A Farruggio

To this writer there are in reality but two classifications of evil people:

A) The crazy or deranged evil ones and

B) The rational, without empathy or caring evil ones.

Just viewed Alan Parker’s great 2000 film Angela’s Ashes for perhaps the umpteenth time. The film is based upon Frank McCourt’s autobiography on growing up in Limerick, Ireland during the 1930s and 1940s. His family was extremely poor during that Depression Era, as more of his younger siblings died than lived. What got to this writer were the places that the McCourts had to live in during those hard times. Dirty, dank, leaky, vermin infested spaces that one would never even ask a pet to live in. The continuous Limerick rain would settle in the alley and the main stone floors of their place. All the absentee landlord ( an Irishman like his tenants ) cared about was getting his rent… or out they would go! Never to upgrade or even repair the dwellings that he made his money from. When the McCourts got behind by a month or two in their rental payments… OUT THEY WOULD GO! Well, that type of person is the Part B classification: Rational, free of empathy evil.

We all see the stories of crazed gunmen just unloading on passersby with an automatic killing machine that should never have been sold in the first place. Many of those gunmen are most likely insane, or at least terribly emotionally disturbed individuals, thus my part A classification. The part B ‘Rational, without empathy evil ones ‘ are most likely both the gun manufacturers AND gun retailers who continue to make and sell those WMDs. One does not need to hunt for deer with an AK-47… period. There is NO sport in the pleasure shooting with an AK-47. Now here comes the topper: What about those in government who defend the rights of gun manufacturers and gun retailers to ply their trade? Well…

It does not matter about the legalities of operating in what can and should be construed of as an evil way. That aforementioned landlord did not break any laws or operate outside of laws at that time. Yet, there must be an accountability , on moral or humane grounds, for how he conducted himself. We should take that to the philosophical and spiritual limit, and begin categorizing those who know better yet  still defend the acts of other evil ones. Case in point: The invasion of Iraq. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who knew that the Bush/Cheney Cabal’s information on WMDs by Iraq was false and highly misleading , and did NOTHING  about it at the time, is EVIL… Period! Anyone in government or the embedded media who finds out that those who lead us have perpetrated a crime, and says nothing… EVIL!

There was a guy I knew who seemed like a nice and decent man. I recall a few years ago when he was telling me about a telemarketing job he had. He laughed and told me that he worked for a guy who said he was in real estate. The employer had him cold call lists of people who had their homes up for sale. The pitch was to get them to List their homes on his new website that reached millions of prospective home buyers from actual real estate broker lists nationwide. He emailed them a brochure that explained things, with great graphics etc. Then he would call back a few days later and close them on just a $75 fee to be placed on the new site. Well, the ‘ skinny ‘ of it all was that there was NO new website! If anyone complained they were told that the site was being constructed shortly. By the time the new sucker realized it was not happening, they had already sold their home and moved on.  Two evil people, the employer and the guy I knew.

Perhaps if those amongst us who are NOT in either category, but won’t get pissed off until some evil touches them or their families…. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ( Edmund Burke)

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Deliver Us From “Evil People”: The “Crazy Evils” and the “Caring Evils”

Tempered Emergency: The Climate Change Summit in New York

September 25th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

It had a good deal of desperate scolding.  Sweden’s Greta Thunberg assumed the role of punishing advocate, a Joan of Arc of fury.  The main culprit in her speech at the UN Climate Action Summit was the hideous, super ego, the big bad “You”, ever condescending, ever indifferent, the “You” of adulthood that had trashed the environment and left a gigantic mess to clean up.  She lamented how she should be in school on the other side of the ocean.  “How dare you”, these adults who had “come to us young people for hope”.

Prior to speaking at the UN, she gave a warning of what would come.  “This is such a crucial day, world leaders are gathering at the UN in New York to decide our future.  The eyes of the world will be upon them.”  Then came the rage and the tears. “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.”  There was suffering, people perishing, ecosystems collapsing.  “You say you hear us, and that you understand the urgency… I do not want to believe that.  Because if you really understood the situation, and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil.  And that I refuse to believe.”

There was a nagging feeling that Thunberg was performing a role, to be cheered, clapped and celebrated even as she mocked those she was in the company of.  Indeed, how dare they?  They, with the “empty words”; they, without the will to marshal the global mobilisation against the existential threat of climate change.  This is the anti-slavery advocate who preaches at a slave convention and rebukes them only to receive praise; the organic foodie who rages against genetically modified crops at a Monsanto-sponsored conference.  It is a show, necessary pageantry.  She means well.  Listen to her.  Celebrate her.  Then, quietly forget it.  We accept the principle, but some are more equal, and pressing, than others. 

The point of forgetting, if not ignoring all the fuss, was made by US President Donald Trump.  He believes in the “fairy tale”, as Thunberg calls it, of “eternal economic growth”.  The image of the sixteen-year-old, staring with hot sore eyes at the commander-in-chief of the United States as he walked by her, seemingly oblivious to her presence, will stand the test of time.  He had better things to do, with his administration having vowed to pull out of the Paris Agreement.  During his time in office, approximately 80 environmental rules and regulations have been removed or are in the process of being removed.  Fossil fuels are big; the environment, small.

For all that, the president finds avoiding spectacles difficult, and dropped in with Vice President Mike Pence in the later morning.  Former New York mayor and current UN special envoy for climate Michael R. Bloomberg, was rueful in greeting him.  “Hopefully our discussions here will be useful for you when you formulate climate policy.”  Cue the laughter and chuckling.      

There were a few overtures made, a set of loosely pencilled promises, but nothing too shattering.  China’s special representative Wang Yi simply reiterated that, “China will faithfully fulfil its obligations.”  India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi was vague about increasing his country’s use of renewable energy by 2022.  French President Emmanuel Macron suggested that future trade negotiations be linked to commitments on reducing emissions.  To pursue trading arrangements with states not complying with the Paris climate agreement would be “deeply hypocritical”.  (Hypocrisy in foreign relations is no deterrence.)  Some 60 countries pledged to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050; various business representatives promised to stick to the Paris Agreement targets and even a clutch of asset fund managers proclaimed they would seek net-zero portfolio investments within three decades.

Others have been harsher, albeit cloaking criticism of Thunberg with false sympathy.  It surely could not have been healthy, suggests Tiana Lowe of The Washington Examiner, “to place a child with this many mental illnesses under the spotlight of public scrutiny”.  British screen writer and editor of the Free Market Conservatives Tim Dawson took Thunberg’s message of being at school quite literally. “She is a completely inappropriate figure to spearhead any kind of public campaign and adults exploiting her should be ashamed.”  (Since when was there an “appropriate” revolutionary activist?) 

Where such acid cynicism has some merit is the way Thunberg the global brand is being manipulated by jaded elders who see dollar signs and prospects in a dangerous world.  The tipping point for Thunberg is that she is being celebrated as an ecological warrior who has done more to bring attention to the dangers of climate change than any single politician.  She has brought her generation from the future, as it were, to battle the current struggle.  But this exercise risks going the way of all flesh.  Those holding the strings, making the decisions about starting the next coal mine, or the opening of the next coal powered station, can either ignore her or manage her message: Rest assured, Greta, we are not stealing any future, merely managing a “transition”.

This climate summit was billed as urgent, and the UN Secretary General, António Guterres was keen to only invite those who had ideas addressing that urgency.  “Nature is angry,” he warned in his summit address.  “And we fool ourselves if we think we can fool nature.  Because nature always strikes back.” 

What we got, instead, were more words, meek undertakings, assurances.  There was talk of drawing lines in the sand.  For Thunberg, “Right here, right now is where we draw the line.  The world is waking up.  And change is coming, whether you like it or not.”  For Guterres, the gathering was “not a climate talk summit” but a “climate action summit.  From the beginning, I said the ticket to entry is not a beautiful speech, but concrete action.”  Unfortunately for him, this summit will be added to other emergency meetings where outrage finds a higher register than tangible action.

*

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]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Tempered Emergency: The Climate Change Summit in New York

The Only Way Israelis Can Form a Government: Betrayal

September 25th, 2019 by James J. Zogby

As expected, the outcome of Israel’s second national election was as murky as the first round in April. During the next few weeks, Israeli leaders will be engaged in negotiations in an effort to form a government. The double-dealings and the betrayals that will need to occur for them to form a governing coalition will make “House of Cards” look like a tea party. 

The reasons for this are simple. The results of the election were close and inconclusive with no grouping, neither the one led by Prime Minister Netanyahu nor that of the main opposition led by former general Benny Gantz, in a position to easily cobble together the 61 Knesset seats needed to form a majority. In addition, there’s the fact that all of the major players have made, and continue to affirm, principled pledges which, if honoured, will make creating a governing coalition impossible. Hence, either there are betrayals of pledges or partners, or there will be no new government.

What follows is the state of play and the pledges made by all of the principled actors.

Gantz’s Blue and White coalition won 33 seats. The two “left” parties with which he can align won 11 seats (seven for Labor-Gesher and six for the Democratic Union). This only gives Gantz a total of 44 seats.

While most analysts also incorrectly add to Gantz’s total the 13 seats held by Joint Union (made up of four parties representing the Palestinian citizens of Israel), this will not occur for two reasons. Gantz made a pledge not to form a government “dependent on the Arabs”. And, for their part, the Arab parties have said that while they would not vote against a Gantz-led government, if it meant ending Netanyahu’s rule, they would only consider joining a governing coalition on the condition that it was committed to full equality for the Arab citizens of Israel and ending the occupation. These are conditions to which Gantz is ideologically opposed.

Gantz might also seek to include the 17 seats held by the two ultra-religious parties, since this would give him the 61 he needs to form a majority. But Blue and White ran on a decidedly secular platform and he would find it difficult to add the religious parties who would demand that the government continue to provide funding for their institutions and uphold a number of restrictive religious prohibitions. This would put Gantz at loggerheads with the secular nationalist voters who formed his support base.

Since many of the Blue and White leadership were originally connected to Likud, it might appear logical for Gantz to turn to Likud, which won 31 seats in this election, in order to form a national unity government of the right. But here too, there are problems.

In the lead up to negotiations, Likud’s leader, Benjamin Netanyahu secured a pledge from his partners (the two ultra-religious parties and the right-wing nationalist party, Yamina, which holds seven seats) that they would remain united and negotiate as an unbreakable union, under Netanyahu’s leadership. If this unity is upheld, it effectively rules out any partnership with Gantz who has insisted that he would not form a government on Netanyahu’s terms and certainly not with Netanyahu as the Prime Minister. In addition, if the Likud-led grouping maintains its unity, this would require Gantz to accept the religious parties and their demands.

Now while Gantz can claim the right to lead efforts to form the next government, since his Blue and White coalition won the most seats (33), Netanyahu, despite only winning 31 seats, is claiming that because he is entering the negotiations with a stronger hand, since his base of support is larger (a total of 55 Knesset seats — his 31, the religious parties’ 17, and Yamina’s seven), he should be the one to set the terms. This is, of course, out of the question for Gantz, since he has ruled out joining a government under Netanyahu and he will not form a government with the religious parties and their requirements.

If this seems murky, it’s because it is. And so Israelis are left with either a third election or watching their leaders betraying their partners and their pledges.

Seventeen members of the Likud might choose to betray Netanyahu, by dumping him as their leader and joining a Gantz-led government. This might occur if negotiations continue past the October date when the Attorney General has said he will begin proceedings that, in all likelihood, will lead to Netanyahu being indicted for crimes of corruption, bribery, and betrayal of the public trust.

There is also the possibility that Netanyahu could convince Avigdor Lieberman to rejoin his Likud government. The eight seats held by Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu party would give Netanyahu 63 seats. But this would require Lieberman breaking his pledge not to join any government that is subservient to the demands of the religious parties. He’s done it before, and if Netanyahu’s offer/bribe is good enough, he might betray his pledge and do it again.

There is another scenario that cannot be discounted. Since Netanyahu remains Prime Minister during the negotiations, he could provoke a national emergency, like a war in Gaza or on the northern front. He might feel that in the midst of a crisis, he would be in in an stronger position to force concessions from Gantz and/or Lieberman.

Then there’s the less likely possibility that the long-awaited “Deal of the Century” is announced with terms unacceptable to right-wing Israelis in Lieberman’s and Gantz’s camps — thereby also playing into Netanyahu’s hands, allowing him to plead for national unity to avert the crisis posed by the US demands. As I said, this is quite unlikely, for two reasons.Trump has already demonstrated his own capacity for betrayal by distancing himself from his “good friend Bibi”. And, it is hard to imagine that the “deal” would include any terms that would provoke a crisis in Israel.

Finally, there’s the very strong possibility that Netanyahu is indicted, forced to make a plea deal, and leave public life — or even go to prison. While this would clearly reshuffle the deck, it wouldn’t necessarily put Gantz in the driver’s seat, since that would depend on whether the remaining Likud membership continued to maintain their pledge of unity with their religious party partners, or betrayed them by joining a Gantz-led secular government.

Should that happen, yet another betrayal may occur. With a coalition government of Blue and White and Likud ­— minus Netanyahu —the third-largest Knesset grouping, the Joint List would rightly claim the right to lead the Knesset Opposition. This would give them an unprecedented role in Israeli society. In an effort to block this, some have suggested that the two religious parties, having been betrayed and dumped by Likud, may combine their 17 seats and demand the right to lead the Knesset Opposition, thereby denying Arabs their hard-fought victory.

It is of critical importance to note that in all of this haggling and betrayal, there is no mention of or concern for the rights of the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. Israeli society has moved so far to the right that Palestinians were not considered in this election. With the exception of the small left Democratic Union, all of the other parties were fine with settlement expansion and extending Israeli sovereignty to major parts of the West Bank, the annexation of Jerusalem and the continued strangulation of Gaza.

The fact that there is so little focus in the West on the continued denial of Palestinian rights is the ultimate betrayal. Press coverage of the elections and the follow-up negotiations make no mention of Palestinians or the occupation. And the unwarranted liberal embrace of Gantz, as the “not Netanyahu”, is its own form of betrayal — of the values of justice, human rights, and equality to which liberals claim to adhere.

James Zogby is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Only Way Israelis Can Form a Government: Betrayal

The Trump Impeachment Inquiry Scam

September 25th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Most all actions by both right wings of the US one-party state are politically motivated.

They’re united when it comes to unlawfully advancing America’s imperium by brute force and other hostile means, supporting privileged interests over the general welfare, and cracking down hard on activists for peace, equity and justice, opposing their actions.

They alternate in running the executive and congressional branches of government, using dirty tricks to advance their interests.

If democracy in America had a chance to be real, serving everyone equitably, it would be banned.

From inception, Americans got a fantasy version. No rule of the people ever existed.

Elections when held are farcical. Dirty business as usual always wins — increasingly totalitarian plutocracy, oligarchy and kleptocracy triumphing over democracy the way it should be.

Dark forces running the US assure continuity. Each time so-called elections are held, names and faces change, rule of, by, and for the privileged few at the expense of most others remains the same.

The Russiagate witch hunt hoax fell flat for undemocratic Dems. No illegal or improper Trump team/Russia connection was uncovered — nor evidence of Kremlin US election meddling.

Still, the Big Lie refuses to die, beating a dead horse no doubt to persist as long as Trump remains president, the Russian meddling hoax likely to continue when he’s gone.

Since Trump triumphing over media darling Hillary, Dems have been pushing for impeachment — solely for political reasons, nothing substantive in their rage.

House Republicans impeached Bill Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice over sex, acquitted by the Senate weeks later.

Dems aren’t likely to fare better against Trump (and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani) for allegedly asking Ukrainian President Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter on corruption related issues, and allegedly delaying military aid as a bargaining chip — used for war on Donbass Ukrainians and widespread domestic repression.

Ukraine is a Nazi-infested police state, installed by the Obama regime in February 2014,  the country’s undemocratic political system farcical.

Initially headed by billionaire/oligarch mega-crook Petro Poroshenko, comedian/entertainer Vladimir Zelensky succeeded him as a front man for US interests in the strategically important state bordering Russia, used as a dagger targeting its heartland.

Governance in Ukraine is militantly hardline, the political process hugely corrupt.

Poroshenko amassed wealth through grand theft. So did former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, earlier imprisoned for embezzlement and serious “abuse of public office.”

Charges included illegally diverting $425 million meant for environmental projects into pension funds. A second case involved stealing around $130 million for personal use.

She headed United Energy Systems (UES). Her shady business practices earned her the nickname “gas princess.”

Numerous others in Ukraine were and remain enriched by corruption, including senior military officials. Ernst & Young earlier called the country one of the most corrupt in the world.

The London Guardian called Ukraine “the most corrupt nation in Europe,” adding: It’s “so endemic that even hospitals (are) infected.”

They earn “money dishonestly…(M)uch of the health budget is said to be stolen rather than used productively.”

Zelensky has close ties to Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi. As president, he serves US interests, as well as the country’s wealthy and powerful.

Throughout US history, only two US presidents were impeached, none removed from office by this process.

Nor will Trump likely be taken down this way. Impeachment if occurs will be entirely politicized for attempted political advantage.

The Constitution’s Article I, Section 2 empowers House members to impeach a sitting president, Senate members with sole power to try them – a two-thirds super-majority required to convict, what’s highly unlikely with Republicans controlling the upper house.

Article II, Section 4 states “(t)he President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Like most of his predecessors, Trump is culpable for Nuremberg-level high crimes of war and against humanity, most congressional members sharing guilt.

They and he are guilty of violating the Constitution’s general welfare clause (Article I, section 8) — serving privileged interests exclusively at the expense of the vast majority of Americans.

Clinton left office with a Gallup poll approval rating of 65%. Trump is highly unlikely to match it. Gallup’s mid-September tracking had him at 43%, disapproval at 57%.

Yet going for an impeachment inquiry by Dems, based on dubious claims, might be more beneficial than detrimental to his reelection campaign. Gallup polls show most Americans oppose impeaching him.

Trump said he’ll release an unredacted transcript of his discussion with Zelensky to challenge a complaint against him, its content not revealed so far.

On September 23, Dems demanded Mike Pompeo release documents by Thursday, relating to reports that Trump allegedly pressed Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden for allegedly concealing information on an investigation of his son Hunter.

He was a Burisma Holdings board member, the company probed for alleged involvement in shady Ukrainian natural gas dealings.

The bottom line is that Dems are reaching for ways to gain political advantage ahead of 2020 presidential and congressional elections.

Depending on how things play out, their scheme may backfire like Russiagate. The fullness of time will tell.

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Trump Impeachment Inquiry Scam

Hong Kong Protests: “Return” to the British Empire and the 1842 Treaty of Nanjing… ?

September 25th, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

Hundreds of young Chinese, in front of the British Consulate in Hong Kong, sing the God Save the Queen and shout “Great Britain Saves Hong Kong”, a rally call in London by 130 parliamentarians who ask that British citizenship be given to residents of the former colony. In this way, Britain is emerging in world public opinion, particularly among young people, as a guarantor of legality and human rights. To do this, History is erased.

It is therefore necessary, before any other consideration, to know the historical episodes which, in the first half of the 19th century, brought the Chinese territory of Hong Kong under British rule.

To penetrate China, then ruled by the Qing dynasty, Britain resorted to the distribution of opium, which it shipped by sea from India where it held the monopoly. The drug market spread rapidly in the country, causing serious economic, physical, moral and social damage that provoked the reaction of the Chinese authorities. But when they confiscated stored opium in Canton and burned it, the British troops occupied this city and other coastal cities with the first Opium War, forcing China to sign the Treaty of Nanjing in 1842.

In Article 3 it states: “As it is obviously necessary and desirable for British subjects to have ports for their ships and their stores, China will forever cede the island of Hong Kong to Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain. and her heirs “.

In Article 6 the Treaty stipulates: “Since Her Britannic Majesty’s Government was obliged to send an expeditionary force to obtain compensation for the damage caused by the Chinese authorities’ violent and unjust procedure, China agrees to pay to Her British Majesty the sum of $ 12 million for expenses incurred.

The Nanking Treaty is the first of the unequal treaties by which the European powers (Great Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, Austria and Italy), Tsarist Russia, Japan and the United States secured in China, by the force of arms, a series of privileges: the cession of Hong Kong to Great Britain in 1843, the sharp reduction of taxes on foreign goods (at a time when European governments were erecting customs barriers to protect their industries), the opening of the main ports to foreign vessels and the right to have urban areas under their own administration (“concessions”) exempted from Chinese authority.

In 1898 Great Britain annexed the Kowloon Peninsula in Hong Kong and the so-called News Territories, conceded by China to be “rented” for 99 years.

The widespread dissatisfaction with these impositions exploded towards the end of the 19th century in a popular revolt – that of the Boxers – against which intervened an international expeditionary force of 16,000 men under British command, in which Italy also participated (and France, NdT).

Landed in Tianjin (T’ien Tsin) in August 1900, the force sacked Beijing and other cities, destroying many villages and massacring the population. Later, Britain took control of Tibet in 1903, while Czarist Russia and Japan shared Manchuria in 1907.

In China, reduced to a colonial or semi-colonial state, Hong Kong became the main door of exchange based on the plunder of resources and slave labour exploitation of the population. A huge mass of Chinese are forced to emigrate mainly to the United States, Australia and South-East Asia, where they are subjected to similar conditions of exploitation and discrimination.

A question arises spontaneously: Which history books are young people who ask Britain to “save Hong Kong” studying?

*

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 Il Manifesto. Translated from Italian by Roger Lagassé.

Award winning author Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hong Kong Protests: “Return” to the British Empire and the 1842 Treaty of Nanjing… ?

US-Iran Relations: Bolton’s “Maximum Pressure” Policy Is The Illegitimate Child Of Diplomacy

September 25th, 2019 by Bahman Fozouni

The September 14 strikes against Saudi Arabia’s Khurais oilfield and Abqaiq processing facility, which the U.S. government quickly pinned on Iran, as well as President Trump’s decision to substantially increase sanctions against Iran in response, are sobering reminders that the firing of former National Security Advisor John Bolton has done little to move the dynamics of U.S.-Iran relations away from an escalating pathway to war. Lest we forget, Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy has been the brainchild of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, not Bolton. The endgame Bolton championed involved a major military attack against Iran, in which he believed that the United States and its regional allies would eliminate Iran’s current regime. Bolton embraced the “maximum pressure” policy because he foresaw in it a highly efficient and quick track to advance his own end—attacking Iran. And, had it not been for Trump’s last-minute volte-face in June, most probably Bolton would have realized his goal.

Compellence Strategy

As long as the incendiary dynamics of “maximum pressure”—a policy with a long and contentious pedigree—continue to define Trump’s approach to Iran, a retaliatory response by either party could rapidly spiral out of control. The logic underlying “maximum pressure” goes back to Thomas Schelling’s “compellence” strategy. Schelling, who received the 2005 Noble Prize in Economics, articulated the strategy in his influential book, Arms and Influence (1966).

The essence of compellence strategy is bargaining through violence. Derived from game theory, compellence is a strategy of brinksmanship involving active use of coercion to get an enemy to change or abandon its behavior. To be effective, compellence must be implemented by means of a carefully calibrated schedule of punishments with built-in escalation designed to force the enemy to change course. Each time the enemy fails to comply, the punishments must become more severe, ultimately advancing to the use of lethal force.

The strategy is implemented by informing the “enemy” through various signals that they could have peace if they meet a list of demands (in Iran’s case, Pompeo’s infamous list of 12 demands). The signal must be given with sufficient clarity to indicate punishment will be imposed if the enemy fails to comply. Punishments range from economic strangulation (in Iran’s case, “crippling sanctions” and a blockade on Iranian oil exports) to some form of violence through the use of military force. At each point, the enemy’s failure to comply will lead to ratcheting up the punishments. Successfully implementing the strategy requires the enforcer state to maintain its credibility: so long as the enemy persists in noncompliance, the promised escalating punishments must be carried out, lest that credibility be lost.

In theory, compellence strategy seems persuasive, especially in situations where the enforcer’s military power is significantly superior, and achieving its objectives through negotiations seems doubtful. But in real-world applications, compellence strategy suffers from serious weaknesses. First, it assumes a far greater degree of control and discipline on the part of the decision-makers orchestrating the strategy than exists in any administration, let alone in the Trump administration. But the strategy’s lethal weakness lies in its core assumptions about the enemy. The foe is seen as having an aggressive, supremely rational and highly calculating leadership exclusively preoccupied with a cost-benefit assessment of its foreign policy goals. If the costs are unbearably high and the outlook for realizing the benefits poor, the rational leadership would cut its losses, abandon the goals, and hope for a better day.

Clearly, compellence is a strategy of brinksmanship. Once committed to compellence strategy, to maintain credibility, the decision-makers should never question the validity of their assumptions. The strategy must be followed through to the very end, until the foe gives up.

Flawed Assumptions

It is hard to imagine a country, let alone Iran, whose leadership’s behavior mirrors the stereotypical imagery presumed by compellence strategy. Compellence strategy leaves no room for diplomacy. Diplomacy demands a nuanced view of the enemy and a measure of empathy that enables one to understand how the enemy views the situation and its interests, and what motives drive its foreign policy behavior. Compellence strategy abandons all complexities and replaces them with a simplistic rational actor prevalent in economic and game theories. By training, economists tend to overlook such critical political phenomena as nationalism and how it shapes the behavior of adversary in interstate conflicts.

Contrary to the expectations of the advocates of the maximum pressure policy, crippling sanctions enforced by a de facto blockade have served to inflate the emotional potency of the Iranian nationalism, fueling nationalist outrage. This has raised the cost-tolerance of the regime. No Iranian regime under siege by a powerful external enemy would be willing or able to cave in without mounting serious resistance. A regime that believes its very survival is at stake would be willing to take far greater risks and tolerate a much higher level of cost for the sake of its survival. All these behavioral patterns gainsay the validity of the assumptions made by the compellence strategy.

Finally, had Iran been “aggressively” motivated, as the defenders of the maximum pressure policy claim, by now it well might had given up on opportunities it supposedly was chasing because they had become too costly. But this is not what is happening. Each time the U.S. ratchets up the pressure, Iran digs in deeper and reciprocates by cautiously opting for a riskier response. In other words, compellence strategy has forced Iran into a very dangerous tit-for-tat game with the U.S.

This can quickly spiral out of control with unimaginably disastrous consequences for all. The point is an obvious one: Giving up on opportunities will not be fatal for anyone; failing to defend oneself can be. With the possible exception of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, more than any other time in the past 40 years the Iranian leadership feels threatened by the U.S. Iran’s response to U.S. pressure fully conforms with this heightened sense of threat. Meanwhile, against the expectations of the supporters of the maximum pressure policy, factional divisions among the Islamic Republic’s ruling elites, which have persisted since the early days of the revolution, have not intensified. In fact, the opposite seems to be occurring. The elites seem to have recognized that, when the chips are down, they will perish or survive together. Each round of escalation appears to push more of them to close ranks behind the leader.

The U.S. first employed compellence strategy in Vietnam under President Johnson during the mid-1960s. The results proved nothing short of disastrous. Compellence was once again employed by the Carter administration in 1979 to pressure Iran to release its U.S. hostages. Carter abandoned the strategy after the rescue mission to free the hostages ended in failure. North Korea is another example wherein the U.S. has, on and off, relied on compellence without achieving its desired goal. And now, under the tutelage of the Secretary of State Pompeo, compellence is being used against Iran for a second time. In almost all cases where the U.S. has consciously relied on compellence strategy to achieve its policy aims, not only has it failed, but it often caused devastating consequences. It is astonishing to see the U.S. employ the strategy again after so many failures.

In sum, the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” policy is an illegitimate child of diplomacy because it doesn’t allow for real diplomatic engagement. Under compellence strategy, capitulation is the only acceptable option for the enemy. Either Iran gives in to U.S. demands or it must be forced to do so—even by violent means.

Feature image: Mike Pompeo speaking at the United Against Nuclear Iran summit (U.S. State Department via Flickr)

Bahman Fozouni is a Professor Emeritus in the Political Science Department at California State University, Sacramento where he teaches courses in International Politics and Middle East Governments and Politics.  Currently, he is writing a book-length manuscript tentatively titled “The Making of an American Tragedy: The United States and the Middle East since the Cold War.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-Iran Relations: Bolton’s “Maximum Pressure” Policy Is The Illegitimate Child Of Diplomacy

Railroaded by the Judges: Boris Johnson Fails in the UK Supreme Court

September 25th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

It delighted Labour supporters and party apparatchiks who had been falling over each other in murderous ceremony at the party conference in Brighton: Prime Minister Boris Johnson would come to the unwitting rescue with his own version of a grand cock-up.  This involved a now defeated attempt to circumvent parliamentary scrutiny and interference ahead of the Brexit date of October 31 through a prorogation of parliament.

Johnson still felt he was in with a chance, and with good reason.  The UK Constitution is a nebulous muddle of conventions, documents and interpretations, a body of constitutional law without a constitution.  It is a 350-year old absurdity that relies on good behaviour, toe-tipping judges and sensible MPs.  But as Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion argues, Britain faces “a Prime Minister with no respect for the rules and a downright contempt for the law.”

Some decisions had favoured the government.  On September 6, London’s Divisional Court held that the advice to the monarch to suspend parliament was distinctly a no-go area for judges, purely a matter for rowdy political assertion.  As Lord Bingham noted in 2005, “The more purely political (in a broad or narrow sense) a question is, the more appropriate it will be for political resolution and the less likely it is to be an appropriate matter for judicial decision.”  It was, however, accepted “that decisions of the Executive are not immune from judicial review merely because they were carried out pursuant to an exercise of the Royal Prerogative”.

In the case of Johnson’s prorogation, it was “impossible for the court to make a legal assessment of whether the duration of the prorogation was excessive by reference to any measure”.  The same decision was also reached in the Belfast High Court, which proved similarly hesitant to step on the toes of the Executive.

The Scottish Court of Session expressed no such reserve, with Lords Carloway, Brodie and Drummond Young unimpressed by a process seemingly designed to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive.  Tactics deployed in achieving such prorogation might well be considered by a court to be improper.  This, the judges claimed to be the case.

The UK Supreme Court seemed well irritated by the presumptuousness of the Prime Minister’s position.  Courts do not always take kindly to suggestions of incompetence, even in such a fields as political manoeuvring and skulduggery.  In a unanimous judgment, the eleven judges ruled that it was “impossible to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there had been any reason – let alone good reason – to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks”.

The judgment is littered with well-directed grenades of disapproval, starting with the poke that it arose “in circumstances which have never risen before and are unlikely ever to arise again.”  (Judicial optimists, evidently.)  The Prime Minister had a constitutional responsibility “to have regard to all relevant interests, including the interests of Parliament” in advising the monarch.  Nor could the mix between law and politics necessarily render judges incapable of intervening for, going back to 1611, “the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him”.

More juicily, the Supreme Court justices were clear on the point that prorogation, in its effect, prevented the application of ministerial responsibility during that period.  This had the effect of making the PM “unaccountable by Parliament until after a new session of Parliament had commenced”.  This could lead to the case of Parliament “closing the stable door after the horse had bolted.”  (A true equine beast is Brexit proving to be.)

What, then, of the standards in assessing such a prerogative power?  Other courts had been reluctant, claiming vagueness and impossibility.  It was not, in the classic idiosyncrasies of this sceptred isle, scripted.  No matter: “every prerogative power has its limits” to be determined by the court; and such a power had to be exercised in accordance with common law principles and the operation of Parliament itself.  Each branch of government, accordingly, had limits that required curial assessment; it was not for the courts to “shirk that responsibility merely on the ground that the question raised is political in tone or context.”

This led to an almost stirring defence of the court’s role in defending Parliamentary sovereignty, which has been threatened since the 17th century “time and time again” by undue exercises of prerogative powers.  In this case, Parliament’s exercise of legislative authority for the duration it pleased would be subverted by the executive’s use of the prerogative.  “An unlimited power of prorogation would therefore be incompatible with the legal principles of Parliamentary sovereignty.”  Not could the executive avoid its own responsibilities to parliament in being scrutinised.

At times, the judgment moves into a tone of discomfort and concern.  One point stands out: the prospects of long prorogation periods.  The longer the duration, the greater the likelihood of tyranny, “that responsible government may be replaced by unaccountable government”.

To the government’s argument that the prorogation was “a proceeding of Parliament” that could never be impugned or challenged by a court, the judges retorted that it was for them to decide, not parliament, how far such privileges extended.  Nor could the prorogation be sensibly termed a parliamentary proceeding, not being a decision of either House of Parliament.

All in all, it followed that Johnson’s advice to the Queen had been unlawful, having “the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its functions without reasonable justification”, thereby rendering the entire process behind prorogation void.

As is in keeping with such matters, disgruntled Tories felt that the irritations of law had intervened with the populist measures of Johnson’s agenda.  The “people” were being muzzled and mocked by the court’s aggrandized constitutional functions.  Jacob Rees-Mogg expressed a distinctly unconservative view in a cabinet call with the prime minister calling the decision a “constitutional coup”.  (He obviously had not read the part of the judgment that the court was performing its functions without offending the separation of powers.)  The Spectator fumed at this “constitutional outrage”.

Brexit Party MEP Belinda de Lucy was similarly snooty on the court’s power on the mater. “We believe the sovereignty lies with people” judicial swerving into matters political suggests a move into “dangerous territory”. (The point missed here is the court’s understanding that Parliament remains, in its form, the arbiter of that sovereignty and should, therefore, not be improperly restricted from its oversight.)

The result of the ruling means that Parliament will return to Westminster for a Wednesday reconvening.  While that institution has not impressed with its vacillations, confusions and periods of paralysis, it remains one worth defending before the demagogues and the shifty, something President Lady Hale and the rest of the judges were more than willing to do.  Should Brexit ever be realised, Parliament might well consider a little bit of constitutional codification.

*

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]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Railroaded by the Judges: Boris Johnson Fails in the UK Supreme Court

Pension Plans Should Not Invest in Companies That Harm Working People

September 25th, 2019 by Prof. Steven Tufts

Of all the gains unions have made for workers, the ability to retire with dignity and a pension is perhaps the most valued. Last year employers and employees in Canada contributed over $70-billion to registered pension plans (RPP). It is big money. Still, just over a third of workers are covered by RPPs as most rely on the more modest Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS).

The inequality among retirees created by different pension benefits is obvious. There are, however, other contradictions of pension fund capital. These are noted in a recent collection, The Contradictions of Pension Fund Capitalism, edited by Kevin Skerrett and colleagues. Workers continue to contribute to plans that have the “fiduciary responsibility” to deliver a return – even if the investments harm workers and communities.

As the financial capital of Canada, Toronto is at the centre of these contradictions. Not only are the largest pension funds managed on Bay Street, but the city’s burgeoning real estate and technology sectors are lucrative investment targets. The transformative role pension fund capital attempts to play in shaping urban centres can be seen with two examples involving Toronto’s waterfront.

The Contradictions Exposed

In 2012, the debate over proposals to develop a casino project along the waterfront consumed city politics. Pension funds allied with multinational casino companies in bids to develop a downtown casino.

For example, Caesar’s Entertainment partnered with Oxford Properties, the real-estate investment arm of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS). Community groups lead by No Casino Toronto did successfully mobilize against these proposals, which divided council at the time. Members of CUPE Local 79 also deputed against the proposals as front-line city workers would have had to deal with the negative social and economic impacts of gambling.

At the same time, fund managers at OMERS, the pension fund of Local 79 members, deputed on the economic virtues of casino development. Here we see the contradictions of pension fund investments that negatively impact the very workers making contributions.

Fast forward to this recent announcement that Sidewalk Labs, the offspring of Alphabet Inc. owner of Google, and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTTP) have partnered to launch a digital infrastructure company, Sidewalk Infrastructure Partners.

The partnership makes strategic sense. OTTP, with net assets of over $200-billion, has signalled it is moving into tech infrastructure for some time. Sidewalk needed a local partner to help neutralize political and community opposition to its controversial plan to develop Quayside on Toronto’s waterfront.

The complex proposal is based on the acquisition of some of the most prime real estate in North America secured with public transit subsidies, tax cuts, the privatization of public services, and enhanced surveillance. Activist groups such as #BlockSidewalk have also noted how the proposal and the process itself undermine local democracy.

Unions and the Community

But what are the political implications for this partnership for teachers? It is said that teachers don’t bargain with governments as much as they bargain with the public. Elementary and secondary school teachers are currently bargaining with a Conservative government that has already proven hostile. Will the public support teachers with a pension plan that is perceived as profiting from projects that aggressively restructure urban governance and increase surveillance and private data collection?

All workers deserve pensions, but pension funds for some built on tax cuts and privatization schemes are neither just nor sustainable over the long term. Unions continue to shield themselves against efforts to politicize pension investments, but this has a cost.

The divide between public sector workers with good pensions and private-sector workers with little or no pension benefits creates a politics of resentment. These divisions are only heightened when pension investments are perceived as destructive to communities. Fortunately, workers are campaigning to divest their pensions from fossil fuels and the arms industry. It is time for union leaders to confront pension plans that seek to transform our cities in ways that harm working people. •

This article first published on TheStar.com website.

Steven Tufts is an Associate Professor in Geography at York University.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pension Plans Should Not Invest in Companies That Harm Working People

Hong Kong is Scared – of the Rioters

September 25th, 2019 by Andre Vltchek

It was once a British police station, as well as the Victoria Prison Compound. Hong Kong inhabitants used to tremble just from hearing its name mentioned. This is where people were detained, interrogated, humiliated, tortured and disappeared.

Now, after Hong Kong ‘returned to China’, it was converted into the Tai Kwun Center – one of the biggest and the most vibrant art institutions in Asia.

This transformation was symbolic, the same as the conversion of the former British-era slums into public parks has been symbolic.

But now, as the pro-Western and anti-Chinese treasonous hooligans are dividing and ruining this former U.K. colony, the old-colonialist flags of “British Hong Kong” are being waved alongside the flags of the United States, while Chinese flags are being humiliated, and thrown into the bay.

Rioters seem to remember nothing about those ‘good old times’ (according to them), when signs shamelessly declared: “No Dogs and Chinese”. As they seem to close both eyes and ignore the neo-colonialism and massacres, that both North America and Europe are constantly committing in all corners of the world.

Now, the citizens of Hong Kong are scared. Not of the “government”, not of the police, or Beijing: they are frightened of the so-called protesters, of ninja-like looking young people with covered faces and metal bars in their hands.

Mr. Edmond, who works for the Tai Kwun Center, speaks bitterly about the events in his city:

“What is truly scary now, is that families here in HK are deeply divided. Father does not talk to his son. Silence reigns inside the families. Colleagues do not touch the subject of riots. The situation is thoroughly ruining our city, our society, our families.”

“If someone publicly disagrees with the protesters, they get beaten. They managed to silence people.”

“People come here, to this wonderful art center, and if they are from Beijing, they are now hiding their identity. It is because they are scared.”

Mr. Edmond keeps repeating that “disagreements should be like disputes inside the family”. He means, disagreements between the Hong Kong inhabitants, and Beijing. According to him, the outsiders should not be involved.

This is what the majority of the people feels in Hong Kong now. This is what they felt in 2014, when I wrote about another prolonged and destructive event which was sponsored by the West – the so-called “Umbrella” uprising.

They feel this, but most of them would not dare to express it. The rioters are young, in good physical shape, and armed with sticks and bars. They have no identity, as their faces are covered by scarves. They are drunk on fanatical self-righteousness; stoned on a primitive sense of purpose. Their behavior is not rational – it is religious.

I have been talking to them. In 2014, and now. Most of them know nothing about the foreign policy of the West. They have no clue about the brutality of the British Empire. They do not want to hear about the humiliation and pain of the Chinese people, when their country was invaded, broken into pieces and occupied.

They are selfish; grandstanders, and extremely arrogant.

They wave flags; foreign flags. They spit on their own banners. They do what they are told to do: by the hostile, foreign powers. And they do, what they are paid to do. It is as depressing, as it is embarrassing, to watch.

“President Trump, please liberate us!” “Please Save us, President Trump!” That is what they shout. That is what their posters say.

It is very hard to talk to them. I tried. Most of them do not want to uncover their faces, and to speak. They seem to feel secure only when in packs, in multitudes. When challenged, they reveal that they know very little, even about China; or even about Hong Kong itself.

But they are ready to preach; to lecture.

When faced with logical arguments, which they cannot refute, they become brutal.

Just a few days ago, they attacked a local teacher who was singing the national anthem of China. They beat him up. A child witnessing the event was horrified. He cried. The teacher kept singing.

They are beating those who try to make them stop destroying the city. They are beating those who are shaming them.

Whenever I manage to have longer exchanges with them, it somehow feels the same as when I am confronting religious fanatics in the Middle East. Perhaps, it should not even be surprising, as both are products of the Western propagandists and their allies.

People refusing to accept their leaflets at the airport –get beaten. If visitors to shopping centers challenge the rioters – a public beating takes place.

This covering of faces with black scarves would be illegal in many parts of the West, were the black scarves to be worn by, let’s say, Muslim women, or local rioters. But the Western media, outrageously selective in its coverage, is glorifying it here, simply because it is against the interests of the People’s Republic of China.

Chinese people, with thousands of years of culture, mostly tolerant, are not used to all this. These events of the last three months are something extremely foreign to them. Therefore, many are scared. Very scared. Desperate.

Ninjas of this nature are usually jumping and hitting in all directions, but from the screens of television sets, not right in the middle of the streets.

***

As I am filming in Hong Kong, as I am reporting for television stations, the picture is becoming clearer and clearer.

There are U.S. flags being carried, the U.S. anthem is sung, then immediately, hundreds of Western media crews start filming.

But when public property is being damaged, subway stations vandalized, pedestrians and motorists attacked, Western cameras are nowhere in sight.

If rioters were to trash Heathrow Airport in London, the army would be called, immediately. Here, the rioters are cheered on by foreigners.

It is obvious that Western mass media outlets and the rioters are working hand-in-hand. They have the same goals.

***

Fear is mixed with shame. No one in Hong Kong is speaking openly, on the record. Even on such seemingly ‘innocent’ topics like the collapse of tourism.

Those who are destroying the city, are obviously not willing to take responsibility for the hardship they are causing to its citizens.

Those who are with Beijing, those who believe in “one China”, which is the silent majority of the citizens, feel shame, because there are so many traitors living among them, in one overcrowded urban area.

Therefore, silence!

Everyone here in Hong Kong and in Mainland China, understands how dangerous the situation really is. Leaders of the riots, like Joshua Wong, are groomed by Washington, London and Berlin. They are morally and financially supported, not unlike people like Guaido in Venezuela. Mr. Wong is known to associate himself with organizations such as the “White Helmets”, which is working on behalf of the West for “regime change” in Syria.

To damage, to break China into pieces, is now the main goal of Western foreign policy. Beijing is being attacked on all fronts: Uyghurs, the Belt and Road Initiative, Taiwan, Tibet, South China Sea, trade. The more successful China gets; the more attacks it has to face.

Hong Kong used to be a city where “streets were paved with gold”, according to the legend. Mainland Chinese used to see it as a semi-paradise. All this has changed, reversed now. Neighboring cities like Shenzhen and Guangzhou, count with much better infrastructure, a greater cultural life, and lesser levels of poverty.

In one of the international hotels of Hong Kong, I was told by a manager:

“Mainland Chinese people do not see Hong Kong as something attractive, anymore. They do not travel here often, anymore. They are not treated well here. They go to Thailand or to Europe instead.”

The citizens of Hong Kong feel frustrated and angry. Their “uniqueness” is evaporating. They are being left behind. Poverty rates are high. English language proficiency is declining, and businesses are moving to Singapore. Hong Kong is the most expensive city on earth, and it is unaffordable for most of its citizens.

Extreme capitalism here has brought nothing spectacular to the people. It is increasingly obvious that the Communist (or call it “socialism with the Chinese characteristics”) system has become much more successful than the old British-style neo-liberalism; in terms of social policies, infrastructure, the arts and general quality of life.

The spoiled, egotistical young people of Hong Kong are outraged. What? They are suddenly not on top of the world? The Commies across the line are better at almost everything they touch?

Instead of working harder, they turn against China; against the Mainland.

They want to convince the entire Hong Kong and even the Mainland, that the ‘Hong Kong way’ is the only correct way. And of course, there is plenty of funding available to support their insane claims. The funding comes from the fellow-collapsing societies – those in the West.

***

HK2

Most of the citizens of Hong Kong are scared that the rioters may succeed.

They have already forced the withdrawal of the Extradition Bill, which could help Hong Kong to fight the endemic corruption and invulnerability of its business elites.

They have already managed to scare the Hong Kong government into compromises.

The rioters are acting like huge, violent gangs, and they are enjoying full propaganda support from the West.

But whether they like it or not, Hong Kong is China. Ask a grocery vendor at North Point, ask coolies, old ladies on a park bench, or an elementary school teacher, and you will understand. These people do not care whether Hong Kong is exceptional or not. They do not need to show-off. They just want to live, to survive, to look forward to a better future.

And a better future is definitely with Beijing, not with Washington or London.

They already had London. They had enough of it.

“More Beijing, not less”, you would hear if people were not scared to talk. In 2014, when things were not as extreme as now, they used to tell me.

Now, it is not easy to fight the hundreds of thousands of face-covering and metal-bar-waving zealots and fanatics. Their religion is simply “The West”. It is abstract. As are their demands. As are their violent outbursts of inferiority complexes.

Both, the local majority, and Beijing, have to think hard as to what strategy to apply, in order to protect, and to defend Hong Kong and China against those brutal, frustrated, morally corrupt hooligans and treasonous cadres.

Originally published on NEO

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.”  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hong Kong is Scared – of the Rioters

Ukrainegate Is Just The Democrats’ Latest Gambit To Unseat Trump

September 25th, 2019 by Andrew Korybko

A manufactured scandal is rapidly growing to epic proportions in the US surrounding one of Trump’s recent conversations with new Ukrainian President Zelensky after a whistleblower alleged what the Mainstream Media is reporting to be the American leader’s supposedly unethical and possibly even illegal repeated requests that his counterpart brief him on an earlier anti-corruption investigation into a shady energy company on whose Board of Directors Democratic candidate and former Vice President Biden’s son served for half a decade until his position expired in April 2019.

The narrative being pushed by his enemies is that Trump abused his office by pressuring a foreign leader to do opposition research for him at the best or reopen the anti-corruption investigation against Burisma Holdings in order to influence the Democratic primaries at the worst. His supporters, meanwhile, assert that it was none other than Biden who behaved illegally by openly bragging to a think tank in the past that he de-facto blackmailed Ukraine by threatening to withhold $1 billion in aid unless the government fired the state prosecutor at the time who was accused of inefficiency but was also coincidentally investigating Burisma Holdings.

Trump insists that he did nothing wrong, but the latest twist in the scandal is that he ordered military aid to Ukraine to be put on hold just days before the call in question with Zelensky took place. The Democrats are attempting to portray that as “intimidation” of a foreign leader, though that decision and his conversation with Zelensky had nothing to do with one another since the aid was later approved anyhow despite no visible progress having been made in response to Trump’s repeated requests to learn more about the Bidens’ involvement in the Burisma Holdings affair. In fact, it very well appears that the reason why that hold was put in place wasn’t because of Trump’s upcoming chat with Zelensky, but because of the grander context in which the US is quietly trying to negotiate a “New Detente” with Russia. Although the reported hold was ordered in July, it wasn’t until late August that Politico published a piece about it, which then prompted the Pentagon to say that they support the $250 million program’s continuation. While there were real concerns about corruption and burden-sharing, the very fact that the aid was questioned by Trump in the first place was a sign of goodwill towards Russia, whose spy chief said earlier this week that he finally noted the first signs of improvement in relations with Ukraine just weeks after the prisoner swap that was likely approved by the US behind the scenes.

Nevertheless, because the “New Detente” is taboo in American domestic politics after the discredited and similarly manufactured Russiagate scandal made it almost impossible to openly discuss, the Democrats are wagering that their latest Ukrainegate gambit will convince American voters ahead of next year’s elections that Trump has a suspicious penchant for trying to cut direct (Ukrainegate) and indirect (Russiagate) deals with foreign leaders. What they apparently weren’t planning on, however, is for this chess move to backfire on them by discrediting Biden after drawing so much attention to what actually was his — and not Trump’s — illegal blackmailing of a foreign leader for personal reasons (which in that context were to kill the anti-corruption investigation into his son’s energy company). Furthermore, all the furor over the true extent of influence that the US wields over the Ukrainian government will naturally lead to the question of why this state of affairs entered into practice in the first place, thus ultimately returning the conversation to the spree of urban terrorism popularly described as “EuroMaidan” that was orchestrated by the Obama Administration there and which resulted in the violent overthrow of its internationally recognized government at the time.

Foreign coups can’t “legally” (relative to American domestic law) be carried out by the CIA without the President first approving them through a so-called “presidential finding” per the Hughes-Ryan Amendment of 1974, meaning that one likely exists “justifying” “EuroMaidan” but still remains classified for obvious reasons like most of the other ones that were ordered since then. Putting two and two together, this strongly implies that Obama is directly responsible for that regime change event that later facilitated his Vice President’s son’s hiring by Burisma Holdings approximately two months afterwards as part of an attempt by that company to try to gain access to the highest echelons of the American government so as to influence it into pressuring Kiev to drop a long-running anti-corruption investigation into its activities. Biden eventually succeeded in doing their bidding in spring 2016 before the state prosecutor at the time could embarrass his family by possibly incriminating his son, with this chain of events showing that the focus of the media’s renewed attention on Ukraine should be directed towards him and Obama instead of Trump, which might very well happen by the end of this scandal’s life cycle given how masterful the President is at turning his enemies’ attacks back at 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.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukrainegate Is Just The Democrats’ Latest Gambit To Unseat Trump

Why Patriot Missiles Are Useless

September 25th, 2019 by South Front

Missile strikes that shut down a half of Saudi oil production not only marked a new round of escalation in the Persian Gulf, but also revealed the limitations of the Kingdom’s air defense. Over the past years, Saudi Arabia, the state with the third largest military budget in the world ($82.9bn), has spent billions of dollars building up six battalions of US-made Patriot surface-to-air missiles and associated radars. However, these seemingly sophisticated air-defense systems appeared to be not enough to protect key infrastructure objects.

Yemen’s Ansar Allah movement (more widely described by the media as the Houthis) claimed responsibility for the September 14 attack. According to Ansar Allah, its forces employed Qasef-3 and Samad-3 unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as some mysterious “jet-powered unmanned aerial vehicles”, launched from three different positions. The movement added that the strike was a response to the Saudi aggression against Yemen and warned of more strikes to come.

Saudi Arabia and the United States are putting a different version foreward, claiming that the strike did not originate from Yemen and was carried out with Iranian-made drones and cruise missiles. The Saudi military explained the air-defense failure by claiming that drones and missiles came from the northern direction, while its air defense radars were oriented towards Yemen in the south. Saudi Arabia and the US are yet to state directly that the supposed strike was launched from Iranian territory, but mainstream media outlets are already speculating on this topic using their lovely anonymous sources.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rushed to defend the reputation of the Patriot system.

“Look, anytime – we’ve seen air defense systems all around the world have mixed success.  Some of the finest in the world don’t always pick things up. We want to work to make sure that infrastructure and resources are put in place such that attacks like this would be less successful than this one appears to have been.  That’s certainly the case,” Pompeo said during a visit to Saudi Arabia.

However, the truth is that this was not the first time that Saudi Arabia’s Patriots have failed. Over the past years, Ansar Allah has carried out dozens of successful drone and missile strikes on Saudi Arabia, targeting airports, military camps, oil infrastructure and even the Saudi capital, Riyadh. All these attacks were delivered from the ‘right direction’, but this did not help Saudi Arabia to repel them with anything that could be described as a high degree of success.

Multiple incidents involving Patriot missiles failing, malfunctioning or even returning to explode near the launch area do not add credibility to the Saudi Air Defense Forces and their Patriots. One of the most widely covered of such incidents happened on March 25, 2018, when at least 5 Patriot missiles missed, malfunctioned or exploded mid-air during the Saudi attempt to repel an Ansar Allah missile strike.

The repeated failures of Patriots to defend targets in Saudi Arabia already turned them into a meme at an international level.

It also should be noted that the Patriot was originally created to shoot down aircraft, not missiles or drones. The Patriot got the ballistic missile capability after the missile and system upgrade dubbed the PAC-2. This included the optimization of radar search algorithms, the beam protocol in “theatre ballistic missile search”, and the introduction of the PAC-2 missile optimized for ballistic missile engagements. The missile got larger projectiles in its blast-fragmentation warhead and was optimized for high-speed engagements. The method of fire to engage ballistic missiles was changed. Instead of launching two missiles in an almost simultaneous salvo, a brief delay was added in order to allow the second missile launched to discriminate a ballistic missile warhead in the aftermath of the explosion of the first.

During the Gulf War (1991), Patriot missiles attempted to intercept hostile ballistic missiles over 40 times. The results appeared to be controversial. Then President George H. W. Bush declared that the Patriot intercepted 41 Scud missiles of 42 engaged. This would be a 98% success rate. However, a post-war analysis of presumed interceptions suggested that the real success rate was below 10%. Since then, the Patriot has received multiple upgrades.

In 1995, 1996 and 2000, the Patriot underwent three stages of major upgrades known as the PAC-3 configuration to increase its anti-ballistic missile capability. The Patriot got multiple system and software improvements, a new radar and a new missile almost fully designed to engage ballistic targets, the PAC-3.

According to a 2005 report by Office of the US Under Secretary of Defense For Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Patriot PAC-3, GEM, and GEM+ missiles demonstrated a high success rate engaging 9 hostile ballistic missiles. The report described 8 of them as successful. The ninth engagement was declared as a “probable success”.

These PAC-3 configuration Patriots are the core of the Saudi Air Defense Forces. According to Russian military sources, Saudi Arabia’s northern border is protected by 88 Patriot launchers: 52 of which are the PAC-3 version, 36 – the PAC-2. Therefore, it is possible to suggest the PAC-3’s real success rate in combat conditions could be lower than the 2005 report claimed. This may explain why more and more states seek to acquire non-US systems, for example the Russian S-300 and S-400, despite US diplomatic and sanction opposition to such moves.

Another possible explanation of the inability of Saudi Arabia to protect its infrastructure from missile and drone attacks is that it lacks layered defenses that include long-range, short-range point defense systems and electronic warfare systems which are capable of repelling mixed attacks of this type.

For example, Russia pairs its long-range S-400s and S-300s with short-to-medium range Pantsir and Tor systems designed to engage smaller targets at shorter distances. During the past few years of the Syrian conflict, Pantsirs and EW systems deployed at the Hmeimim airbase successfully repelled dozens of attacks of armed drones. At the same time, the Syrian Armed Forces, drastically limited in resources and mostly equipped with Soviet-times air defenses, demonstrated a surprising effectiveness for a military suffering from an almost 9-year long war.

All kinds of traditional air-defenses could struggle to repel mixed attacks massively involving relatively cheap drones and missiles. However, the air defense capabilities of some systems and the ability of some states to employ these systems does seem to be somewhat overestimated.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Patriot Missiles Are Useless

Welfare Checks Turn Deadly: You Might Want to Think Twice Before Calling the Cops

September 25th, 2019 by John W. Whitehead

“Anyone who cares for someone with a developmental disability, as well as for disabled people themselves [lives] every day in fear that their behavior will be misconstrued as suspicious, intoxicated or hostile by law enforcement.”—Steve Silberman, The New York Times

Think twice before you call the cops to carry out a welfare check on a loved one.

Especially if that person is autistic, hearing impaired, mentally ill, elderly, suffering from dementia, disabled or might have a condition that hinders their ability to understand, communicate or immediately comply with an order.

Particularly if you value that person’s life.

At a time when growing numbers of unarmed people are being shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety, even the most benign encounters with police can have fatal consequences.

Unfortunately, police—trained in the worst case scenario and thus ready to shoot first and ask questions later—increasingly pose a risk to anyone undergoing a mental health crisis or with special needs whose disabilities may not be immediately apparent or require more finesse than the typical freeze-or-I’ll-shoot tactics employed by America’s police forces.

Just recently, in fact, Gay Plack, a 57-year-old Virginia woman with bipolar disorder, was killed after two police officers—sent to do a welfare check on her—entered her home uninvited, wandered through the house shouting her name, kicked open her locked bedroom door, discovered the terrified woman hiding in a dark bathroom and wielding a small axe, and four seconds later, shot her in the stomach.

Four seconds.

That’s all the time it took for the two police officers assigned to check on Plack to decide to use lethal force against her (both cops opened fire on the woman), rather than using non-lethal options (one cop had a Taser, which he made no attempt to use) or attempting to de-escalate the situation.

The police chief defended his officers’ actions, claiming they had “no other option” but to shoot the 5 foot 4 inch “woman with carpal tunnel syndrome who had to quit her job at a framing shop because her hand was too weak to use the machine that cut the mats.”

This is what happens when you empower the police to act as judge, jury and executioner.

This is what happens when you indoctrinate the police into believing that their lives and their safety are paramount to anyone else’s.

Suddenly, everyone and everything else is a threat that must be neutralized or eliminated.

In light of the government’s latest efforts to predict who might pose a threat to public safety based on mental health sensor data (tracked by wearable data such as FitBits and Apple Watches and monitored by government agencies such as HARPA, the “Health Advanced Research Projects Agency”), encounters with the police could get even more deadly, especially if those involved have a mental illness or disability.

Indeed, disabled individuals make up a third to half of all people killed by law enforcement officers.

That’s according to a study by the Ruderman Family Foundation,  which reports that “disabled individuals make up the majority of those killed in use-of-force cases that attract widespread attention. This is true both for cases deemed illegal or against policy and for those in which officers are ultimately fully exonerated… Many more disabled civilians experience non-lethal violence and abuse at the hands of law enforcement officers.”

For instance, Nancy Schrock called 911 for help after her husband, Tom, who suffered with mental health issues, started stalking around the backyard, upending chairs and screaming about demons. Several times before, police had transported Tom to the hospital, where he was medicated and sent home after 72 hours. This time, Tom was tasered twice. He collapsed, lost consciousness and died.

In South Carolina, police tasered an 86-year-old grandfather reportedly in the early stages of dementia, while he was jogging backwards away from them. Now this happened after Albert Chatfield led police on a car chase, running red lights and turning randomly. However, at the point that police chose to shock the old man with electric charges, he was out of the car, on his feet, and outnumbered by police officers much younger than him.

In Georgia, campus police shot and killed a 21-year-old student who was suffering a mental health crisis. Scout Schultz was shot through the heart by campus police when he approached four of them late one night while holding a pocketknife, shouting “Shoot me!” Although police may have feared for their lives, the blade was still in its closed position.

In Oklahoma, police shot and killed a 35-year-old deaf man seen holding a two-foot metal pipe on his front porch (he used the pipe to fend off stray dogs while walking). Despite the fact that witnesses warned police that Magdiel Sanchez couldn’t hear—and thus comply—with their shouted orders to drop the pipe and get on the ground, police shot the man when he was about 15 feet away from them.

In Maryland, police (moonlighting as security guards) used extreme force to eject a 26-year-old man with Downs Syndrome and a low IQ from a movie theater after the man insisted on sitting through a second screening of a film. Autopsy results indicate that Ethan Saylor died of complications arising from asphyxiation, likely caused by a chokehold.

In Florida, police armed with assault rifles fired three shots at a 27-year-old nonverbal, autistic man who was sitting on the ground, playing with a toy truck. Police missed the autistic man and instead shot his behavioral therapist, Charles Kinsey, who had been trying to get him back to his group home. The therapist, bleeding from a gunshot wound, was then handcuffed and left lying face down on the ground for 20 minutes.

In Texas, police handcuffed, tasered and then used a baton to subdue a 7-year-old student who has severe ADHD and a mood disorder. With school counselors otherwise occupied, school officials called police and the child’s mother to assist after Yosio Lopez started banging his head on a wall. The police arrived first.

In New Mexico, police tasered, then opened fire on a 38-year-old homeless man who suffered from schizophrenia, all in an attempt to get James Boyd to leave a makeshift campsite. Boyd’s death provoked a wave of protests over heavy-handed law enforcement tactics.

In Ohio, police forcefully subdued a 37-year-old bipolar woman wearing only a nightgown in near-freezing temperatures who was neither armed, violent, intoxicated, nor suspected of criminal activity. After being slammed onto the sidewalk, handcuffed and left unconscious on the street, Tanisha Anderson died as a result of being restrained in a prone position.

And in North Carolina, a state trooper shot and killed a 29-year-old deaf motorist after he failed to pull over during a traffic stop. Daniel K. Harris was shot after exiting his car, allegedly because the trooper feared he might be reaching for a weapon.

These cases, and the hundreds—if not thousands—more that go undocumented every year speak to a crisis in policing when it comes to law enforcement’s failure to adequately assess, de-escalate and manage encounters with special needs or disabled individuals.

While the research is relatively scant, what has been happening is telling.

Over the course of six months, police shot and killed someone who was in mental crisis every 36 hours.

Among 124 police killings analyzed by The Washington Post in which mental illness appeared to be a factor, “They were overwhelmingly men, more than half of them white. Nine in 10 were armed with some kind of weapon, and most died close to home.”

But there were also important distinctions, reports the Post.

“This group was more likely to wield a weapon less lethal than a firearm. Six had toy guns; 3 in 10 carried a blade, such as a knife or a machete — weapons that rarely prove deadly to police officers. According to data maintained by the FBI and other organizations, only three officers have been killed with an edged weapon in the past decade. Nearly a dozen of the mentally distraught people killed were military veterans, many of them suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of their service, according to police or family members. Another was a former California Highway Patrol officer who had been forced into retirement after enduring a severe beating during a traffic stop that left him suffering from depression and PTSD. And in 45 cases, police were called to help someone get medical treatment, or after the person had tried and failed to get treatment on his own.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, as might be expected, has thus far continued to immunize police against charges of wrongdoing when it comes to use of force against those with a mental illness.

In a 2015 ruling, the Court declared that police could not be sued for forcing their way into a mentally ill woman’s room at a group home and shooting her five times when she advanced on them with a knife. The justices did not address whether police must take special precautions when arresting mentally ill individuals. (The Americans with Disabilities Act requires “reasonable accommodations” for people with mental illnesses, which in this case might have been less confrontational tactics.)

Where does this leave us?

For starters, we need better police training across the board, but especially when it comes to de-escalation tactics and crisis intervention.

A study by the National Institute of Mental Health found that CIT (Crisis Intervention Team)-trained officers made fewer arrests, used less force, and connected more people with mental-health services than their non-trained peers.

As The Washington Post points out:

“Although new recruits typically spend nearly 60 hours learning to handle a gun, according to a recent survey by the Police Executive Research Forum, they receive only eight hours of training to de-escalate tense situations and eight hours learning strategies for handling the mentally ill. Otherwise, police are taught to employ tactics that tend to be counterproductive in such encounters, experts said. For example, most officers are trained to seize control when dealing with an armed suspect, often through stern, shouted commands. But yelling and pointing guns is ‘like pouring gasoline on a fire when you do that with the mentally ill,’ said Ron Honberg, policy director with the National Alliance on Mental Illness.”

Second, police need to learn how to slow confrontations down, instead of ramping up the tension (and the noise).

In Maryland, police recruits are now required to take a four-hour course in which they learn “de-escalation tactics” for dealing with disabled individuals: speak calmly, give space, be patient.

One officer in charge of the Los Angeles Police Department’s “mental response teams” suggests that instead of rushing to take someone into custody, police should try to slow things down and persuade the person to come with them.

Third, with all the questionable funds flowing to police departments these days, why not use some of those funds to establish what one disability-rights activist describes as “a 911-type number dedicated to handling mental-health emergencies, with community crisis-response teams at the ready rather than police officers.”

In the end, while we need to make encounters with police officers safer for people with suffering from mental illness or with disabilities, what we really need—as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People—is to make encounters with police safer for all individuals all across the board.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Welfare Checks Turn Deadly: You Might Want to Think Twice Before Calling the Cops

Will the Carcass of Indonesian Infrastructure Really be Revived by Big Business?

September 25th, 2019 by Andre Vltchek

Outside the Indonesian city of Palangkaraya in Central Kalimantan (Borneo island), the new airport is totally empty. A lonely Cessna flies around, performing “touch and go” maneuvers, perhaps training some corrupt businessman how to fly.

Two scheduled flights, one from Balikpapan, and the other from Jakarta, are delayed. No reason is given.

Balikpapan on a turboprop ATR-72 Lion Air (operated by its subsidiary Wings Air) and then connection on a monstrously stuffed Boeing 737-900ER, is the only ‘direct’ way to reach the eastern part of the island and the city of Tarakan. The price is exorbitant – around $185 one way, on this ‘discount airline’, which keeps crashing, and squeezes people like sardines, while not even serving water on board.

Flights are departing from this part of Indonesia, where the average person in the rural areas lives on just $0.59 per capita, per day. Planes are now flying empty, or semi-full, as no one can afford the prices of Indonesian airline duopoly.

If they really have to go around this enormous island, most of the people take the dilapidated buses. Or if they have to go to other islands, they take old and filthy ferries. Ferries tend to sink, at alarming rates. But even a thoroughly disgusting ferry from Tarakan to the Malaysian city of Tawau, a hair-raising 3 hours’ sail, costs Rp.500.000 one way (around US$36 dollars), plus ‘hidden’ fees. If you do not use thugs to carry your bag, you will have to face harassment from the entire mafia.

Life is brutal.

The citizens of Borneo (the third largest island on earth, after Greenland and Papua) were promised cheap flights, as a result of glorious capitalism, competition and the ‘free market’. The dream did not materialize. Or actually it did, but just for a short time. Indonesian capitalism is based on kleptocracy, filthy deals made behind closed doors in order to actually avoid any serious competition, and with collaboration of the epically corrupt government officials.

Here, everyone seems to gain. Except those 95% of the citizens of the fourth most populous country on earth, who are (don’t say it loudly, as it is supposed to be concealed) miserably poor.

***

Now, during his second term in office, President Joko Widodo (known as Jokowi), claims he has ‘no political obligations’ tying his hands, anymore. He wants to ‘do business’, big business, which in his simple vocabulary that of a furniture maker from Central Java, means a further wave of privatization, of drawing massive investments from abroad, enforcing ‘labor reforms’ (cutting the workers’ rights further), and introducing ‘tax holidays’ for both foreign and local big companies. He is also dreaming about lowering taxes for the rich.

“I know some of my reforms will not be popular,” he says proudly. He doesn’t seem to care. He is enjoying the full support of the ‘educated elites’, of the ‘moderate military’ and “moderate Muslim leaders”. How ‘moderate’ most of them really are, is extremely questionable. He has already had internationally recognized mass murderers in his government. But by Indonesian standards they appear to be “moderate”. Earlier this year, Jokowi defeated, in elections, the retired genocidal army General Prabowo. Although, some will recall that he embraced another mass murderer, General Wiranto, in his previous administration, elevating him to the post of Minister of Defense. Now Wiranto is still in power – Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs.

My theory is simple and I stand by it: General Prabowo (who recently lost presidential elections) has actually never had any real chance of being elected. He was ‘thrown into the ring’ by the elites, who wanted Jokowi to win, for both the first and the second time. They wanted him to be voted in, ‘democratically’, by the confused Indonesian electorate, who got too terrified of the prospect of being governed by a mass murderer and the favorite candidate of the jihadi cadres.

What the ‘elites’ did not expect was that well over 40% of the disordered, brainwashed (by anti-Communist propaganda, and by capitalist and religious dogmas) voters would actually decide to vote, passionately and determinedly, for the ‘fake candidate’, General Prabowo.

But things have now calmed down, as planned, as expected, and Jokowi has survived on his throne. Bloomberg and other mass-media outlets call Jokowi, flatteringly, the “pro-business president”.

That is precisely what the Indonesian unelected but true rulers always wanted.

“Come to my country, I have over 17,000 islands,” Jokowi mumbles in front of international business forums. It is embarrassing to witness. Very embarrassing, indeed. “I used to be a businessman,” he continues. “Let us talk about business.”

He is selling what is left of his country. And he is doing it very quickly.

What is next? It is infrastructure, of course.

***

Indonesian infrastructure is horrid. It is not just bad, as simply bad as the one that used to be in India. It is basically one of the most terrible ones on earth. Even Rwandan or Burundian roads are much better by comparison. I know, because I have driven on all of them.

Jokowi has a plan. He wants to build motorways, or more precisely, “Toll roads”, all over his unfortunate archipelago. He is a businessman, after all, as he himself repeats.

Since Suharto’s pro-Western dictatorship, the concept in Indonesia (but also in Thailand and to a lesser extent, in Malaysia), has been very simple: “Let public infrastructure deteriorate, invest almost nothing in sanitation, flood canals and garbage collection, let railroads rot, make sure there is no urban mass public transportation, except in the capital city. Make sure also that in the cities and villages, there will hardly be any great sidewalks, promenades and waterfronts. Then, people will be forced to buy cars and scooters, even if they were not able to afford them. They would simply have no choice, and somehow find a way. Then you hit bingo: heavily tax the sales of the motor vehicles, make them twice costlier than in the United States, or even better, assemble outdated models in your country – old stripped-down models pushed for at a premium price. And, while you are at it, also get more profit from burning oceans of fuel.”

Air transport is also very convenient for the capitalist extremists. Private ‘discount’ airlines can easily destroy solid bus and ferry transport, by ridiculously (and by secretly set, unrealistically low prices). Then, once there is no competition left, show your real teeth, and make air travel prices sky-rocket; make airplane tickets more expensive than those in Europe, China, or the United States. Maximize your earnings by destroying your nation.

In Indonesia, some air routes like those in Borneo, are five times more expensive than their equivalent in neighboring, and much richer, Malaysia.

Railroads are yet another Indonesian nightmare. In 2019, the rail network is significantly shorter than during the Dutch colonial era. Some tracks are so ridiculously bad, that trains, so-called “Argo” expresses, have to crawl over bridges more than 100 years old, at some 10 km/h speed. The entire country does not have one single tunnel, to speak of.

But Jokowi’s government has decided to build a super bullet train, that will be running at over 300 km/h speed, connecting Jakarta and Bandung, two huge cities located only 140 kilometers apart. Two brand new stations will only add to the traffic jams in the already collapsed cities. Passengers would have to sit for hours in legendary traffic gridlocks of Jakarta, then ‘fly’ at exorbitant speed, just to end up in another urban jam, this time the one in Bandung.

It is all just nonsense, a show-off, and a big business tool. The pricing of the tickets has already been discussed, and it will be high, ‘pro-profit’.

Japanese and Chinese companies competed. The Chinese one won. But, as I was told in China, this is not what the government really wanted to do in the frame of BRI. China habitually deals with logical, integrated, national concepts.

***

AIT5343511

And so, President Jokowi wants his huge new system of “toll ways” to be put in place, soon. But toll ways that have so far been constructed in Java, are of horrid quality. They are clogged, they are for a fee, and their surfaces are uneven.

Such roads would never be acceptable, let alone chargeable in a country like Thailand. And in Malaysia, motorways charge toll only when they are almost on the same level as those in Italy or France.

Greed of Indonesian elites is big; it is monumental. Patience, or call it ignorance or submission of its people knows no boundaries.

President Jokowi has been throwing around large numbers. 80 billion dollars for the toll-way system. He wants someone to sponsor it. Not his government, but once again, some private, foreign enterprises. China has been approached. But China is not ecstatic, not at all. I was told, explained to. BRI exists for improving countries, connecting them to each other, humanizing the lives of people. Not for purely and cynical ‘business’ interests.

This is not some mammoth project to save the nation. It is designed to make rich Indonesians richer, to sell more cars, and to make poor people poorer. To squeeze the tiny middle class of their last rupiahs. China may participate, but never make something like this its priority.

***

The Indonesian people were fooled into believing that Jokowi is working on behalf of the nation. Once re-elected, he declared that he will introduce sweeping reforms, which will be ‘unpopular with many Indonesians’.

Bloomberg wrote in July 2019:

“Jokowi is expected to announce his cabinet lineup before starting his second term in October. Earlier this month, he vowed to implement a wave of reforms to attract foreign investment, including cutting corporate taxes, overhauling labor laws and lifting curbs on foreign ownership in more industries.”

He is ready to implement neo-liberal policies, to be precise.

The question is, how much more can poor Indonesians endure; how much can they pay? Most of them live well below the internationally defined poverty line. This government calls them ‘middle class’, as only over 9% are registered as poor. But they are expected to pay more than the citizens of the rich countries – for cars, medicine, most food items, services and consumer goods of comparable quality.

They are even forced to pay in order to enter tiny and badly maintained public spaces. Or to stop their cars for couple of minutes in front of convenience stores. Or… basically, everything here is for a fee.

Here, everyone has mobile phones, because without them, in Indonesia, you are nobody. But the mobile connection is extremely poor, and so is the internet connection. Voice calls get interrupted. Internet downloads and uploads are endlessly cut. When I am working on my films here, I am periodically forced to fly to Singapore, in order to send files. That is how bad things are. And so, I try to spend as little time here as possible.

The internet is heavily censored, much more than in countries like Thailand or Malaysia. For instance, to learn about the genocide in West Papua, which the Indonesian government and the military are committing, is extremely difficult (not that many people are actually trying). Indonesia, which is failing to provide functional literacy to tens of millions of its citizens, excels in the field of censorship. Recently, Jokowi declared that he will be destroying books in any way related to Communism.

And just recently, the capital was plunged into darkness, as one of the power plants collapsed. Blackouts and electric shortages are common occurrences. Instead of resigning, Indonesia’s director of the electricity company – PLN – Ms. Sripeni Inten, suggested publicly that Indonesian citizens should go “Ikhlas”, which is one of the Arabic words for “submission” or “acceptance”.

The West calls Indonesia the “third largest democracy”, because it robs its own islands on behalf of Western corporations and governments.

And almost all the future Indonesian infrastructure will be designed to serve the interests of the multi-national companies, big local businesses, as well as North American, and European regimes.

Most likely, China will participate only marginally in helping hyper-capitalist Indonesia to build its infrastructure. As mentioned above, most of what Jokowi is begging for, has very little to do with the optimistic and internationalist Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Jokowi is a capitalist nihilist.

The Indonesian government is mainly interested in motorways, so the road system can move more trucks bringing looted commodities to the ports, as well as more private cars, all those, of course, for a fee. It wants to build seaports in ‘strategic’ areas, near oil palm plantations, coal and other mines. It is modernizing airports for the upper class, as nowadays, almost no one else can afford to fly.

Make a wrong turn, and enter the village roads. You will encounter potholed paths, much more terrible than in Africa.

Extreme capitalism cannot create first-rate infrastructure. Even in the richest turbo-capitalist country – the United States of A. – bridges are crumbling, airports are overcrowded, and passenger trains pathetic. In the post-Pinochet, socialist Chile, the infrastructure improved to the point that it became the best in the Western Hemisphere. Lately, after embracing neo-liberalism again, Chile is quickly losing its edge.

Indonesia – one of the most desperate countries in Asia – could never copy the great infrastructural leap forward of the socialist China.

If it tries, the borrowed money will end up in the pockets of corrupt elites, instead of improving the lives of ordinary citizens.

*

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 and its images originally published on NEO

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” where this article was originally published. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Will the Carcass of Indonesian Infrastructure Really be Revived by Big Business?

Alexandrópolis, a nova base USA contra a Rússia

September 24th, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

“Acabei de voltar de Alexandrópolis, uma visita estrategicamente importante que se concentrou nas relações militares excepcionais entre os Estados Unidos e a Grécia e no investimento estratégico que o governo dos EUA está a fazer em Alexandrópolis”: declarou, em 16 de Setembro, o Embaixador dos EUA na Grécia, Geoffrey Pyatt (nomeado em 2016 pelo Presidente Obama).

O porto de Alexandrópolis, no nordeste da Grécia, confinante com a Turquia e a Bulgária, está localizado no mar Egeu, perto do Estreito de Dardanelos, que, ligando o Mediterrâneo e o Mar Negro ao território turco, constitui uma rota de trânsito marítimo fundamental, sobretudo para Rússia. Qual é a importância geoestratégica deste porto, que Pyatt visitou, juntamente com o Ministro da Defesa grego, Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos, explica a Embaixada dos EUA em Atenas: “O porto de Alexandrópolis, graças à sua localização estratégica e infraestrutura, está bem posicionado para apoiar exercícios militares na região, como demonstrado pelo recente Sabre Guardian 2019 “.

O “investimento estratégico”, que Washington já está a realizar nas infraestruturas portuárias, tem como objectivo tornar Alexandrópolis uma das bases militares americanas mais importantes da região, capaz de bloquear o acesso dos navios russos ao Mediterrâneo. Isto é possível pelas “relações militares excepcionais” com a Grécia, que há muito tempo disponibilizam as suas bases militares para os EUA: em particular Larissa, para os drones armados Ripers e Stefanovikio para os caças F-16 e para os helicópteros Apache.Esta última, que será privatizada, será comprado pelos EUA.

O Embaixador Pyatt não esconde os interesses que levam os EUA a reforçar a sua presença militar na Grécia e noutros países da região mediterrânea: “Estamos trabalhando com outros parceiros democráticos da região para rejeitar personagens malignas, como Rússia e China, que têm interesses diferentes dos nossos”, em particular” a Rússia que usa a energia como instrumento da sua influência maléfica”.

Sublinha, assim, a importância assumida pela “geopolítica da energia”, afirmando que “Alexandrópolis tem um papel crucial na ligação da segurança energética e na estabilidade na Europa”. A Trácia Ocidental, a região grega onde o porto está situado, é, de facto, “uma encruzilhada energética para a Europa Central e Oriental”. Para compreender o que o Embaixador significa, basta lançar um olhar à carta geográfica.

A vizinha Trácia Oriental – ou seja,  a pequena parte europeia da Turquia – é o ponto em que chega, depois de atravessar o Mar Negro, o gasoduto TurkStream vindo da Rússia, na fase final da construção. A partir daqui, através de outro gasoduto, o gás russo deve chegar à Bulgária, à Sérvia e a outros países europeus. É a contramedida da Rússia ao movimento bem sucedido dos Estados Unidos que, com a contribuição decisiva da Comissão Europeia, bloquearam, em 2014, o oleoduto South Stream que deveria levar gás russo para a Itália e de lá, para outros países da UE.

Os Estados Unidos tentam agora bloquear também o oleoduto TurkStream, objectivo mais difícil, visto que entram em jogo as relações, já deterioradas com a Turquia. Fazem-no na Grécia, a quem fornecem quantidades crescentes de gás natural liquefeito como alternativa ao gás natural russo. Não se sabe o que os Estados Unidos estão a preparar na Grécia, também contra a China, que pretende fazer do Pireu um ponto de paragem importante, na Nova Rota da Seda. Não seria surpreendente se, no modelo do “Incidente do Golfo de Tonkin”, se verificasse no Egeu, um “Acidente de Alexandrópolis”.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Artigo original em italiano :

Alessandropoli, nuova base Usa contro la Russia

ilmanifesto.it

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Alexandrópolis, a nova base USA contra a Rússia

Alessandropoli, nuova base Usa contro la Russia

September 24th, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

«Sono appena ritornato da Alessandropoli, una visita strategicamente importante che ha messo a fuoco sia le eccezionali relazioni militari fra Stati uniti e Grecia, sia l’investimento strategico che il governo degli Stati uniti sta facendo ad Alessandropoli»: lo ha dichiarato il 16 settembre l’ambasciatore Usa in Grecia Geoffrey Pyatt (nominato nel 2016 dal presidente Obama).

Il porto di Alessandropoli, nella Grecia nord-orientale confinante con Turchia e Bulgaria, è situato sull’Egeo a ridosso dello Stretto dei Dardanelli che, collegando in territorio turco il Mediterraneo e il Mar Nero, costituisce una fondamentale via di transito marittima soprattutto per la Russia. Quale sia l’importanza geostrategica di questo porto, che Pyatt ha visitato insieme al ministro greco della Difesa Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos, lo spiega la stessa Ambasciata Usa ad Atene: «Il porto di Alessandropoli, grazie alla sua ubicazione strategica e alle sue infrastrutture, è ben posizionato per appoggiare esercitazioni militari nella regione, come ha dimostrato la recente Saber Guardian 2019».

L’«investimento strategico», che Washington sta già effettuando nelle infrastrutture portuali, mira a fare di Alessandropoli una delle più importanti basi militari Usa nella regione,  in grado di bloccare l’accesso delle navi russe al Mediterraneo. Ciò è reso possibile dalle «eccezionali relazioni militari» con la Grecia, che da tempo ha messo le sue basi militari a disposizione degli Usa: in particolare Larissa per i droni armati Reapers e Stefanovikio per i caccia F-16 e gli elicotteri Apache. Quest’ultima, che sarà privatizzata, verrà acquistata dagli Usa.

L’ambasciatore Pyatt non nasconde gli interessi che portano gli Usa a rafforzare la loro presenza militare in Grecia e altri paesi della regione mediterranea: «Stiamo lavorando con altri partner democratici nella regione per respingere malefici attori come la Russia e la Cina che hanno interessi differenti dai nostri», in particolare «la Russia che usa l’energia quale strumento della sua malefica influenza».

Sottolinea quindi l’importanza assunta dalla «geopolitica dell’energia», affermando che «Alessandropoli ha un ruolo cruciale di collegamento per la sicurezza energetica e la stabilità dell’Europa». La Tracia Occidentale, la regione greca in cui è situato il porto, è infatti «un crocevia energetico per l’Europa Centrale e Orientale». Per capire che cosa intenda l’ambasciatore basta dare uno sguardo alla carta geografica.

La limitrofa Tracia Orientale – ossia la piccola parte europea della Turchia – è il punto in cui arriva, dopo aver attraversato il Mar Nero, il gasdotto TurkStream proveniente dalla Russia, in fase finale di realizzazione. Da qui, attraverso un altro gasdotto, il gas russo dovrebbe arrivare in Bulgaria, Serbia e altri paesi europei. È la contromossa russa alla riuscita mossa degli Stati uniti che, con il determinante contributo della Commissione europea, bloccarono nel 2014 il gasdotto South Stream che avrebbe dovuto portare il gas russo in Italia e da qui in altri paesi della Ue.

Gli Stati uniti cercano ora di bloccare anche il TurkStream, obiettivo più difficile poiché entrano in gioco i rapporti, già deteriorati, con la Turchia. Fanno per questo leva sulla Grecia, a cui forniscono crescenti quantità di gas naturale liquefatto in alternativa al gas naturale russo. Non si sa che cosa stiano preparando in Grecia gli Stati uniti, anche contro la Cina che intende fare del Pireo un importante scalo della Nuova Via della Seta. Non ci sarebbe da stupirsi se, sul modello dell’«Incidente del Golfo del Tonchino», si verificasse nell’Egeo un «Incidente di Alessandropoli».

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Alessandropoli, nuova base Usa contro la Russia

Humanitarian Crisis in Kashmir: India’s “Economic Opening” Has “Closed Off Kashmir”

September 24th, 2019 by Andrew Korybko

The following is the speech that Andrew Korybko gave at the “Humanitarian Crisis In Kashmir: Paths To A Resolution” conference that was held in Moscow on 23 September.

We’re here today to draw attention to what’s been happening in Indian-Occupied Kashmir for the past month and a half, and from the little that we know, it’s extremely alarming. The 8 million people of the valley have been living in lockdown since early August, with a military-imposed curfew upheld by nearly one million Indian troops who have arbitrarily arrested thousands since then.

The locals have been cut off from the internet and many of their families across the Line Of Control and elsewhere in the world haven’t heard from them since. International journalists aren’t allowed to visit the disputed region, nor for that matter are opposition politicians, who earlier tried to see for themselves what’s really happening there but were turned back at the airport. The occasional news that does manage to break through the Indian information blockade is of spontaneous protests, pellet gun shootings in response, and injuries to innocent civilians that have sometimes left them blind. Just as troubling, Muslims were forbidden from publicly participating in Ashura processions, which is an indisputable violation of their fundamental human rights.

All of these worrying factors contribute to the credible fears that a genocide might be about to unfold in Indian-Occupied Kashmir, and the occupying authorities aren’t doing anything to put these concerns to rest by continuing to keep UN officials and the international media out of this disputed region. India’s reasons for doing this are obvious enough, and it’s that the ultra-nationalist and fascist-inspired BJP Hindu extremists harbor a deep hatred for Muslims, who they’ve conveniently framed as scapegoats for their country’s many problems. Influential figures in the Indian establishment and media have openly called for changing the demographic balance in Kashmir, which could be furthered through the large-scale migration of outsiders to this disputed region in violation of international law and/or the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Muslim population there. That’s why India denied its inhabitants the right to a plebiscite on their political future in contravention of UNSC Resolutions on the matter, unilaterally annexed Kashmir, and continues to keep the world out of this disputed region as the ruling extremists contemplate the “most efficient” way to impose their hoped-for “Hindu Rashtra” — or fundamentalist Hindu state — on the non-Hindu population there.

One would ordinarily expect the International Community to universally condemn the rogue state of India and at the very least impose sanctions against it for blatantly violating UNSC Resolutions, though most of the world has remained quiet because India’s economic opening over the past few decades bought their silence. Those many countries, including some leading Great Powers, value their trade ties with India over the human rights of the Kashmiris and respect for the same UN Charter that they all officially agreed to uphold.

The sad state of affairs is that the Kashmiris continue to suffer and face a fate that might even be worse than death for some of them given how notorious India’s rape gangs are if they’re ever God forbid released on the region or already have been without the world knowing about it because of the ongoing information blockade. As unfortunate as it is to acknowledge, it’s pretty much only Pakistan and to a lesser extent China that have done anything tangible in support of this pressing humanitarian cause and egregious violation of international law, though Iran’s religious authorities deserve to be commended for speaking out about this as well. Ahead of this week’s UN General Assembly meeting, let’s hope Prime Minister Khan can get the rest of the world to finally wake up.

*

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.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Humanitarian Crisis in Kashmir: India’s “Economic Opening” Has “Closed Off Kashmir”

The Coverup of President John F. Kennedy’s Assassination Is Wearing Thin

September 24th, 2019 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Below is a several years old documentary of 35 minutes summarizing the powerful evidence that the Warran Commission Report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy is a cover-up.  

All available evidence points to the CIA and the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the cooperation of the Secret Service, as the murderers of President Kennedy.  Fifty-six years after the murder of President Kennedy, the US government still refuses to release the documents that would prove what really happened.  Clearly, the truth is being hidden.

As James Jesus Angleton, the head of CIA Counterintelligence told me, when the CIA does a black ops operation, it has a cover story ready that is immediately fed into the media.  In this way the CIA controls the explanation.  As years past and the cover story wears thin, the agency releases some actual factual information but mixes it with other insinuations that direct focus off into red herrings.  

This documentary video, which is very revealing for the most part, shows indications of this manipulation.  

One is the insinuation that Jack Ruby, who killed Oswald inside the Dallas jail, had mafia ties and that the mafia might have been involved.  Of course, if the mafia had done it, there would be no reason to keep it secret, much less go to such extensive effort to cover it up.

 The other is the insinuation that Vice President Lyndon Johnson arranged the murder so that he could become president.  This is farfetched, but many believe it.  A vice president has no control over the Secret Service, CIA, or military.  A vice president who tried to organize such a coup would be arrested. If the CIA and Joint Chiefs want to kill the president, they don’t need the vice president.

During President Kennedy’s term, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were rabid right-wing warmongers who wanted to attack the Soviet Union with hydrogen bombs and conduct a false flag attack on Americans, including shooting down US airliners (the Northwoods Project), in order to build public support for an invasion of Cuba.  President Kennedy refused.  

The Joint Chiefs were also extremely disturbed that Kennedy was working with Krushchev to end the Cold War.  The CIA was angry that President Kennedy refused to support their Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. The Bay of Pigs invasion failed, because Kennedy refused to provide US Air Force support. The CIA lost its army of Cuban mercenaries.   It was also known that Kennedy intended to withdraw US forces from Vietnam after his reelection.

The view of the right-wing US military/security complex was that Kennedy was soft on communism and a threat to US national security. If Kennedy had managed to end the Cold War and pull out of Vietnam, it would have delivered a blow to the power and profit of the military/security complex.

The Warran Commission knew the truth as did Lyndon Johnson, but the belief was that the American people could not be told, because it would cause them to lose confidence in the CIA and US military at the height of the Cold War.  Equally important, it would undermine America’s image in the world and serve as a massive boost to communist propaganda. In other words, there were reasons for the coverup of the assassination.

The reason today for continuing the official coverup is to retain control over explanations.  Once the American people learn of their massive deceit, they will think twice before they believe any more lies like Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Iranian nukes, Russian invasions, and so on.  The agendas of the ruling elites are so illegitimate that the American people would never accept them.  Therefore, they have to be accomplished under cover of false stories such as the war on terror, Iranian attack on Saudii oil production, Russiagate, and so on.

American democracy is dysfunctional, because the people live in the false reality of controlled explanations. Americans have no idea of what really is going on, and increasingly seem not to care.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Coverup of President John F. Kennedy’s Assassination Is Wearing Thin

US Election Candidates: As Joe Biden Falters, Will Elizabeth Warren Survive the Scrutiny

September 24th, 2019 by Renee Parsons

Despite early polls which showed some of the ‘top tier’ Democrat candidates beating Trump in a general election,  the last DNC debate left considerable question as to whether there was enough substance on that stage to win the White House.   

While the much vaunted polls are known to be statistically unreliable and vulnerable to political winds since at least 2016, more of a pr gimmick than a rational calculation of public support, the MSM is in a virtual orgy of enthusiasm with the latest Iowa poll showing former VP and Sen. Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders fading as neoliberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren ‘surges.’

With Biden consistently exhibiting an incoherent, rambling vision on any aberrant topic that suddenly manifests in his mind, the least disruptive way to eliminate him is to manipulate the polls as Bernie’s rating is also reduced while accelerating a highly problematic Warren, who is more acceptable to the DNC. 

In an attempt to further control the campaign’s selection process and the party’s final nominee, the DNC is preparing to increase its requirements for future debates; thereby limiting the stage to its most favored candidates (not including Bernie) from the moderate, bobbing head wing of the Democratic Party.   

As the DNC plods along repudiating its name with its undemocratic behavior, it attempts to convince the partys rank and file that their anointed candidates are The Best, each a model of excellence, virtue and superiority.   The truth is that the Dems have little to offer but divisiveness as they continue to deny the reality of being in the throes of an institutional meltdown unlike anything they have previously experienced.


The Quantum world makes its presence known with the Paradigm Shift upon us, intent on demonstrating its ability to disrupt the nature of reality as it roots out institutional corruption with the Department of Justice and FBI scandals as prime examples.   Stuck in the materialist way of thinking, the Dems continue to flounder solely focused on the partisan virtue of identity politics with outdated candidates promoting outdated solutions to outdated ideas.

As the Dems reject independent thinkers like Tulsi Gabbard and John Delaney who offer an opportunity to heal the acrimony and re-envision a 21st Century society, the DNC and its establishment candidates are reminiscent of a coven of lost, directionless souls. 

Here is a closer look at two of the ‘top tier’ candidates being groomed with former Veep and Sen. Joe Biden holding a tenuous lead.   Perhaps the most significant question of the evening came from ABC reporter Linsey Davis as she asked a visibly snickering Biden about race and inequality in schools.  Davis began with a Biden quote from a 1975 interview:

“I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather.  I feel responsible for what the situation is today for the sins of my own generation  and I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.” 

Davis:  “You said that 40 years ago but as you stand here tonight, What responsibility do Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in our country?”

Biden “They have to deal with, look…there is institutional segregation in this country and from the time  I got involved I started dealing with that; red lining, banks, making sure that we are in a position where, look..…I propose that we take  those very poor schools, the Title l schools,
triple the amount of money we spend from $15  to $ 45  billion a year, give every single teacher a raise to the equal of getting out to the $60,000  level; Number two make sure that we bring in to help the students, the teacher deal with the problems that come from home.  The problems that come from  home…we need, we have one school psychologist for every 1500 kids in America today.  It’s crazy. The teachers
are..I’m married to a teacher, my deceased wife is a teacher. They have every problem coming to them. 

We have to make sure that every child does in fact, have 3, 4 and 5 year olds go to school, school not to daycare, school.   We bring in social workers into homes of parents to help them deal with how to raise their children.  It’s not like they don’t want to help; they don’t know quite what to do.  Play the radio, make sure that the television, excuse me, make sure the you have record player on at night, the phono…  Make sure the kids hear words.  A kid coming from a very poor school, a very poor background will hear 4 million words fewer spoken by the time they get there.  there’s so much we…”

Davis:  “Thank you Mr. vice president.”

Biden:  “I’m going to go on like the rest of them do, twice over.   Here’s the deal, we’ve got this a little backwards. And by the way, in Venezuela.  We should be allowing  people to come here from Venezuela. I know Maduro. I’ve confronted Maduro.  Number two. You talk about the need to do something in Latin America.  I’m the guy who came up with $740 million to see to it that those three countries change their system so these people don’t have a chance to leave.  You’re acting like we just came up with this yesterday.” 

Looking lost and bewildered in the aftermath of a disastrous performance, the MSM shielded Biden from provocative headlines, raised no questions as to his mental competence or questioned his views on race relations.  Like the DNC itself,  Biden’s ability and energy to conduct a coherent, vigorous 2020 campaign is questionable as each may wander as wounded, confused dinosaurs struggling to approach the finish line.

Gun Control and the Filibuster

In response to a discussion on gun control, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) said:

…”why doesn’t it happen?  The answer is corruption pure and simple.  We have a Congress beholden to the gun industry and unless we’re willing to address that head on and roll back the filibuster we’re not going to get anything done on guns.  I was in the US Senate when 54 Senators said let’s do background checks, let’s get rid of assault weapons and with 54 Senators, it failed because of the filibuster.  Until we attack the systemic problems, we can’t get gun reform in this country.”    

In 2010 the Democratic- controlled Senate conducted hearings on the filibuster and in 2013  voted 52-48 to eliminate the filibuster on executive and judicial branch nominees while leaving the 60 votes required  to end a filibuster in place.  Warren  has served in the Senate since January, 2013 and was present for the filibuster vote.  In other words, it is preferable to blame an opposing political target rather than accept responsibility for Congressional ineptitude.

In 2015, the Republicans took control of the Senate and kept the 2013 rules in place.  In addition, Warren is apparently unaware that the Democratic-controlled Congress in 2010 made no attempt to restore the assault gun ban that had expired in 2004.  As a one-dimensional thinker, Warren has yet to make the connection between a ‘terrorist’ hate attack under the influence of psychotropic drugs and/or MK ultra as perpetuated by those who would benefit from civil discord.      

While the ACLU supports “reasonable restrictions that promote public safety” and opposed an Obama Executive Order that would have registered thousands of Social Security recipients with mental disabilities as part of the Background Check System, the ACLU does not oppose the Second Amendment as it represents a collective Constitutional right rather than an individual citizen’s right.    

Immigration

Debate monitor Jorge Ramos of Univision News led the questioning on immigration proving that there is no rational discussion possible with Democrats if there is disagreement on one of their core policies such as open borders.  With not a whit of objectivity  or a trace of critical analysis, the candidates spoke with one voice, fanning the flames of divisiveness, each expressing their vehemence as the Dems are unable to separate a politically-charged issue from the reality of millions of illegal immigrants requiring health care, education, housing and employment.

As Sen. Warren suggested “we have a crisis that Donald Trump created and hopes to profit from politically,” the hypocrisy of the Dems is stunning for those with a memory that predates the 2016 election when the Dems had a very different policy.  Here is Bill Clinton’s 1995 State of the Union which was greeted with a bi-partisan standing ovation and Barack Obama’s position, both of which are in sync with Trump’s proposed immigration policy  (without the wall).   After their 2016 loss, the Dems realized that registering thousands, if not millions of new voters, albeit illegal citizens, would greatly enhance their political fortunes on election day.

More Double Standards

Warren was elected to the US Senate largely in recognition for her efforts as Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) (2008-2010) and then launching the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in 2011 which was said to be the panacea to rein in the ever-increasing interest charges on American credit card debt. Today the CFPB presides over an eruption of credit debt and interest payments that are at all time highs as American banks continue to rake in a 49% increase over the last five years with interest payments growing from $101 billion in 2017 to $115 billion in 2018 and $122 billion on 2019. 

The COP was approved by a Democratic Congress in 2008 to oversee the taxpayer’s $700,000 investment into TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), to address the subprime mortgage crisis  and to purchase toxic assets to stabilize the financial sector.  During her term as Designated watchdog, not one too-big-to-fail bank or banker was recommended for prosecution and no actions were taken to protect ten million American homes from foreclosure.

Warren apparently sees no ambiguity between stockpiling $15 Million from her 2018 Senate re-election campaign to underwrite her 2020 effort, then disclaiming corporate campaign donations during the primary season (“I don’t take corporate PAC money, shoot, I don’t take PAC money of any kind.” and yet planning to accept corporate money during the election campaign. 

Hyped by the MSM as a progressive activist, Sen. Warren supports abolish private health insurance in favor of a government run plan and is in favor of free health care for illegal immigrants.  While Warren did not endorse Sen. Sanders in 2016, she is currently consulting with Hillary Clinton as a confidante. 

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. Se is a frequent contributor to Global Research

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Election Candidates: As Joe Biden Falters, Will Elizabeth Warren Survive the Scrutiny

Why a War Against Iran Will be the “Nail in a Coffin” for U.S. Hegemony in the Middle East

September 24th, 2019 by Timothy Alexander Guzman

First published in July 2019

President Donald Trump was recently interviewed on Fox Business and was asked about Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani’s statement calling the White House “Mentally Retarded” and if the U.S. was going to have a war against Iran and he said “Well, I hope we don’t, but we’re in a very strong position if something should happen. We’re in a very strong position. It wouldn’t last very long, I can tell you that.”

Well Trump is obviously in fantasy land or he is just incredibly ignorant of America’s recent history of losing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. troops have occupied Afghanistan since October 7, 2001 and Iraq since March 20, 2003. The Trump regime has no current plans of completely withdrawing U.S. troops from both countries especially those stationed in Iraq which is in close proximity to Iran.

But Trump says a war against Iran won’t last long. Well, let’s look at some of the facts in regards to what the U.S. military and its allies in the region would be facing if they pressed ahead with a military invasion.

For starters, Iran’s military personal is estimated to be close to a million active service members and reservists. If attacked, rest assured there would be close to an additional 40 million eligible men and women who would gladly pick up a rifle and every other weapon that is available and fight the U.S. military to the end no matter what their political beliefs are.

Iran has 82 million people and a land mass that is at least four times larger than Iraq. When it comes to military hardware, Iran has more than 1,634 combat tanks, more than 500 aircraft, 2,345 armored fighting vehicles, 34 submarines and 88 vessels. Iran has many capabilities including its most recent development of the Khordad 15 which is an air defense system that is “capable of tracking and shooting down six targets at the same time. The weapon was rolled out amid growing tensions around the Persian Gulf” according to RT.com. Washington will find out quickly that Iran is not Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya because once U.S. troops land on Iranian territory, body bags will begin to pile up rapidly.

An Attack on Iran will lead to a Worldwide Catastrophe

One Israeli statesman, diplomat and former head of the Nativ Service who specialized in the export of Jews to Israel through special operations by the name of Yakov Kedmi had some interesting perspectives on Vesti News, a Russian news program. Kedmi discussed what the U.S. and its allies in the region would be facing if a war with Iran were to take place:

“There are a few aspects, in purely military terms, it’s impossible to defeat Iran. It has a huge amount of territory. The Americans won’t have enough forces to deploy there. The logistics are crazy, it’s impossible for the Americans. So, there’s no opportunity to conduct a war against Iran and win it. And the pentagon knows that better than anyone. And they warned and said it” 

Kedmi explains the stupidity of Washington’s overthrow scheme of Saddam Hussien and how much support Iran has when it comes to the Shia population in the Middle East:

“American’s don’t even understand what a stupid thing they did when they overthrew Saddam Hussein. Iraq is 60% Shia. You talked about Arabs in Iraq-the Shia, they’re Shia. In the South of Iran, there are Arabs who are Shia. And there are Arabs who are Shia and live in Iraq. And in Saudi Arabia, the area where the oil is developed is controlled by the Shia. And the majority of Kuwait’s population is Shia. 80 percent of Bahrain’s population is Shia. Then, such a big fire will start in the Middle East”

Washington’s close ally, Saudi Arabia will join the U.S. and Israel if a war against Iran is declared, but according to Kedmi, there is one small problem that Saudi Arabia can’t seem to handle, and that is Yemen:

“Saudi Arabia has a huge military budget. Its hands are tied. So it can’t do anything to tiny Yemen. They can’t do anything to the Houthi. Therefore, in this war of Persians against Arabs, the Persians will win. And this is another problem. It means a stronger Turkey. The Americans won’t remain whole after that war. The Middle East won’t remain whole. If anyone wins, it’ll be Russia”

Kedmi said that the U.S. military generals know that a war with Iran is unwinnable “They very well know that it’s impossible to do anything to Iran. They’ve warned about it repeatedly.” He continued “this tale about 120,000 isn’t a tale. The American Servicemen, just counted that in order to maintain the U.S. presence, 120,000 servicemen are required. These aren’t operational plans. When they ask the military what it’s necessary for that, they say that they need 120,000 servicemen in order to stay in the Middle East. They need one million servicemen to go to Iran. They don’t have them.”

What is interesting is what Kedmi said about the level of ignorance among the American government when it comes to Iran and the Middle East in general:

“This is a possibility that Iran could get nuclear weapons. We aren’t interested in anything else at all. Anything else means nothing. If we take a closer look, the United States’ goal in Iran is regime change in Iran, this is the main reason. Trump came to the conclusion that it’s almost impossible to conduct regime change in Iran. Why almost? It’s because American specialists, who think like Americans and have no idea what the Middle East is, think that the economic environment in Iran will lead to the collapse of that regime. They don’t understand what they’re talking about. The current government in Iran is stable. And nobody and nothing threats it. If Iranians will have half as much food, the government will stay. This is Iran. It isn’t Spain. That’s why everyone who thinks like Americans or Europeans, that if somebody doesn’t have enough of anything, the government will change. They treat Hamas and Iran like this. They don’t understand what they’re talking about”

At this point in time, Trump has only one option according to Kedmi and that is ” to conduct negotiations.” He continued ” and all of those shouts, that hysteria, are meant to make Iranians take part in negotiations. But he wants to do it and save face, so he wants them to ask for it.”

But the main point Kedmi wanted to drive home is the fact that Iran would develop a nuclear bomb within six months if the U.S. would launch an attack:

”And here’s my last point. The Americans don’t care about Iran’s nuclear weapons at all. Who has a problem with it except for us? Saudi Arabia? They don’t care. Americans would say that they’ll protect them like they protect Europe. Nobody cares about Iran’s nuclear weapons. Turkey does because it wants to make it. Saudi Arabia does but America isn’t interested. It’s an excuse for the Americans to put pressure on Iran and conduct regime change there. Speaking of the beginning of hostilities with Iran, it won’t be a short-term war. The Americans have never started a war when the pentagon didn’t want it. The military wanted a war in Vietnam. The military wanted a war in Iraq. When the military says don’t, no American politician would start a war. But the beginning of a long war against Iran will lead to Iran having nuclear weapons in six months”

Gil Barndollar, the director of Middle East Studies at the Center for the National Interest, and a former officer in the U.S. Marine Corps who served as an infantry division in both Afghanistan and in the Persian Gulf was interviewed by a the liberal website, Thinkprogress.org and was asked what it would take to defeat Iran. The article “Here is what war with Iran would look like: President Trump said war will mean the “official end of Iran.” But what would that take?’ by D. Parvaz where Barndollar had said “that even if the United States were to assume “completely permissive conditions” from Iran (no missiles, chemical, or biological attacks, etc.), it would still take “months to mobilize and stage forces” for such an operation.”

Barndollar said that a war of that magnitude would require a draft which would be unsettling for parents in the U.S. who have sons and daughters between the ages of 18 to 24 years old. Chicken hawks who avoided the draft during the Vietnam war like John Bolton who conveniently said “I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy… I considered the war in Vietnam already lost” and the U.S. president himself who had 5 deferments (four for educational purposes and one for bone spurs in his heel) that allowed him to avoid the draft, have no problem sending troops into an already lost battle:

“The entire active duty U.S. Army and Marine Corps today totals a bit over 600,000 troops. That is not enough men to invade Iran. Even if you mobilized the entire National Guard and Reserves, you would not feel comfortable invading Iran with a force that size,” he said, adding that it’s hard to speculate about casualties and costs. What would be needed for sure, though, is a draft”

Barndollar said that Iran “is bordered by mountains on three sides and the sea on a fourth.” Barndollar also said that the 5,000 U.S. troops who are currently stationed in Iraq will not conduct an attack against Iran because Baghdad “has made its position on this clear: It won’t be used as turf for a proxy war with Iran.”

A World War II style amphibious landing “would be even more fraught with risk” Barndollar said “The Navy would be hard-pressed to muster enough amphibious assault ships to get even one Marine Expeditionary Brigade to the fight [with] only about 15,000 troops” meaning that “merchant marine ships would have to bring in the bulk of the force, something for which they are not prepared.” Let’s not forget that attempting to conduct an amphibious landing with U.S. naval forces on Iranian shores will face limpet mines, submarines, attack boats and its large arsenal of missiles which would be considered a suicide mission.

The Price of Oil and the World Economy

The price of oil is another factor Washington and its allies would have to consider. According to oilprice.com ‘War With Iran Could Send Oil To $250′ by Vincent Lauerman claims that in the midst of war with Iran, the price of oil will be go to $250 dollars per barrel:

“In six short weeks there is tremendous damage to oil facilities on both sides, given their proximity to the Persian Gulf region, and to major cities as well. Iran, with its fleet of fast patrol craft and arsenal of short-range rockets, is able to briefly close the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting the flow of about 18 million b/d to the world market, almost a fifth of global supply.

Brent spikes over US$250 per barrel, before falling back to around US$150 with the International Energy Agency (IEA) coordinating an emergency release of oil stocks from strategic reserves of its member countries and China releasing significant volumes from its now substantial strategic reserve as well”

A new war in the Middle East would lead to a rapid increase in oil prices that would have an impact on the US dollar and the world economy. The U.S. population would soon realize that the idea of going to war against Iran is not just another bad idea, this time it’s a really bad idea. In Vietnam, the U.S. lost more than 58,000 military personnel with more than 150,000 wounded and don’t forget those who suffered from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder)which numbers are in the hundreds of thousands with some veterans still suffering today. U.S. casualties would be far greater this time around. Would there be a draft? I don’t think so because the American public won’t stand for it since their children will be called upon to fight in another endless war, so any possibility of war would be dead on arrival if the draft were to be reinstated.

The Military-Industrial Complex doesn’t have enough troops to declare war on Iran. Israel will have its own hands full with Hezbollah and the Lebanese government to its northern borders if a war on Iran were to take place. Tensions between Israel and the Palestinians continue in the West Bank and Gaza, so Israel has its plate full. US military bases that surround Iran would be targeted by Iranian forces. Saudi Arabia’s oil fields and military forces would also be attacked as well. Then there is the Russia/China alliance that would back Iran once the war has begun. Questions remain; will it turn into a nuclear war? or would the U.S. military do an about-face and go back home once they realize that they are in a losing situation that they cannot win or control? One thing is certain, U.S. hegemony in the Middle East would be over once an attack on Iran where to take place, and that would be a good thing that will come out of this catastrophe.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Silent Crow News.

Timothy Alexander Guzman is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why a War Against Iran Will be the “Nail in a Coffin” for U.S. Hegemony in the Middle East
  • Tags: ,

Syrian Army Prepares for Escalation in Golan Heights

September 24th, 2019 by South Front

On September 21, an EW unit of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) intercepted and took control of a large quadcopter-style unmanned aerial vehicle over the town of Erneh, near the contact line between the SAA and the Israeli-occupied part of the Golan Heights.

According to local sources, the UAV was likely operated by Israel. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) used similar UAVs in its attack on a Hezbollah media center in Lebanon’s Beirut on August 25. In own turn, Lt. Col. Avichay Adraee, a spokesman for the Israeli military, claimed that the UAV was not belonging to the IDF. Lt. Col. Adraee said that the UAV may have been “Iranian”.

Following the incident, the SAA has reinforced its positions near the Golan Heights.

The situation is escalating in the southern part of the Idlib de-escalation zone, where militants have resumed their attacks on government positions.

On September 21, the SAA shot down an armed UAV supposedly launched by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham near the Jubb Ramlah helicopter base in Homs province. Meanwhile, militants shelled SAA positions near Qalat Shalaf in northern Lattakia. The escalation followed reports that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has deployed fresh reinforcements, including infantry units and battle tanks to the area.

In the period from September 20 to September 22, the SAA carried out a series of operations against ISIS cells in southern Raqqah. According to pro-government sources, especially heavy clashes erupted southwest of Rusafa. At least 5 ISIS members were killed and their vehicle was destroyed there. The rest of ISIS members was forced to withdraw towards the Homs desert.

The increase of ISIS activity in southern Raqqah is an alarming signal showing that the terrorist threat remains one of the key factors influencing the situation in Syria.

On September 22, a military camp of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) in Iraq’s province of al-Anbar was targeted by a unknown warplane, according to local sources. The targeted camp was reportedly belonging to the PMU’s 13th Brigade, commonly known as the al-Tufuf Brigade.

As always, the attack was attributed to Israel. Nonetheless, there is still no evidence to confirm with a high degree confidence that the recent series of attacks on PMU positions in Iraq and near the Syrian-Iraqi border was indeed carried out by Israel.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syrian Army Prepares for Escalation in Golan Heights

Dialogue in Venezuela is a Missed Opportunity for Democrats

September 24th, 2019 by Leonardo Flores

Days after the Democratic presidential candidates missed yet another opportunity to challenge President Donald Trump’s failed Venezuela policy on the debate stage on September 12, President Nicolás Maduro signed an important agreement with four opposition parties. These events offer insight into the differing perspectives on the economic, social and political crises in Venezuela – one perspective from the Washington political establishment, the other from Venezuelans.

The Trump administration has applied brutal economic sanctions on Venezuela that functionally create a blockade. It has also threatened military force, has been credibly accused of sabotaging attempts at dialogue on two occasions (in the Dominican Republic in 2018 and in Barbados in 2019), attempted to impose a puppet president and activated a regional defense treaty that could serve as the first step to a military intervention. With a few exceptions, these efforts at regime change have been welcomed by Democrats.

One of those exceptions, Senator Bernie Sanders, supports “negotiations between the Maduro government and the opposition”, recognizes that the Trump sanctions harm Venezuelans, and is a co-sponsor of Senate resolution S.J.Res.11 prohibiting unauthorized military action in Venezuela. Yet when pressed about Venezuela during the September 12thdemocratic debate, Sanders – using rhetoric that could have come from the mouths of John Bolton or Senator Marco Rubio – called President Maduro a “vicious tyrant.” It was the perfect opportunity to push back on President Trump’s sanctions and policies; the Senator missed it.

When progressive politicians forgo vocal commitment to non-intervention, it raises questions. If candidate Sanders isn’t willing to publicly challenge Trump on Venezuela, if elected, would he really break with the Trump, Obama and Bush administrations and have a policy of non-intervention or might he cede Venezuela to Democrat and Republican hawks in exchange for votes on signature issues like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal?

This question is particularly troubling because Senator Sanders is often the only voice against establishment regime change efforts. With the exceptions of Representative Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson, who had clear anti-interventionist and anti-sanction stances but are no longer on the debate stage, the other democratic candidates are significantly worse than Sanders on Venezuela. Former Vice President Biden, in lockstep with the Trump administration, recognizes Juan Guaidó as interim president, supports sanctions, and boasts of confronting President Maduro. He went so far as to characterize the small group of rebel soldiers who tried to put Juan Guaidó into power by force on the April 30th coup attempt as “peaceful protesters.”

As for Senator Elizabeth Warren, she was against the sanctions yet later endorsed them, despite recognizing that they “hurt those in need.” While criticizing Trump for threatening a military intervention (Warren is a co-sponsor of S.J.Res.11), she is “all for the diplomatic part” of Trump’s plan, including “diplomatic recognition,” which sounds like an allusion to recognizing Juan Guaidó as interim president and therefore a coded signal for supporting regime change efforts.

And it only gets worse from there. Joining Trump and Biden in explicitly recognizing Guaidó and pushing for sanctions are Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Representative Beto O’Rourke. Andrew Yang also recognizes Guaidó and wants regime change, but has no public position on sanctions. Senator Cory Booker supports sanctions and has yet to sign on to S.J.Res.11, though he does not appear to recognize Guaidó. Senator Kamala Harris has ruled out military intervention, while Senator Amy Klobuchar appears to back regime change; neither has a public position on the sanctions nor have they signed on to the Senate resolution. Julián Castro called President Maduro a “dictator” in the latest debate, but appears to not have a public position on Trump’s regime change efforts or the sanctions.

Missing from the Democratic candidates’ stage is the effect these policies have on Venezuelans. These sanctions have killed more than 40,000 people – a figure that comes from economists Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs. Venezuelan opposition economist Francisco Rodríguez estimates that “financial sanctions were associated with a decline in [oil] production… [representing] USD 16.9 billion a year in foregone oil revenues.” From the Washington establishment point of view, the sanctions are merely a tool to oust President Maduro, no matter the cost to ordinary Venezuelans.  But while American politicians support sanctions as if they were a nonviolent alternative to boots on the ground, those under their influence know they are a weapon of war normalized by U.S. corporate media.

In Venezuela, the sanctions affect daily life. They are widely recognized as illegal, rightly called unilateral coercive measures (in international law, sanctions must be approved by the United Nations—these are not) and are considered a financial and commercial blockade. They are held in widespread contempt: 68% of Venezuelans blame the U.S. sanctions for the drop in their quality of life.

Counter to the Trump administration’s objectives, the sanctions are also splitting the Venezuelan opposition. On September 16, the Venezuelan government reached an agreement with four opposition political parties: Cambiemos, Soluciones, Avanzada Progresista and MAS. Although they only have 8 seats in the 167-person National Assembly, the agreement is an important signal of deep divisions within the opposition. For years, most of the Venezuelan opposition has been dominated by right-wing extremists who enjoy financial and political support from Washington. More moderate or pragmatic elements of the opposition have toed the extremist line because they know that is what the U.S. government favors, as evidenced by the 2002 coup against Hugo Chávez when extremists who launched the coup and took power exclusively for themselves were welcomed by the Bush administration.

However, this dynamic began changing when opposition leader Henri Falcón of Avanzada Progresista ran for president in May 2018, disregarding an opposition boycott and not bowing to U.S. pressure to drop out. They returned to toeing the line when Juan Guaidó was recognized (or appointed, depending on whom you ask) president by the Trump administration in January 2019.  Yet the failure of the coup, the backlash against the sanctions, and the realistic possibility of a war have created room for moderate elements to try to outmaneuver the extremists.

For its part, the Venezuelan government’s policy has almost without exception been to push for dialogue. The Trump administration and un-critical Democrats interpret this as being an attempt to “buy time.” This analysis makes for a good soundbites, but it’s nonsensical. Why would a government under siege seek to buy time to extend the siege? Buying time would mean extending the misery caused by the sanctions, the exact tactic sought by the Trump administration to attempt to increase opposition to President Maduro. The lone exception to the Venezuelan government’s policy of dialogue occurred in August, when they walked out of the dialogue in Barbados after Juan Guaidó encouraged the Trump administration to impose further sanctions, sanctions that function as a de facto economic blockade of the country.

The new pact with opposition groups includes five points: 1) the ruling socialist party (PSUV) and allied parties will return to the National Assembly (which they had abandoned when the Supreme Court declared it in contempt in 2017); 2) a new board of the National Electoral Council will be selected; 3) prisoners will be released per the recommendations of the Truth Commission; 4) an oil-for-food program will be established; and 5) parties reject unilateral coercive measures (sanctions) and call for their lifting. The accord has already resulted in the liberation of Edgar Zambrano, a leader in the opposition Democratic Action party who had been imprisoned for allegedly participating in the April 30th coup attempt. On September 18, news broke that Javier Bertucci, an opposition evangelical leader who surprised analysts by winning over 1 million votes in the 2018 presidential elections, had signed on to the agreement and joined the newly established National Roundtable Dialogue.

Between those who voted for President Maduro (6.2 million votes) and Javier Bertucci (over 1 million votes), and those who are sympathetic to the four opposition parties, millions of people are represented in this dialogue. A significant bloc of Venezuelans, one that includes people who dislike or even detest President Maduro, see negotiations as the only way forward, recognize the threat of war, know that the sanctions are destroying Venezuela’s economy and threatening its social fabric (as Venezuelan victims of an economic war become migrants). The Democratic party and most of its presidential candidates do a great disservice to these people by supporting sanctions and regime change efforts.

Instead of aiding and abetting President Trump’s disastrous policy, the Democrats need to challenge it, and the most obvious candidate to do so is Bernie Sanders. From his work with Central American solidarity in the 80’s, Senator Sanders knows of the human costs of intervention and of the need to avoid parroting the rhetoric of warmongers. He is one of the few people who can change the conversation about Venezuela in the United States. He could take the same approach as the Venezualan opposition coming to the negotiation table: expressing his dislike of President Maduro while denouncing the sanctions, advocating for dialogue, and pointing out the hypocrisy of targeting Venezuela while the U.S. is allied with a drug-trafficking dictator in Honduras and a regime in Colombia that has a human rights crisis with social and environmental activists murdered nearly every day. This is an opportunity for Senator Sanders to amplify the Venezuelans resisting the sanctions, and that cannot occur at the same time as an appeal to warmongers on either side of the aisle.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dialogue in Venezuela is a Missed Opportunity for Democrats

The Treatment of Schizophrenia and Dr Loren Mosher’s Soteria Project

September 24th, 2019 by Dr. Gary G. Kohls

“Psychiatry has been almost completely bought out by the drug companies…We’re so busy with drugs that you can’t find a nickel being spent on [non-drug] research.” – Dr Loren Mosher

Psychiatrist Loren Mosher (who earned medical degrees from both Harvard and Stanford) was the highly esteemed founder of the experimental Soteria Project, which was subtitled “Community Alternatives for the Treatment of Schizophrenia” from 1971 to 1983. The Soteria Project proved that patients with first-onset psychotic breaks could be successfully treated – even cured – outside insane asylums by non-professional caregivers, in unlocked neighborhood facilities and without the coercive use of neurotoxic, dependency-inducing and dementia-inducing drugs.

Five years before his untimely death in 2004, and long after he was hounded out of the NIMH and mainstream psychiatry for doing the right thing, Dr Mosher wrote:

“Despite what the pharmaceutical companies would have us believe, we don’t need ‘a better life through chemistry’. (Books like) The Drug May Be Your Problem will help debunk this myth and provide practical advice on how to avoid psychiatric drugs and get off them.”

It’s Hard to Fly Over the Cuckoo’s Nest on Brain-altering Drugs

The Soteria Project was Dr Mosher’s response to the scandalous realities of the monopoly treatment that psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry had over otherwise normal people who had been unfortunate enough to have suffered serious, oftentimes chronic psychological, sexual, physical or spiritual trauma and neglect and then degenerated into episodes of sadness, nervousness, sleep deprivation, voice-hearing, hallucinations, delusions and/or behaviors that were intolerable or confusing to family, friends, neighbors or their doctors. Such psychotic breaks and voice-hearing episodes – often temporary and explainable – were often mis-diagnosed as incurable chronic psychoses that needed life-long, brain-altering, brain-damaging, highly toxic major tranquilizer drugs and perhaps incarceration for a lifetime.

Dr Mosher wondered about those simpler times before there were the hundreds of unaffordable “me-too” psychiatric drugs in the five psych drug categories, before the psych drug-related teen suicide, violence and school shooting epidemics – incidents that never happened prior to the widespread use of psych drugs in adolescents and children). The years assessing the results of the Soteria Project proved to Dr Mosher (image right) and others that there was a more-cost-effective and curative way to treat what had been known through the centuries to be a temporary decompensation in response to trauma.

Mosher and the Soteria Project devotees had learned some of the important lessons of Ken Kesey’s 1962 novel “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, and the 1975 Academy Award winning film adaption of the book, where all the patients in Jack Nicholson’s psych ward were forced to take the authoritarian Nurse Ratched’s Thorazine at “Medication Time”.

The average US insane asylum of that era was in the business of profitably warehousing thousands of victimized undesirables by administering drug-induced chemical lobotomies. Brain-altering drugs were usually sufficient to keep unruly patients like the small-time criminal Randall McMurphy down, but repetitive electroconvulsive shock “treatments” often were needed for unwanted behaviors that weren’t adequately suppressed by the drugs. Actual surgical lobotomy was the next step back in that era.

Nothing good happened to any of those doomed, locked up, drugged-up, shocked-up or lobotomized patients, except perhaps for the eventually-liberated Chief.

In the dramatic concluding scene of the film, the Chief had finally received enough good psychotherapy from McMurphy that he finally wanted to get out of the psychiatric hellhole. He was the only one who managed to “fly over the cuckoo’s nest”.

Neither Nurse Ratched, the treatment staff nor even the psychiatrists working on Randall McMurphy’s ward had any idea that the antipsychotic drugs that were routinely being administered to their innocent patients, could cause permanent brain damage, resulting in tardive dyskinesia, tardive dementia, Parkinson’s disease, brain shrinkage and sexual dysfunction, not to mention a high incidence of the following antipsychotic drug-induced signs and symptoms: akathisia, depression, suicidality, homicidality, disability, unemployability, homelessness, loss of IQ points, chronic constipation, dry mouth, premature death, brain atrophy and general feelings of zombification.

Thorazine, and its sister “first generation” anti-psychotic drugs like Mellaril and Haldol, and every other so-called anti-psychotic drug ever made since then (especially the second generation/“atypical” antipsychotics that wouldn’t come to market until the 1990s, have been found to cause diabetes, obesity, gynecomastia, pituitary dysfunction, cardiac rhythm disturbances, sudden death, etc.

Soteria’s Lucky Patients

Soteria’s lucky patients had been randomized into the Project (the study’s matched controls went to a drug-centered inpatient facility like McMurphey’s), and therefore most of them avoided being falsely labeled as life-long chronic schizophrenics, and most of them didn’t wind up as permanent patients on disabling, life-long psych drugs.

If it hadn’t been for the existence of the Soteria House, those lucky ones would have instead been sent to a typical coercive Southern California insane asylum, where they might have been told that they had somehow suddenly inherited their new disorder or had a theoretical chemical brain “imbalance” and therefore had to be on dependency-inducing drugs (alleged to be able to “re-balance” the imaginary imbalance) for the rest of their lives.

Because of the luck of the draw, many of the Soteria patients were cured of their temporary psychosis at a far lesser cost of care than the matched controls – and without the cost of caring for newly drug-induced brain-damaged patients for the rest of their lives.

Some Soteria patients went on to lead normal lives following their discharge. In contrast, the vast majority of the patients who had been randomized into the drug-centered “insane asylums” wound up chronically drugged with dangerous, untested (for safety) cocktails of drugs for the rest of their lives. Most of those chronically drugged patients were destined to have their lives shortened by 25 years because of the drugs).

Soteria Project Sabotaged by the US NIMH

Tragically, especially for the millions of future mis-diagnosed (and therefore mis-treated) “chronic schizophrenics” since then, the Soteria Project was sabotaged by Dr Mosher’s own National Institute of Mental Health. The obviously unwelcome positive findings that were coming out of the Soteria Project were accurately seen by the establishment types in the NIMH, Big Pharma and Big Psychiatry as an economic threat to their industries, and they acted to subvert the project. Scandalously, the project was defunded during the Reagan era, in 1983, eight years after “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” was released.

In a posthumously published book (2004), Dr Mosher and his co-authors describe the innovative, highly successful, non-drug therapeutic approach that was enacted by the young, caring, altruistic, but non-professional staff members. The book was titled Soteria: From Madness to Deliverance. It told the story of the noble experiment that managed to alleviate the temporary mental suffering of some otherwise doomed fellow humans who would have been put at risk of permanent drug-induced neurological disabilities rather than given a chance at a cure.

A good description of the project can be read at Robert Whitaker’s Mad In America website.

“Soteria is the story of a special time, space, and place where young people diagnosed as ‘schizophrenic’ found a social environment where they were related to, listened to, and understood during their altered states of consciousness. Rarely, and only with consent, did these distressed and distressing persons take ’tranquilizers’. They lived in a home in a California suburb with nonmedical caregivers whose goal was not to ‘do to’ them but to ‘be with’ them. The place was called ‘Soteria’ (Greek for ‘deliverance’), and there, for not much money, most recovered. Although Soteria’s approach was swept away by conventional drug-oriented psychiatry, its humanistic orientation still has broad appeal to those who find the mental health mainstream limited in both theory and practice.”

One can appreciate the anguish that Mosher and all the committed non-professional healers felt when the psychiatrist-dominated NIMH pulled the plug on the experiment. Mosher became disillusioned with the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and resigned.

“I want no part of it anymore.” Loren Mosher’s 1998 Letter of Resignation from the APA

Here are excerpts from Mosher’s letter of resignation from the APA, a professional trade association and lobbying group to which he had been a long-time member. For good reason, he called the APA the “American Psychopharmaceutical Association.”

He unintentionally outlines in his resignation letter the well-known strategy of how dysfunctional organizations often try to get rid of their best people (especially the creative and talented ones who also happen to be a threat to the less competent and ingrained upper management types whose positions of power, influence and seniority may be at risk). Making life miserable for promising up-and-coming employees is commonly orchestrated by threatened superiors by demoralizing the subordinates into quitting the organization. Mosher felt the pressure and logically resigned from the APA, saying “I want no part of it anymore”. Here is some of Mosher’s resignation letter:

“The trouble began in the late 1970s when I conducted a controversial study: I opened a program — Soteria House — where newly diagnosed schizophrenic patients lived medication-free with a young, nonprofessional staff trained to listen to and understand them and provide companionship. The idea was that schizophrenia can often be overcome with the help of meaningful relationships, rather than with drugs, and that such treatment would eventually lead to unquestionably healthier lives.

“The experiment worked better than expected. Over the initial six weeks, patients recovered as quickly as those treated with medication in hospitals.

“The results of the study were published in scores of psychiatric journals, nursing journals and books, but the project lost its funding and the facility was closed. Amid the storm of controversy that followed, control of the research project was taken out of my hands…By 1980, I was removed from my post altogether. All of this occurred because of my strong stand against the overuse of medication and against the disregard for drug-free, psychological interventions to treat psychological disorders.

“Why does the world of psychiatry find me so threatening? Because drug companies pour millions of dollars into the pockets of psychiatrists around the country, making them reluctant to recognize that drugs may not always be in the best interest of their patients. They are too busy enjoying drug company perks: consultant gigs, research grants, fine wine and fancy meals.

“Pharmaceutical companies pay through the nose to get their message across to psychiatrists across the country. They finance symposia at the two predominant annual psychiatric conventions, offer yummy treats and music to conventioneers, and pay $1,000 – $2,000 per speaker to hock their wares. It is estimated that, in total, drug companies spend an average of $10,000 per physician, per year, just on ‘education’.

“And, of course, the doctors-for-hire tell only half the story. How widely is it known, for example, that Prozac and its successor antidepressants cause sexual dysfunction in as many as 70% of people taking them?…

“Recently, it was dues-paying time for the American Psychiatric Association, and I sat there looking at the form. I thought about the unholy alliance between the APA and the drug industry. I thought about how consumers are being affected by this alliance, about the over-use of medication, about side effects and about alternative treatments. I thought about how irresponsibly some of my colleagues are acting toward the general public and the mentally ill. And I realized, I want no part of it anymore.”

The orchestrated demise of the Soteria Project is just another of the many examples of amoral, sociopathic corporations doing what is best for their bottom line and not what is best for the people that are targeted for consumption of their dangerous products.

We are all poorer for their actions.

*

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 Kohls writes regularly about a variety of issues that includes corporatism, globalism, militarism, economic oppression, racism and fascism. He is a member of Medical Professionals for 911 Truth. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research