Global Research

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, a US citizen who was born in Japan, has taught in both countries. Applying his specialized knowledge of Russian history to an analysis of the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan, he challenges the prevailing American view that the US decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. The prevailing view is based on two premises: first, the use of the atomic bombs was the only option available to the US government to avoid launching a costly invasion of the Japanese homeland; and second, the atomic bombings had an immediate and direct impact on Japan’s decision to surrender. Dr. Hasegawa rebuts both assumptions. He also assesses a third – and often hidden – justification for dropping the bombs, namely, the American desire for revenge. He argues that, even before the atomic bombings, the United States had already crossed the moral high ground that it had held. He views the US use of atomic bombs as a war crime. But he asserts that this action must be understood in the context of Japan’s responsibility for starting the war of aggression and committing atrocities in the Asia–Pacific War.

Hibiki Yamaguchi: We are so honored and privileged to be here with you to discuss your works on the international history of the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You have published numerous books and articles such as Racing the Enemy in English and Anto in Japanese (Hasegawa 2005Hasegawa, T. 2005. Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman and the Surrender of Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 2006Hasegawa, T. 2006. Anto: Sutarin, Toruman to Nihon Kohuku [Deadly Struggle: Stalin, Truman and Japan’s Surrdner] Tokyo: Chuo Koron Shinsha. [Google Scholar]). You are also an expert on Russian history and Russo-Japanese relations. In this regard, you have recently written Crime and Punishment in the Russian Revolution (Hasegawa 2017a Hasegawa, T. 2017a. Crime and Punishment in the Russian Revolution: Mob Justice and Police in Petrograd. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) and The February Revolution, Petrograd 1917 (Hasegawa 2017bHasegawa, T. 2017b. The February Revolution, Petrograd 1917: The End of the Tsarist Regime and the Birth of Dual Power. Leiden: Brill. (Paperback edition, Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2018).[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). As far as I understand, you have come to the field of the international historiography of the atomic bombings at a relatively late stage of your career as a historian.

Dr. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa: That is correct. But it might be important and useful to explain my background as well as the trajectory of my scholarly interest at the outset.

I was born in Tokyo in 1941, the year the Pacific War began. In 1945, with constant incendiary bombing in the neighborhood, my family evacuated to the small village of Iburihashi, now incorporated in the city of Komatsu, Ishikawa prefecture. As a four-year old boy, I do not have clear memories of the war, but I remember the crimson sky in downtown Tokyo when the city was bombed on March 9-10,1945. Later in August, the adults gathered at my grandfather’s house in Iburihashi to listen to the emperor announce the termination of the war on the radio. Some fragments of the war are still vivid in my memory.

I grew up in Japan and attended the University of Tokyo, Komaba campus, where I was the editor of the university newspaper. It was the time of large student movements against the renewal of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan (Anpo) in 1960. My close friends divided and splintered along various ideological lines. Although I did not belong to any faction, I became interested in socialism and questioned why the Soviet Union, which was founded on the seemingly utopian vision of socialism, had degenerated into the monstrous Stalinist regime. This led me to study Russian history, especially the Russian Revolution, and I wrote my graduation thesis on the February Revolution.

While attending the University of Tokyo, I also joined a research group on Russian history (Roshiashi Kenkyukai) led by Professor Haruki Wada that exposed me to pioneering research liberated from the rigid Stalinist historiography.

Thanks to a Ford Foundation fellowship, I did my graduate training at the University of Washington in Seattle in the United States. There I wrote my PhD dissertation on the February Revolution.

The University of Washington in 1964–1969, like American campuses everywhere, was a hotbed of Vietnam War protests and the civil rights movement. Traditional Russian history was also being challenged by young scholars, and it was the beginning of attention to the social history of the Russian Revolution.

I then taught at the State University of New York at Oswego for eight years. Studying, teaching, and living in the United States gave me an insight into how American society worked. Impressed by the depth of the roots of American democracy and the diversity it offered, I felt more at home and more liberated in America than in the more regimented Japan, so I became an American citizen in 1976.

American citizenship gave me opportunities to do research in the Soviet Union that were not available in Japan at that time. I had access to archives and established a wide network of relations with scholars.

After long years of research in the Soviet archives, I finally published my first book, The February Revolution, Petrograd, 1917, in 1981.

When I finished the book, the United States was going through another important debate, this time, on the nuclear issue. I became interested in this issue, and retooled myself at Columbia University, familiarizing myself with the esoteric knowledge and theories of nuclear weapons and strategies of both the United States and the Soviet Union. I was particularly interested in arms control as a means to avoid nuclear war.

In 1985, I took a position at the Slavic Research Center of Hokkaido University as the first foreign permanent professor in Japan, thanks to new legislation that had just been passed.

I apologize for the long-winded answer, but I do believe that the uniqueness of my trajectory in life and scholarly background is important to understanding my research. I have lived in three vastly different societies and I am fluent in Japanese, English, and Russian. Because of my background, facility for languages, and diverse scholarly interests in both Russian history and nuclear issues, I think my perspective is different from that of most scholars who have not had such experiences.

Now, finally to answer your question, my stay at the Slavic Research Center coincided with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika, an exciting period that mesmerized not only every specialist on Russia, but also every specialist on international history. While following developments in the Soviet Union, I became interested in the new era of Soviet-Japanese relations and the thorny Northern Territories issue. I found the perspective on this issue by both Japan and the Soviet Union unsatisfactory, with both sides driven by narrow nationalism. There was no room for a meeting point while the world was radically changing before our eyes.

Taking advantage of the American debate on perestroika and the new scholarly approach to nationalism and ethnicity, as well as the new impetus for international history in the United States, I wanted to enter the discussion to bridge the gap. So I wrote a book on Russo-Japanese relations and the Northern Territories both in English and in Japanese (Hasegawa 1998 Hasegawa, T. 1998. The Northern Territories Dispute and Russo-Japanese Relations. International & Area Studies: University of California. [Google Scholar]; Hasegawa 2000 Hasegawa, T. 2000. Hoppo Ryodo Mondai to Nichiro Kankei [The Northern Territories Question and Russo-Japanese Relations] Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo. [Google Scholar]). And in those books, one chapter is devoted to World War II.

When I examined the history of ending the Pacific War, I was surprised to find that very little attention had been paid to the role of the Soviet Union in the ending drama. So that triggered my interest. Originally, I was going to write an article or a short book on Russia’s influence on Japan’s decision-making, but the more I studied, I thought it’s not enough to study Russo-Japanese relations because it’s so connected with international relations, and one had to, of course, bring the United States into the picture.

Looking at American historiography of the ending of the Pacific War, Russia is almost absent. So I decided to study this issue, and I spent many years examining the archives and documents in the United States, Russia, and Japan. The end result is Racing the Enemy. This is the first international history of the subject.

In a way, with Racing the Enemy, I returned to the roots of my childhood memory of the Pacific War, trying to place the fragments of my memory into the full historical background.

The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan: Two False Assumptions

Yamaguchi: So why did you choose the issue of the atomic bombings in particular among various events in the last months of World War II?

Hasegawa: I must stress that this book is not merely about the atomic bombings; it covers broader issues of international history. For instance, the last chapter is devoted to the intricate negotiations between US President Harry Truman and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin on the territorial settlement over the Kuril Islands.

But you are right in one respect. One of the most important issues that the book examines is the issue of the US decision to use the atomic bombs.

The prevailing American view on the atomic bombings ignores or pays little attention to the role the Soviet Union played. The prevailing belief is that the use of atomic bombs was the only choice that the US government had, because without the bombs, the United States would have had to invade Japan, and about a million people, Japanese and Americans, would have perished. And so, to avoid that, the bombs were the only option available to Truman and, in fact, to any president in his place. This is the first assumption.

The second assumption is that the bombs did their job, that they were the decisive factor, providing the knock-out punch, if you will, in forcing the Japanese to surrender. These two assumptions constitute the foundation on which the official view of the US decision to use the atomic bombs is constructed, and they are shared widely by the American public. After careful examination of the archives and other materials, I came to question these assumptions. I concluded that this is a myth, a myth that Americans want to cling to because of their own psychological need to justify the killing as a necessary evil.

With regard to the first assumption, I have to point out that two very important options were available to Americans. And in fact, the options were presented in the course of the deliberations of the US government. The first option was to welcome Soviet entry into the war. By the end of 1944, US leaders had come to the conclusion that in order to force Japan to surrender, invasion of Japan’s homeland would be necessary. The successful execution of this strategy would require Soviet entry into the war in order to pin down the Japanese forces in China and Korea.

Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta

The Yalta Conference was held in February 1945. In order to secure Stalin’s pledge to enter the war, President Franklin Roosevelt promised that the United States would reward the Soviet Union. This was the so-called Yalta Secret Protocol Agreement. There, Roosevelt promised to grant the Soviet Union various concessions on the railways and ports in Manchuria, the return of Southern Sakhalin (Karafuto), and the handing over of the Kuril Islands.

But, in the few months that followed, the situation changed. The war developed in favor of the United States to such an extent that US leaders thought that they could win the war without the Soviets. This was the first dilemma that faced the new president, Harry Truman. Should he welcome Soviet entry into the war and risk of allowing it to enhance its influence in East Asia? Or should he seek to end the war without Soviet help? In that case, the war’s termination might be prolonged, necessitating further sacrifices of American lives.

The second dilemma Truman faced was the so-called unconditional-surrender demand. Under Roosevelt, the United States had demanded unconditional surrender by Japan, and Truman followed this policy faithfully. This was because Japan had engaged in military aggression igniting the war (an unjust war) and had committed numerous atrocities against American and Allied soldiers (violations of justice in warfare). In order to defeat Japanese militarism so that Japan could never rise again as a military power, the United States and its allies sought to impose unconditional surrender. But as the war developed, certain very influential people within the government – such as Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, and Deputy Secretary of State and former Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew – thought it necessary to define what “unconditional surrender” exactly meant. Particularly important was the status of the emperor. If the United States were to insist on unconditional surrender, particularly if it were to insist on trying or punishing the emperor, as some within the administration insisted, they were convinced that the Japanese would fight on to the very last man. Therefore, they argued, in order to terminate the war, the US would have to define the terms in such a way that it could allow the Japanese to preserve the monarchical system, even under the current dynasty.

Atlee, Truman, Stalin at Potsdam

On July 2, before the Potsdam Conference began, Stimson presented the president with the draft proposal for the Potsdam Proclamation, which was meant to be the ultimatum to Japan. This draft included two important items. First, it anticipated Soviet entry into the war. In fact, the Operations Division of the Army General Staff, which had worked on the proclamation draft, thought that the most effective means of forcing Japan’s surrender was to time the issuance of the ultimatum to Japan to coincide with the initiation of Soviet entry into the war. The second provision was that the Allied powers would allow Japan to preserve the monarchy under the current dynasty, “if it be shown to the complete satisfaction of the world that such a government will never aspire again to aggression”.

What happened with these provisions? The Potsdam Conference was held from July 17 to August 2. On July 26, the Potsdam proclamation was issued. It said nothing about the entry of the Soviet Union and nothing about the possible preservation of the monarchy. Those two conditions were rejected because of political considerations.

Thus, I would argue that the first assumption – that the atomic bomb was the only alternative for the United States to end the war – was false, a myth. The fact is that Truman did not choose other alternatives available to him.

Yamaguchi: So your conclusion is that these two options were deliberately rejected by American leaders. Is that right?

Hasegawa: That’s right. Those two options were presented, but they were discarded for political purposes.

Earlier I mentioned that Truman faced two dilemmas. How could the president solve those two dilemmas? The first plutonium bomb test was successful, one day before the Potsdam Conference began. Eureka! The US had the winning weapon! With the atomic bomb, the United States would be able to terminate the war before the Soviets entered the war, and it would also be able to bring Japan to its knees. That’s why Truman rejected the alternatives that Stimson presented.

That’s my argument on the first assumption. The atomic bomb was not the only available option; there were two very important options available. But they were rejected for political reasons.

To Deter the Soviets?

Yamaguchi: Some argue that the bombs were intended not only to terminate the war, but also to control or deter the Soviet Union, with a view to the postwar era. What do you think of this view?

Hasegawa: One group of revisionist historians argue that the atomic bombs were used even though Japan had already been defeated. Therefore, there was no reason for the United States to use the bombs. The only reason the United States used them was to intimidate the Soviet Union. The Cold War had already started.

My interpretation is different. Defeat is different from surrender because surrender is a political decision. It’s quite clear that Japan was defeated militarily. There was no way that Japan could win the war or avert defeat. But it remained that the United States had to force the Japanese leadership to accept surrender. That was a very difficult challenge, particularly because Japanese leaders maintained a fanatical belief in the kokutai, worship of the emperor, which they considered the spiritual essence of Japanese nationhood.

Among Truman’s advisers, Secretary of State James Byrnes may have been the most vocal about using the bomb to intimidate the Soviets. But Byrnes also sought to intimidate the Japanese to induce surrender. It is difficult to say which motivation had higher priority for Byrnes.

In my opinion, Truman himself and his administration as a whole used the bomb primarily to terminate the war, but they did so in such a way that – this is where the second motivation comes in – it would prevent the Soviet Union from entering the war. That’s quite different from the interpretation by Gar Alperovitz and other revisionists of this school.

Impact on the Soviet Union

Yamaguchi: I would like to know more about how Soviet decision-making was affected by the development of the American atomic bombs.

Hasegawa: The Soviet Union was also facing a dilemma. They had decided long time – by as early as October 1944 – to enter the war against Japan. But there was one problem. The Soviet Union and Japan had a neutrality pact. It had been concluded in 1941 and included the provision that unless one party notified the other party one year prior to the termination of the pact, it would automatically continue for another five years.

And so, in April 1945, the Soviet government notified the Japanese government that it would not renew the pact. The Japanese ambassador to the Soviet Union, Naotake Sato, asked Soviet Foreign Minister Viacheslav Molotov if the Soviet Union was going to abrogate the pact immediately. Molotov said no, the neutrality pact would remain in effect until April 1946. Of course, that was a lie. Stalin had a very interesting expression – “We will lull the Japanese to sleep.” Stalin wanted the Japanese to believe that the Soviet government was observing the neutrality pact, while in fact it was sending troops and equipment to the Far East in preparation to enter the war.

But there was one problem. The Soviets had decided that the most favorable moment for attack on Japan would be in August. By then preparations would be completed for a surprise attack on all three fronts against Japanese forces in China and Korea, and the weather would be most favorable. But this would be a clear violation of the neutrality pact. So how were they to solve this dilemma? The solution was that, at the forthcoming Potsdam Conference, Stalin would have the Allied nations invite the Soviet Union to join the war. The Soviets’ commitment to the Allies, especially for the higher cause of terminating the world war, would trump its legal obligations to Japan.

One might question why Stalin, known as the major player of Realpolitik, would care much about the legal commitment. Actually, contrary to the belief that the dictator could ignore legal niceties at will, the Soviet government was careful to observe the legal commitments that it made. Moreover, Stalin was concerned that the Soviet entry into the war was a violation of the Neutrality Pact, given that his people had fought and sacrificed so many lives in a war that had been initiated by the Nazi violation of the 1941 Non-Aggression Pact.

But, after the United States acquired the atomic bomb, it moved to exclude the Soviet Union from the ultimatum to Japan, betraying its earlier promise to place the joint ultimatum on the agenda of the Potsdam Conference. On July 26, a few hours before the official issuance of the Potsdam Proclamation, Secretary of State James Byrnes gave the Soviet delegation its text to the press. Throughout the Potsdam Conference, the Soviets had been kept in the dark on the deliberations of the Proclamation, although the American and the British delegations were constantly in touch with each other, and the text was sent to Chiang Kai-shek for his approval. The announcement was a total shock to the Soviets. Upon learning about the proclamation, signed by Truman, Churchill, and Chiang Kai-shek, the Soviet Union hastily wrote up its own joint proclamation and asked the United States to postpone the issuance of its proclamation, presumably so that the Soviets could present their own version at the conference. The United States promptly rejected the request. It had already been released to the press before Molotov made the request a few hours before the official issuance of the proclamation. Molotov’s request came too late, Byrnes explained. The Soviets were outmaneuvered, and lost the chance to present their version, and their draft was sent to the archives.

And what did Stalin do next? On July 29, Molotov, who attended the meeting in place of Stalin, who claimed that he was sick, proposed that Truman should invite Stalin to sign the proclamation. Truman rejected this offer as well. Later Truman explained: “I did not like this proposal for one important reason. I saw in it a cynical diplomatic move to make Russia’s entry at this time appear to be the decisive factor to bring about victory.” Truman’s rejection convinced Stalin, finally, that the United States was trying to force Japan to surrender before the Soviet entry into the war. If that occurred, all the promises that the United States made at Yalta would be nullified. Stalin became desperate. The race between the atomic bombs and Soviet entry into the war had begun in earnest.

Image on the right: Iconic image of the Hiroshima bomb

Fumihiko Yoshida: When Stalin was notified about the atomic bomb by Truman during the Potsdam conference, what impact did this have on Stalin? I presume the Soviet Union was preparing its own nuclear-weapons program.

Hasegawa: That’s a very interesting question. The Soviets had already begun their project to develop atomic weapons and they had spies in the Manhattan Project; the most important was Klaus Fuchs. The Soviet Union was aware of what the United States was doing.

When the first US nuclear test succeeded on July 16, however, the Soviet secret police had no knowledge of the test.

During the Potsdam Conference, when a report about the successful test in New Mexico reached Truman on July 21, he conferred with UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill about what to do with this information. They agreed that something had to be reported to Stalin but that they should not reveal that this was the atomic bomb.

So during recess at the conference on July 24, Truman approached Stalin. Everybody on the American and British sides was watching, because they wanted to know what Stalin’s reaction would be. Truman told Stalin: “I have to tell you that our country has acquired a new weapon of unusual destructive force”. Stalin looked at Truman and said, “Well, I hope you make good use of it.” Truman and everyone else thought Stalin didn’t know that Truman was talking about the atomic bomb without specifically referring to it as such.

But Stalin was fully aware. When he came back to his villa, he called a conference. He was angry about the failure of intelligence to detect the successful American test of the plutonium bomb. He said: “We are not going to let the Americans use this to intimidate us”. That night he ordered his scientists to speed up the Soviet atomic-bomb project.

The question is whether Stalin expected the United States to use the bomb. I don’t think that he expected the United States to make the bomb operational so quickly. But the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6 at 8:15 Tokyo time. When exactly the news of the atomic bomb reached Stalin is not known, but he must have heard the news by late afternoon or the evening of August 6. I believe that when Stalin received the news, he was in real shock. And in fact, if you take a look at Stalin’s daily schedule book, he met all kinds of people on August 5, when he returned to Moscow from Berlin, to discuss with them preparations for the war.

But on August 6, the day when the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, Stalin’s appointment book was blank. This blank page speaks volumes. I suspect that he was in deep shock. He must have thought that the atomic bomb might prompt Japan to end the war immediately, before the Soviets entered the war. But on August 7, Ambassador Sato requested a meeting with Molotov to inquire about Japan’s pending request for mediation. From this request, Stalin learned that the game was not over yet. He sprang into action. He ordered his military to move up the date to start the war by 48 hours, to midnight of August 8-9.

What Was the Decisive Factor in Ending the War?

Yamaguchi: Now we would like to discuss the second assumption that you have mentioned. You rebut the argument that the atomic bombs were the decisive factor in Japan’s surrender. Could you expand on that?

Hasegawa: We have to go back a little bit. Japan also faced a dilemma. The Battle of Okinawa began on 1 April 1945. The Japanese military and the emperor himself thought that they would inflict damage on the Americans and gain favorable conditions under which they could terminate the war. But the Battle of Okinawa ended in mid-June with a decisive defeat for Japan.

This was the first time that Japanese leaders seriously started to discuss how to terminate the war. The Japanese government was hopelessly divided. The highest decision-making body, the Supreme War Council, consisting of the Big Six (prime minister, foreign minister, Army minister, Army chief of staff, Navy minister and Navy chief of staff), required unanimity before any decision was brought to the emperor for approval. But the military – the war party – (except for the Navy minister) continued to insist that in the anticipated American invasion of Kyushu, the Japanese would inflict tremendous damage on the Americans and break their morale.

Those who favored immediate peace – the peace party – led by Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, Navy Minister Mitsumasa Yonai, and Marquis Koichi Kido, Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, who was not a member of the Big Six, but was the Emperor’s most trusted adviser, thought that continuing the war would diminish the possibility of gaining favorable terms. What did they mean by that?

There was a consensus between the war party and the peace party: the minimal condition for the termination of the war should be the preservation of the kokutai. The kokutai was centered around emperor worship, which the Japanese leadership considered the essence of the nation. If this condition was not met, Japan would fight to the bitter end, to the last soldier and the last civilian. They interpreted the American demand for unconditional surrender as tantamount to the destruction of the kokutai. Thus, they precluded negotiations with the US and Britain.

There was only one major country that remained neutral. That was the Soviet Union. So they decided to approach the Soviet Union and seek help to mediate the termination of the war.

That was a colossal diplomatic mistake, because, as noted above, the Soviet Union had already decided that it would wage war against Japan and was making preparations for it in earnest, especially after the German capitulation on May 7. Moreover, Japanese intelligence sources detected that the Soviets were sending troops and equipment on a massive scale to the Far East and warned that Soviet entry into the war was imminent. But the Japanese top leaders ended peace feelers in Switzerland and Sweden, and put all their eggs in the Soviet basket. They confused strategic thinking with wishful thinking, hoping to persuade the Soviet Union to mediate by offering generous territorial concessions. These concessions were, however, much smaller than those that Stalin had been offered at Yalta.

One crucial point that was to become a contentious issue later – and remains contentious today – was the possession of the southern Kurils, which the Japanese now call the Northern Territories. (They didn’t do so then.) As I mentioned before, the entire Kuril chain was included in the reward promised to Stalin by the Yalta secret protocol, but the southern Kurils were not included in the concessions that Japan was willing to grant to the Soviet Union. That was because this part of the Kurils had been recognized as belonging to Japan by the Russians in the Treaty of Shimoda in 1855, and had always been a part of Hokkaido, that is, an inherent part of Japanese territory. Whether this territory should be included in the territorial concessions to the Soviet Union was not debated in the Japanese government, most likely because this fact was taken for granted.

On July 12, five days before the Potsdam Conference began, Foreign Minister Togo sent a telegram to Ambassador Sato, instructing him to approach the Soviet government to request mediation, saying that the emperor would send Prince Fumimaro Konoye as his special envoy to Moscow for that purpose. Molotov asked further clarifications, but left for Potsdam without responding to Sato’s request for mediation.

When Stalin met Truman on July 17, shortly before the official conference began, Stalin revealed to Truman that he had received Japan’s request for Soviet mediation to terminate the war. Stalin told Truman that he would prefer to “lull the Japanese to sleep,” without answering Japan’s request. Actually, Truman knew all this through his secret intelligence operation, Magic intercepts of Japanese diplomatic dispatches. Without revealing that he knew this, Truman approved Stalin’s policy not to respond to Japan’s request. Both wanted to prolong the war long enough to surprise Japan, Truman with atomic bombs and Stalin with entry into the war against Japan.

When the Potsdam Proclamation was issued on July 26, the Japanese government was still patiently waiting for the Soviet answer on mediation.

How then did the Japanese government react to the Potsdam Proclamation? First, they immediately noticed that Stalin did not sign it. So they continued to stay the course: to seek the termination of the war through Soviet mediation. Secondly, the proclamation did not say anything about the fate of the emperor, which was the most important concern for Japanese leaders. Togo thought that there was room for negotiation with the Allies on the terms specified by the Potsdam Proclamation.

The Japanese made another cardinal mistake here. Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki allegedly declared at a press conference that Japan was going to mokusatsu the proclamation. But mokusatsu is not total rejection. It basically means they were going to “keep silent”, and “ignore” it. I say “allegedly” because it is not clear that Suzuki made this declaration or if the press interpreted his ambiguous statement and used the term mokusatsu.

But the US government took it as rejection. Presumably, Truman and his advisers had not expected the Japanese to accept their ultimatum in the first place. The removal of any reference to the preservation of the monarchy ensured that the Japanese would most likely not accept the ultimatum. They took Suzuki’s unofficial mokusatsu statement as Japan’s official rejection of the ultimatum, providing a convenient justification for the use of the atomic bombs.

Actually, the order to use the atomic bombs (not only the first bomb but also the second) was given on July 25, not by the president – no presidential order was given – but by General Thomas Handy, the acting chief of staff of the Army to General Carl Spaatz of the Army Strategic Air Forces, while General Marshall was away in Potsdam, one day before the Potsdam Proclamation was issued. Spaatz was ordered to “deliver the first special bomb as soon as weather permits visual bombing after about 3 August 1945 on one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata and Nagasaki.” It added: “Additional bombs will be delivered on the above targets as soon as made ready by the project staff.” The use of the atomic bomb was treated as a routine military matter, just as the decision to carry out conventional strategic bombing that had destroyed 64 Japanese cities prior to the atomic bombing over the preceding four months. The train had already left the station, and barring Japan’s immediate decision to surrender by accepting the Potsdam ultimatum, the atomic bombs were fated to be dropped on two of these targets. With the removal of Stimson’s two crucial stipulations, there was little chance that the Japanese leaders would immediately accept the Potsdam Proclamation.

General Handy’s order to drop the atomic bombs

Yamaguchi: The United States then dropped the bomb on Hiroshima on August 6.

Hasegawa: Yes. So what was the impact of the Hiroshima bomb? Of course, it was a tremendous shock. But it cannot be said to have been decisive and to have led to Japan’s immediate decision to surrender. Right after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, later on the afternoon of August 6, Foreign Minister Togo sent an urgent dispatch to Ambassador Sato in Moscow, telling him that they were in a dire situation with the new bomb and urging Sato to meet Molotov immediately to inquire about Japan’s request for Soviet mediation. That meant that despite the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the Japanese government was still seeking to terminate the war through Soviet mediation. That was also the first response of the Japanese government to the bomb in Hiroshima. This is telling evidence that the Hiroshima bomb was not decisive.

Soviet forces invade Manchuria

And then, after midnight of August 8-9, Soviet Far East time, two in the morning Japan time, Soviet tanks rolled into Manchuria, and planes attacked Japanese forces. This surprise attack was totally unexpected. It was only then, on the morning of August 9, that the Supreme War Council was convened for the first time. It had not met following the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. But it was convened immediately after the Soviet attack.

During the heated debate at the Supreme War Council the first news of the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki was conveyed to the Japanese leaders. The original report said that the bomb caused minimal damage. The Imperial General Headquarters record of this meeting simply stated that the bombing had no impact on the group’s deliberations. There were altogether six reports on the impact of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki dispatched to the Imperial General Headquarters, each conveying progressively more alarming news of the damage. Nevertheless, there exists no record indicating that the second atomic bomb had an impact on the debate within the top echelons of the Japanese leaders. In other words, not only the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima but also the two bombs combined were not decisive, to use the terminology of boxing, they provided no “knock-out” punch, in terms of the Japanese decision to terminate the war. Even after the one-two punch of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, they could not decide, because the Supreme War Council was still divided. Unable to come to a consensus, they made an unprecedented decision – to defer the final decision to the emperor by holding an imperial conference.

The imperial conference that began at 11:30 PM on August 9 and continued into the early hours of August 10 eventually decided, with the emperor’s consent, to accept the terms of the Potsdam Proclamation with one condition: “on the understanding that the Allied Proclamation would not comprise any demand which would prejudice the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler [Tenno no kokka tochi no taiken].”

The United States rejected this condition. The emperor’s prerogatives included tosuiken, the control of the military. That prerogative was a crucial factor for Japanese militarism. The United States had been fighting the war to eradicate Japanese militarism, and there was no possibility – whether they be hawks or doves – that they would accept this condition. In fact, the objections to this condition came from the Japan specialists who had advocated softening the unconditional-surrender demand. Secretary of State Byrnes sent the so-called Byrnes note to Japan making it clear that after acceptance of the ultimatum, the Japanese emperor should be subject to the control of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers. As far as the Japanese future polity was concerned, it would be determined by the freely expressed will of the people.

The Byrnes note prompted even more serious division among Japanese leaders than on previous days. Even those people who initially favored peace questioned what the United States meant by saying that the Japanese emperor was “to be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers”. The Japanese emperor was divine and not to be subjected to anything, the hard-liners insisted. Furthermore, the kokutai was not the issue on which the emperor’s “subjects” could make a determination. Since this was the accepted view of kokutai in Japan, the peace advocates had a hard time countering the hard-liner’s counter-attack.

As a result, there was a backlash. Even Suzuki, Togo and Yonai began to waver, but the second-tier peace factions, who had worked hard to secure peace in the Prime Minister’s Office (Hisatsune Sakomizu), the Foreign Ministry (Shunichi Matsumoto) and the Naval Ministry (Sokichi Takagi), conspired behind the back of the strengthened war party. They managed to mobilize the wavering Kido, Togo, Yonai and eventually Suzuki to arrange a second imperial conference. And it was at this second imperial conference that the emperor accepted the terms specified by the Potsdam ultimatum unconditionally. Japan would accept defeat, although it did not use the term “surrender” (kofuku), merely “the termination of the war” (shusen). It was also decided that the emperor would broadcast the imperial rescript announcing the “termination of war” on the radio, another unprecedented event, since until then the emperor’s real voice had never reached his “subjects”.

So that’s the way that the war was terminated. This is my long analysis of the second assumption that the atomic bomb was a decisive factor on the Japanese decision to surrender. Neither the first bomb nor the combined two bombs had immediate and direct impact on Japan’s decision to surrender.

So the two very important justifications for the US decision to drop the bomb were false. They were merely myths.

Yoshida: Do you think then that the Soviet entry into the war was a decisive factor?

Hasegawa: It can be argued that the Soviet entry into the war was not a decisive factor either since even after Soviet tanks entered Manchuria, the Supreme War Council could not reach a consensus and had to ask the emperor to make the decision.

There is no smoking gun to determine which – the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the two atomic bombs combined, or the Soviet entry into the war – had a decisive impact on Japan’s decision to surrender. I think that everything is speculation. That’s partly because the Japanese government burned all the documents it could at the end of the war, so we lack documentary evidence to draw definitive conclusions. And secondly, very important surviving documents and archives still are not available. For instance, the Imperial Household Agency (Kunaicho) has records, but these have not been made available. So we don’t know what the emperor thought and what he discussed with his advisers, especially Kido, and others. There exists Army minister Korechika Anami’s diary, but it has not been made public.

But from the circumstantial evidence, I would say, again, that the Soviet factor is more important than not only the first bomb on Hiroshima, but also the two atomic bombs combined. The Japanese government relied heavily on Soviet neutrality. It clung to the hope of Soviet mediation right up until the Soviets entered the war. It is important to stress that even after the Soviet attack, Japan did not declare war against the Soviet Union, limiting the military resistance merely to self-defense.

But Japan was betrayed when it was clinging to the hope of Soviet mediation. The Japanese characterized the Soviet action as that of a fire thief (kajiba-dorobo). The betrayal had a tremendous psychological effect. The sight of Soviets tanks rolling into Manchuria, Korea, then Sakhalin and the Kurils was indeed alarming, prompting a fast turnaround by the top policy-makers, including the emperor, with regard to the role of the Soviet Union. If the Soviets continued to march, they might even gain a decisive voice in the Allied Occupation Council and might claim a part of Japan as their occupation zone, making even the preservation of the current imperial dynasty uncertain. In fact, in the negotiations with Truman, Stalin demanded that the Soviets have an occupation zone in a part of Hokkaido and a slice of Tokyo.

Suddenly, the fourth provision of Byrnes’ note, which stipulated that Japan’s future polity would be determined by the freely expressed will of the people, became more attractive. And this was the point that the emperor made to Kido for unconditional acceptance of the Potsdam terms. In other words, in order to preserve the current imperial dynasty, if not the kokutai as they understood it, Japanese policy-makers, including the emperor, bet on the American side hoping that the United States would be willing to preserve the Imperial House, and specifically, it would be more willing than the Soviets to do so. It is important to note that in the imperial rescript as well as the prime minister’s announcement of the termination of the war, they pretended that the kokutai was preserved although the meaning of the kokutai was transformed from the traditional mythical term, the spiritual essence of Japan’s nationhood, into the preservation of the Imperial House.

For these reasons, I think that the Soviet entry into the war had a more important impact on Japan’s decision to surrender than the two atomic bombs combined.

The Third Justification: Revenge

Yamaguchi: Do you think any kind of domestic political considerations contributed to the US decision to drop the bomb?

Hasegawa: That’s very important. There is a third, hidden justification that Americans don’t state very openly. That is revenge. The United States experienced the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The United States and the Allies, including China, as well as Asian people under Japanese rule, suffered atrocious treatment of their prisoners of war and civilians – the Nanjing Massacre, the Bataan Death March, experiments using poison gas and chemical warfare on live prisoners, the comfort women, beheadings and torture, and innumerable other atrocities in violation of the rules of warfare.

When there were carpet bombings, such as the Nazis’ attacks on Rotterdam and Warsaw and Japanese attacks on Chongqing and Shanghai, President Roosevelt issued a statement denouncing these as totally unethical. There are certain things that you cannot do even in time of war. There are the rules of conduct in warfare. For instance, the use of poison gas is banned by the Hague Convention.

But these high principles gradually eroded when the Pacific War began, as John Dower argues in his book War Without Mercy, both sides demonized the other side (Dower 1986Dower, J. 1986. War without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War. New York: Pantheon Books. [Google Scholar]). And pretty soon, the American side began to think that the only way the Japanese could learn their lesson was to completely annihilate them physically. New Republic wrote in 1942: “The natural enemy of every American man, woman and child is the Japanese man, woman and child.” One official of the Information office in the Army declared in 1944: “The entire population of Japan is a proper target… There are no civilians in Japan.”

This desire for vengeance was also apparent in Truman. When the Federal Council of Churches protested the use of the atomic bombs on August 11, 1945. Truman responded: “Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast.”

So, by the time the United States used the atomic bomb, that moral divide that President Roosevelt had espoused had already been crossed. Once that divide was crossed, it was easier to go one step further from incendiary bombings to the atomic bombings.

Yoshida: In the Tokyo bombing, 100,000 people were killed in one night. So even in Japan, there is an argument about what the difference between Tokyo and Hiroshima is.

Hasegawa: But there are qualitative differences between conventional strategic bombing and atomic bombing. While the Tokyo bombings were carried out by 279 B-52s, dropping 1,665 tons of incendiary bombs, one single atomic bomb could kill as many people. That is, one bomb over one city. The second issue is radiation. If poison gas was prohibited by international law, then certainly the atomic bomb should be prohibited, too, since it is more atrocious than poison gas in terms of mass killing of civilian populations. Truman himself became aware of the horrible consequences of atomic bombings. That’s why when he received the news of the enormous number of victims of the Hiroshima bomb after the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, he ordered that any future use of atomic bombs would require presidential authorization. Later on, before he fulfilled his term of office, he admitted that the atomic bomb was many times worse than poison gas.

But I have one more important thing to add. Since I am both Japanese and American, I would like to make clear which voice I use to make the following points. Although as an American citizen, I believe that the use of atomic bomb should be recognized as a war crime to help prevent the Americans from committing the same mistake in future.

But as a Japanese, I would like to stress that when we talk about Japan as a victim, we also have to recall that Japan was also a perpetrator of war. Japan colonized Korea and Taiwan, invaded China, attacked Pearl Harbor, and committed numerous atrocities during the war. Countless numbers of people suffered at the hands of the Japanese. We must acknowledge that Japan must also take responsibility for war crimes, recognizing that our hands were also soaked with blood.

There is also the issue of political responsibility for prolonging the war. If Japan had terminated the war earlier, there would not have been the atomic bombings or Soviet entry into the war. Very few Japanese will voice their opinion on this issue, including the responsibility of the Japanese emperor. He could have more decisively intervened earlier to terminate the war and save many Japanese, Asian and American lives. He could have abdicated from the throne after the war to accept his responsibility for supporting the war. That’s taboo, and few Japanese historians touch upon it. We cannot only protest that we are innocent victims of the bomb without atoning for the crimes that Japan committed. Tears that pour out for the victims of the atomic bombs must also be accompanied by prayers for those who fell victim to Japan’s criminal acts during the war.

Nuclear Weapons as a War Crime

Radomir Compel: In your book you write that the possession of nuclear weapons, or the potential for use of those weapons changed the attitude of the United States (e.g. with regard to the Imperial system or early Soviet entry into the war). In general terms, is it conceivable that possession of nuclear weapons hardens policy makers determination to pursue their goals more harshly or more assertively?

Hasegawa: I think there are two types of military men and women or even policy-makers with regard to the use of the atomic bomb. The first group holds that it should be used only for deterrence. But there is another group that believes that the atomic bomb can be used as a legitimate war-fighting weapon. It is for that reason that nuclear weapons have been constantly improved and miniaturized, so that they can be used in war.

My fear is that, as long as nuclear weapons exist, they could ultimately be used. President Donald Trump thinks that new types of nuclear weapons can easily be used against rogue states. He and other authoritarian leaders would not think twice about using them.

The only way to prevent another use of the atomic bomb is to build a global constituency committed to honoring and acting on the slogan that Nagasaki adopts – let Nagasaki be the last victim of the atomic bomb by abolishing nuclear weapons altogether.

When I was thinking about nuclear weapons in the middle of the Cold War, I was more interested in arms control or how to prevent the use of the atomic bomb rather than nuclear disarmament or total abolition of nuclear weapons.

I spent many years working on the decision-making process a the top, but after published Racing the Enemy, I began reading about what was happening on the ground in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I read many eye-witness accounts, saw the illlustrations drawn by the victims, and read a rich trove of atomic bomb literature (Tamiki Hara, Sankichi Toge, Masuji Ibuse, Kenzaburo Oe, Yoko Ota, among others). Historians who work on diplomatic history rarely lower their gaze on the ground. But I challenge how many of these diplomatic historians who justify the dropping of the atomic bombs have the courage to make the same argument, after becoming familiar with what occurred on the ground on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and what sufferings the survivors have endured over the years. After serious reflection on these accounts, I have finally come to the conclusion that nuclear weapons must be abolished altogether. That’s the only way to prevent them from being used and the use of nuclear weapons should be denounced as a war crime.

Compel: In the system, as it is today, we can condemn only a very few cases among the many war crimes that occur. For example, there have been convictions for war crimes in Yugoslavia and in places where the interests of great powers are not involved, like Africa. At the same time, many incidents in the wars in Syria, Afghanistan, or Iraq are not being prosecuted, because they are kept outside of ICC (International Criminal Court) jurisdiction. Also, despite the fact that war crimes may be committed by other parties to the conflict, often only one party is being tried and found guilty. This leaves an impression that the other party has not committed any war crimes. Does this not apply to cases like Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And do you think there might be a way to address such imbalances?

HasegawaTH: Between August 6, that is between the day that the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and on August 9, when the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, the Allied powers – the United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain and France – got together and talked about their policy for trials of war crimes. And they eliminated strategic bombing from the category of war crimes. That meant that atomic bombing would not be addressed in war crimes trials. Judge Radhabinod Pal of India presented a dissenting view, raised the question of the use of atomic bombs as a war crime at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, but his opinion was ruled out.

Your question is about how to make it happen. I don’t know. It’s a very difficult task, particularly in the current climate. But we have to keep working. As Voltaire said in his Candide, “We must cultivate our garden.”

*

This article is adapted from Hibiki Yamaguchi, Fumihiko Yoshida and Radomir Compel, “Can the Atomic Bombings on Japan Be Justified? A Conversation with Dr. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa“, The Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament Vol 2, Issue 1, 2019, pp. 19-33 Following the original, Japanese surnames are listed after given names.

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.

Hibiki Yamaguchi is managing editor of the Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament (J-PAND).

Fumihiko Yoshida is editor-in-chief of J-PAND. He also serves as director of the Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, Nagasaki University.

Radomir Compel is associate professor in the School of Global Humanities and Social Sciences at Nagasaki University.

Sources

Alperovitz, Gar, 1996. The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb. New York: Viking Press.

Bird, Kai and Lawrence Lifschulz, 1998. Hiroshima’s Shadow. Stony Creek, Conn.: Pamphleteer’s Press.

Butow, J. C. Robert, 1956. Japan’s Decision to Surrender. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Dower, John. 1986. War without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War. New York: Pantheon Books.

Dower, John, 2010. Cultures of War: Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, 9-11, Iraq. New York: W. W. Norton.

[Google Scholar]

Frank, Richard, 1999. Downfall: the End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Random House.

Gordin, Michael, 2007. Five Days in August . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi. 1998. The Northern Territories Dispute and Russo-Japanese Relations. International & Area Studies: University of California.

[Google Scholar]

Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi. 2005. Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman and the Surrender of Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[Crossref]

[Google Scholar]

Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi. ed., 2007. The End of the War Pacific War: Reappraisals. Stanford: Stanfored University Press.

Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi. 2017a. Crime and Punishment in the Russian Revolution: Mob Justice and Police in Petrograd.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[Crossref]

[Google Scholar]

Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi. 2017b. The February Revolution, Petrograd 1917: The End of the Tsarist Regime and the Birth of Dual Power. Leiden: Brill. (Paperback edition, Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2018).

[Google Scholar]

Holloway, David 1994. Stalin and the Bomb. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Malloy, Sean, 2008. Atomic Tragedy: Henry Stimson and the Decision to Use the Bomb against Japan. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Norris, Robert, 2002. Racing for the Bomb. South Royjalton, VT: Steerforth Press.

Rhodes, Richard, 1986. The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Southard, Susan, 2015. Nagasaki: Life after Nuclear War. New York: Viking.

Tanaka, Yuki and Marilyn Young, ed., 2009. Bombing Civilians. New York: New Press.

Walker, Samuel, 2004. Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bomb against Japan. Chapel Hill: North Carolina Press.

All images in this article are from APJJF

Global Research has published several articles which provide different as well as opposing views of the strikes directed Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities. What was the (direct or indirect) role of Iran in these strikes?

*** 
This weekend’s massive drone strike by Yemen’s Ansarullah rebels against the world’s largest oil processing facility in Saudi Arabia was a classic David vs. Goliath moment where a smaller force inflicted a devastating blow against their much larger opponent, one which even surpasses its legendary predecessor because of its potential global consequences.

GR Editor’s Note

This report is contested.

The evidence that Iran was directly involved in strikes out of Iraq has not been corroborated.

***

The strikes which paralysed the Saudi oil industry on Saturday morning, forcing it to halve its output of crude oil, were made by Iranian drones launched from Hashd al-Shaabi bases in southern Iraq, a senior Iraqi intelligence official has told Middle East Eye.

The attacks on Abqaiq and Khurais, two key Aramco facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia, were in retaliation for Israeli drone strikes on Hashd al-Shaabi bases and convoys in August, which were co-ordinated and funded by the Saudis, the official said.

“The latest attack comes for two reasons: another message from Iran to USA and its allies that as long as its siege on Iran continues no one will have stability in the region. However, the second more direct reason is a strong Iranian revenge for the recent Israeli attacks by drones launched from SDF-controlled areas in Syria against pro-Iranian Hashd bases,” he said.

“These Israeli drone attacks were supported and financed by the Saudis. That is why the recent attack was the most devastating, while the previous attacks were more symbolic and inflicted little harm,” the official said.

In August, five drone attacks on the Iranian-trained Hashd militia were launched from Kurdish bases under the control of Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) areas of northeastern Syria, MEE reported at the time.

The drones struck bases, weapons depots and a convoy belonging to Hashd al-Shaabi, killing one fighter and severely wounding another.

Iraqi intelligence said the strikes were planned when Saudi Minister of State for Gulf Affairs, Thamer al-Sabhan, visited the SDF in Syria in June.

Drone seen over Kuwait palace

The Iraqi intelligence official refused to say which bases Saturday’s drones were launched from.

However, he confirmed that the distance between southern Iraq and the Saudi oilfields was about half the distance the drones would have had to fly had they been launched from Houthi bases in northern Yemen.

He said the drones had to travel between 500km and 600km, where as if they had been fired from Houthi bases they would have had to cover a distance of between 1,100km and 1,300km.

Map showing the approximate route of the drones based on information from Iraqi intelligence

The flight path of the drones travelling south from Iraq to the eastern oilfields of Saudi Arabia would have taken them over the sea or through Kuwait’s airspace.

Kuwait media reported on Saturday that a three-metre drone was sighted flying above the Dar Salwa palace in the centre of Kuwait City.

Alrai newspaper said that a three-metre-long unmanned aircraft, which came from the sea, descended to an altitude of 250 metres above the palace.

The drone hovered near the beach of Al Badaa and headed to the city of Kuwait.

MEE was unable to confirm whether this was connected to the attack on the Saudi oil installations.

Kuwait’s government said on Sunday that it was investigating the drone sighting.

“The security leadership has started the necessary investigations over the sighting of a drone over the coastline of Kuwait City and what measures were taken to confront it,” the cabinet said on its Twitter account.

It said Prime Minister Sheikh Jaber al-Mubarak al-Sabah directed military and security officers to tighten security at vital installations in the Gulf OPEC producer and to take all necessary measures “to protect Kuwait’s security”.

Iraqi denial

The Houthis have claimed responsibility for Saturday’s attack, however the official said:

“It was not the Houthis. These were Iranian drones launched from Hashd al-Shaabi bases.”

The embattled Iraqi government was forced on Saturday to issue a statement denying the drone attacks on Saudi facilities came from its territory.

The statement issued by the prime minister’s press office read:

“Iraq denies what has been reported by the news media and the social media about the use of its territories to launch an attack on Saudi oil installations using drones.

“It asserts its constitutional commitment to preventing the use of its territories for aggression against its neighbours, brothers and friends.

“The Iraqi government will deal firmly and decisively with whoever attempts to violate the constitution.

“A committee composed of relevant Iraqi parties has been formed in order to pursue information and follow up developments.”

‘Between the rock and a hard place’

For months, Iraq Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi has been desperately attempting to prevent his country from being used as a battleground in a proxy war between the US and Iran.

Earlier this year, the US military signalled its intention to him to strike an airfield held by Iraqi Hezbollah after drone strikes on oil facilities in the Gulf.

Abdul Mahdi was reported by witnesses to the exchange to have told the Americans that he could not stop them striking wherever they wanted, but neither could he prevent retaliatory strikes by Iranian backed militias on US troops and bases in Iraq.

The US strike on Iraqi Hezbollah never took place. Instead, the US allowed Israel to use its drones from SDF bases in northeastern Syria.

In August, Abdul Mahdi came under huge pressure to publicly accuse Israel of launching drones to attack targets on Iraqi terrritory.

“Our prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi is between the rock and a hard place,” the Iraqi intelligence source told MEE.

“He told both the Iranians and the Americans Iraq is exhausted after decades of wars, conflicts and civil war.

“Dragging it into the centre of the proxy war between Iran on one side and the USA and its regional allies on the other will risk irreparable damage to its stability and unity with huge implications for the whole region.”

However, the prime minister’s pleas have been in vain. “Neither side is listening,” the official said.

‘Pretend diplomacy’

On Saturday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Iran of leading the attacks on Saudi Arabia and denounced Tehran for engaging in false diplomacy.

“Tehran is behind nearly 100 attacks on Saudi Arabia while Rouhani and Zarif pretend to engage in diplomacy,” Pompeo said in a Twitter post, referring to Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif.

“Amid all the calls for de-escalation, Iran has now launched an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply,” Pompeo tweeted, offering no evidence of the origin of the attacks, according to the Reuters news agency.

Iran earlier condemned as “unacceptable” US accusations it was behind the attacks on the Saudi oil plants.

*

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.

What blasphemy is this? al-Qaeda has won? Absurd!

Most observers would say reflexively that, eighteen years after 9/11, the U.S. has cut al-Qaeda down to size, and if it has not quelled it altogether the remaining operations against Osama bin Laden’s organisation—such as the strike on al-Qaeda in Syria in Idlib on 31 August—amount to not much more than mopping up. But is this not a superficial reading of the situation?

Until Trump nixed the deal (temporarily?) the anniversary of 9/11 was set to coincide with an agreement between the U.S. and the Taliban, whereby the U.S. would withdraw from Afghanistan in return for assurances that U.S. troops will not be attacked as they leave and that the Taliban will not support groups such as al-Qaeda. Much of the discussion on the putative deal revolves around the question of whether the Taliban will respect any assurances they give.

But there is a deeper question here: the Taliban may or may not attack U.S. troops, but why would al-Qaeda today even want to attack the U.S. from Afghanistan? Or from anywhere at all? Has the U.S. not ended up aligning itself with al-Qaeda on the causes closest to al-Qaeda’s heart?

A Convergence of Interests

And what causes might those be? Leave aside the cause of besting its rival, the Islamic State (IS or ISIS), although the U.S. has done al-Qaeda an immense if unintended favour by largely removing from the scene al-Qaeda’s biggest competitor for recruits and funding. More to the point, how about the causes of fighting Iran, the Shia, the Syrian government, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, and generally making the Middle East safe for Sunni extremism?

‘Iran is the number one nation of terror’: has Donald Trump with this mantra not shifted the spotlight off Sunni terrorism, the undisputed bugbear of the U.S. in the first ten years after 9/11? And has al-Qaeda on its side not lost much of its anti-Western focus and become principally concerned with what it sees as heresy within Islam in the shape of Shiism and its offshoots?

Look at the absence of al-Qaeda reaction to the recent announcement that in light of the Iranian ‘threat’ the U.S. would be stationing troops once again in Saudi Arabia. Such stationing was an important catalyst for Bin Laden’s movement when, in the run up to and aftermath of the first U.S. war on Iraq in 1991, the U.S. kept thousands of troops in the holy land of Islam, considered anathema by many Muslims at the time. Now the prospect arouses barely a peep, so conditioned have the Saudi people and Sunnis generally become to seeing Iran as the enemy, not Israel or its protector the U.S.

Not that al-Qaeda ever appeared to care much about Israel’s misdeeds, at least to judge by actions rather than words. When did al-Qaeda ever mount a significant attack against Israel? So much fulmination, so little action. Even action against the U.S.: what did al-Qaeda do against the U.S. after the big coup of 9/11? It is necessary to go to the archives to come up with anything at all: the Times Square foiled car bomb attack in 2010 by a Pakistani who may or may not have been linked to al-Qaeda. The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in the confused aftermath of Muammar Gaddafi’s downfall in 2012 may also just count. Even taking into account a number of plots allegedly foiled by U.S. security agencies (often involving agents provocateurs), the record hardly amounts to strong evidence of a continuing major al-Qaeda targeting of the U.S.

The feeling, or quasi-indifference, appears to have been mutual. After the killing of Bin Laden in 2011 the U.S. seemed to act as though it believed that the account had been squared and there was not a lot of point in doing more than go through the motions on combatting al-Qaeda, especially with the appearance of the new kid on the terrorist block, IS, itself an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Allies in Syria and Beyond

The emerging convergence of interest between the U.S. and al-Qaeda has been most obvious in Syria. During the Obama years, the U.S. funnelled immense amounts of arms and equipment to jihadi groups in full knowledge that much of it was ending up in the hands of al-Qaeda affiliates, notably the group originally known as Jabhat Al Nusra. This group began life as al-Qaeda in Syria, before disagreements with al-Qaeda central led to a degree of distancing. With the passing years Nusra stepped up efforts to rebrand itself, first as Jabhat Fatah ash-Sham (JFS), then as Hayat Tahrir ash-Sham (HTS), its current avatar. But its basic radical jihadi ideology, and its oppressive sharia-inspired behaviour in areas it controlled, never changed.

The U.S., by mobilising all the immense means at its command to weaken and attempt to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, did much of the work of Nusra/JFS/HTS for it. The U.S. still does that, without ever manifesting the slightest concern that removing Assad would inevitably pave the way to jihadi control over all Syria. For if the U.S. no longer finds it expedient to pour arms directly into the maw of jihadi groups, it lifts not a finger to prevent ally Turkey from doing so with advanced U.S.-supplied weaponry, or Qatar from channelling copious funding to those groups. It constantly admonishes, with threats, the Syrian government and the Russians for using much the same level and type of military effort to dislodge HTS from Idlib that the U.S. itself used in Coalition operations to remove IS from Mosul, Fallujah, and Raqqa. At one point in 2018 it threatened to bomb Syria if Assad’s attempts to recover Idlib were not halted, prompting barbed comments that the U.S. Air Force, which had already bombed Syrian targets twice—in 2017 and 2018—was acting as the al-Qaeda air wing.

U.S. officials have put considerable effort into attempting to hobble Assad and the Syrian Arab Army in what they call their war on terrorism by imposing sanctions, withholding international reconstruction assistance, and pressuring countries not to normalise relations with Syria. It lionises groups like the White Helmets, considered by the Syrian government and Russia to be auxiliaries of HTS. It encourages think tanks hostile to Syria and Russia and does everything in its power to shape a mainstream media narrative on Syria that can only give comfort to a group, HTS, which plays adroitly on Western consciences in the hope that assistance from the West will continue and possibly even develop into armed intervention.

True, the U.S. continues to pay lip service to the cause of fighting al-Qaeda and even occasionally mounts some token military action against it, as when on 30 June this year the USAF launched a strike on a location near Idlib where commanders of an al-Qaeda affiliate, Hurras al-Din (the Guardians of Religion), were gathering. The Pentagon claimed that the purpose of the strike was to pre-empt ‘external’ attacks, which would endanger ‘U.S. citizens, our partners, and civilians’. The main impact of this curious attack out of the blue, following two years of complete U.S. inaction against al-Qaeda in Syria, was to deflate an emerging clamour for U.S. intervention in Syria, and may have been a Pentagon power play against ultra hawk John Bolton. The U.S. carried out an almost identical strike on 31 August, which is likely to strengthen the hold of HTS, left unscathed, over Hurras al-Din and other unruly factions that are more brazen in their al-Qaeda affiliation. Even if the two strikes are taken entirely at face value their rarity underlines that if the U.S. seriously wished to oppose al-Qaeda, it could and would be bombing HTS and its allies regularly. It can only be assumed that the U.S. broadly prioritises undermining Assad and Iran over the fight against Sunni terrorists, who for their part—especially now with IS a spent force—no longer have much appetite or incentive for attacking the U.S.

The de facto convergence between the U.S. and al-Qaeda is equally obvious in Yemen, where the U.S. is propping up the Saudi-led military coalition in its efforts to remove the Houthi-controlled government, deemed over-reliant on Iran. The U.S.-Saudi intervention has led to a chaotic situation where al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has gathered considerable strength.

U.S. rhetorical support for the Uighurs (to spite China) and military cooperation with predominantly Muslim Azerbaijan, from which Israeli drone attacks on pro-Iranian forces in Iraq have reportedly been launched, may also not be seen with disfavour by al Qaeda, jihadi ranks in Syria being full of Uighurs and Caucasus Muslims.

Repeating the Past

We have seen this movie before, of course. U.S. support for Afghan mujahideen fighting Russia helped create the conditions for the emergence of al-Qaeda in that country in the first place, just as the overthrow of secular dictators in Iraq and Libya helped create the conditions for the emergence of IS and other jihadi groups in those countries.

At some subliminal level, the architects of U.S. Middle East policy seem to recognise that they have a problem with pretending that Iran has overtaken al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda-inspired groups as terrorist-in-chief. Possibly for this reason, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has tried to smear Iran as a secret supporter of al-Qaeda, a claim no honest observer can possibly take seriously.

At all events, the question today—18 years after 9/11—is whether the U.S. obsession with Iran will not backfire like previous misadventures and play once again into the hands of Sunni extremists, inheritors of the Bin Laden legacy. We shall see the answer to that if U.S. Syria policy succeeds, and an economically crippled and politically fragmented Syria becomes once more ungovernable, with Assad forced out of power—an outcome for which al-Qaeda must be fervently praying.

*

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

Peter Ford is an expert on the Middle East. An Arabist, he served as British Ambassador to Syria and Bahrain before joining the UN to work on refugee issues.

Ending a war is like stopping a heavy truck. Even when you slam on the brakes, the mass and inertia of the conflict takes a very long time to halt; the violence might end but the effects can reverberate through decades and generations. German units still find and defuse bombs in Germany dropped during World War II;¹ French deminers regularly collect and destroy artillery shells on the Western Front from World War I, over a hundred years ago.² During the active phase of a war, many of the shells and bombs hurled by armies on both sides fail to explode upon impact; many land mines are never tripped. Later they are forgotten in the forests or jungles, covered by vegetation or shifting soil, washed away by rain or floods – or sometimes they just sit there in plain sight. They linger for years or decades, waiting for children or unsuspecting villagers, scrap metal scavengers, or construction workers to wander by.

Ratanakiri Province, Cambodia, 2014 – An NPA team conducts a technical survey, looking for any signs of cluster munitions on a plantation near the town of Ban Lung in the Northeastern part of the country.

The latest edition of Landmine Monitor records that between 1999 and 2017 alone, over 120,000 people were killed or wounded by land mines and Unexploded Ordnance (UXOs) left over from conflicts — a tally recognized as significantly less than the actual number of casualties, many of which are never reported. The Monitor estimates that the all-time total number of casualties from land mines and UXOs exceeds 500,000. About eighty percent of those casualties are civilians; about half are children.³ The millions of land mines and UXOs left over from various wars range from large naval and artillery shells to 750-lb bombs to mortar shells, grenades and aircraft cannon ammunition.
A major concern of the demining operations is the presence of cluster munitions, small explosive munitions, often called submunitions, bomblets or “bombis,” that are delivered to the battlefield in large canisters or shells called cluster bomb units that open in the air and disperse the bomblets over a large area. A CBU-24, for example, was a canister dropped by U.S. aircraft during the Vietnam War that contained as many as 670 submunitions (or bomblets) known as BLU-26, small round metal balls of thin metal, filled with explosives and steel pellets, with a lethal range of 40 feet.

Sekong, Lao PDR, 2014 – Behind its regional headquarters in Sekong, NPA keeps a number of cluster bomb units (also known as “bombis”) discovered and rendered safe by deminers.

Millions of acres of land, suspected of contamination, are sealed off from agriculture or construction. The question is, how best to find and remove these lethal war souvenirs?

Over the last five years, I’ve been travelling to different countries to photograph the work of two non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Project RENEW (“Restoring the Environment and Neutralizing the Effects of the War”) and Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA), that specialize in reclaiming land from actual or potential destruction by mines, bombs and mortar rounds and artillery shells. Much of my time was spent in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos in 2014, hiking with teams of deminers through jungle, up hills, across old plantations, and rattling around in Land Cruisers down atrocious roads. In preparing this piece for publication, I contacted the program managers for the three countries and the headquarters of NPA’s Humanitarian Disarmament Division based in Oslo to update my notes. What follows is a report, mostly in images, of the local people across Indochina that do the hard, sometimes dangerous work of reclaiming their countries.

Map of Indochina 

NPA is one of the major organizations in the world clearing mines and UXOs, but it is different from many other demining groups. Private corporations, staffed by military veterans, are often hired by countries or big property owners to parachute in, clean up a town or plantation and move on to the next job. Some NGOs bring in experts who complete the work but then depart, leaving the local community unprepared to tackle the ongoing problem themselves. Military veterans from the U.S. and other western countries who have EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) experience generally prefer to work for those organizations because they pay so much better than NPA.

Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam, 2014 – Members of an EOD team carry away a large artillery shell discovered in a remote area in the province. It will be detonated later at a site used for safe disposal of ordnance.

Founded by Norway’s labor unions in 1939, NPA by contrast is “built on [the unions’] same values: unity, solidarity and human dignity.” It currently works in some 32 countries, not just to provide aid and technical assistance, but to “improve people’s living conditions and to create a more just society, undertaking political advocacy and practical supportive work.” NPA focuses on three programmatic areas: humanitarian disarmament, development cooperation, and aiding refugees. In addition, it provides first aid and rescue services for Norway. NPA’s 2017 annual expenses were more than 1.027 billion krone (USD $113,900,000), of which 414,903,000 krone went to humanitarian disarmament projects (USD $46,000,000).4

Most of the funds for NPA’s humanitarian disarmament operations come from Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the U.S. Department of State.⁵ Additional funds come from the German Federal Foreign Office, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Japan, the European Commission, the UK Department of International Development, and a host of other governments and NGOs around the world.⁶

To this end, NPA’s Humanitarian Disarmament work is more than just clearing away mines and UXOs; it includes “both operational and advocacy work which aim to reduce and prevent harm to civilians from the impacts of weapons and ammunition, and where civil society plays a critical role.”⁷ NPA engages in political action and advocacy to ban the use of land mines, cluster munitions and nuclear weapons. It supports efforts to monitor and enforce the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty and the 2010 Convention on Cluster Munitions. NPA promotes best safety and security practices for stockpiling armaments. It provides community awareness and education on the dangers of weapons.

NPA currently engages in Humanitarian Disarmament work, including locating and clearing of mines and munitions, in 21 countries and has completed assignments in another 23 nations. Outside of the main headquarters in Oslo, the overwhelming number of employees are local residents from the affected countries – 1,600 versus about 50 expats. NPA trains local staff to high technical standards; provides local staff with living wages, medical benefits and educational opportunities; teaches them English, how to drive, and how to use computers; creates strong partnerships with affected governments; builds capacity for local staff to take over managing the work; and actively recruits women and national minorities to participate equally in the projects. At the NPA projects in host countries, there are very few Norwegians or other western expats; as quickly as practicable, the management, administration and actual demining work is handed over to the local community.

Land Release – “Let it Go”

Clearing a country of all land mines and UXOs is slow, expensive, time-consuming and probably impossible in many countries, which is why so much land in war-torn countries remains unused. NPA has helped pioneer the more modern approach called Land Release, which marries technology, training and information systems to determine which parcels of land show no evidence of contamination and thus can be released for residential or commercial use without dragging metal detectors through every square meter of the country. The exact protocol may be different from country to country; it varies based on whether the main contaminants are land mines, cluster munitions or assorted UXOs, and is constantly being upgraded and adjusted based on new experience, equipment and techniques.⁸ Basically, there are three steps in the process, which begins when NPA is given a contract by the national mine action agency to secure a particular township, farm, or defined area. First, the NPA conducts a nontechnical survey to isolate suspected hazardous areas, using such tools as army maps from the national military and former adversaries showing where land mines were placed, interviews with former combatants on both sides, records of aircraft bombing missions and after-action reports on where the ordnance was directed or released, community meetings to alert residents about the need to report any found ordnance, interviews with community residents as well as random tips from local people, and other anecdotal evidence.

Attapeu Province, Lao PDR, 2014 – Laotians who live near the village of Mixai attend a community meeting to hear a presentation about the dangers of cluster munitions and other UXOs and to report to NPA whether any of them have seen explosives in the village. NPA relies on tips from local residents to locate mines and UXOs and plan their search efforts.

The results of a nontechnical survey are analyzed using GPS maps and computer modeling; areas which show no sign of contamination can be released for public or private use, while evidence of suspected hazardous areas will lead to a technical survey. Using GPS and computerized maps, NPA sends out trained deminers with metal detectors. They will sweep 25 square meter boxes to locate any metal, then carefully excavate the ground to see what is there. Generally the signal comes from harmless metal fragments, but sometimes it comes from a bomb, a mortar round, an artillery shell, or land mine. In many locations, NPA has shifted to using highly trained detection dogs which can search much faster than human deminers, with near-perfect accuracy. NPA is now using small commercially available drones as well.

Ban Lung, Ratanakiri Province, Cambodia, 2014 – Early in the morning, the two NPA all-female EOD and survey teams deployed in Ratanakiri Province in Northeast Cambodia line up at the NPA compound for the day’s briefing before being driven to their mission.

Jan Erik Stoa had an idea: hire only women for his bomb squads. To outsiders, this might not seem like an obvious decision for Stoa, an 11-year veteran of the Norwegian Army who served as a “peacekeeper” in places where peace was in short supply: Bosnia during the Balkans War, Kosovo during the next phase of the Balkans War, Mogadishu right after the infamous “Blackhawk Down” battle. He joined NPA in 2002, with postings in Angola, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Ethiopia, Georgia and Jordan; in 2014, he was NPA’s Program Manager for Humanitarian Disarmament in Cambodia.Stoa believed that women would be more reliable and meticulous than men, and that all-female teams would help fulfill another of NPA’s goals – to empower women and provide greater opportunities for their social and economic advancement. In fact, Stoa had tried the same thing elsewhere. He wanted to show the government authorities that women could do this work; his proposal was met by an astonished Cambodian government official exclaiming, “But that’s discrimination!” Stoa went ahead anyway, creating two female teams for Ratanakiri Province in the northeast part of the country, 580 km northeast of Phnom Penh – a nine and a half hour drive in 2014 over atrocious roads. (Actually, the teams had three male employees: a driver, a medic, and the computer data specialist.)

Ban Lung, Ratanakiri Province, Cambodia, 2014 – An NPA deminer supervises a group of new recruits performing a first aid drill in the field behind the NPA compound.

The teams were trained to safely locate and destroy UXOs and operations commenced with female team leaders. Sem Leakhena is now 30 years old and has been with NPA for more than 6 years. She got interested in NPA after seeing her father work with the Cambodian Mine Action Center, the government’s agency for demining. She wanted to work for NPA because it employed women for this work; she thought women could do what men do and found it to be true. She said she knows about different types of UXOs and she can do demolitions. NPA taught her to drive and speak English. Originally from Battambang, she studied finance and graduated university. When I met her in 2014, she said she enjoyed her work, “Yes, I like so much.” She was not scared of explosions – they’ve trained for the work. She liked being in Ratanakiri where they don’t stay still but travel to different places. She said others see the NPA women in uniform doing demolitions and admire the women as strong: the community had not seen women do this kind of work before. She wanted to stay in NPA “forever.”

Ratanakiri Province, Cambodia, 2014 – Sem Leakhena, a team leader for one of the EOD teams, uses electrical tape to shape the TNT charge that her team will use to destroy a small cluster bomblet found outside a village.

The other team leader, Dul Sovann was from Siem Reap and learned of NPA from radio and from other villagers. Originally she was scared, but she trained and learned. She came to NPA the same time as Leakhena and they worked together. She said that safety is first, but she liked blowing things up. Sovann left NPA in 2016. Leakhena is now a Cluster Munitions Remnants Survey Team Leader.In addition to the full-time staff, NPA in 2014 had 15 candidates that trained with them every day, vying for one of four openings for permanent employment. Tang Kachrab was one of those candidates when I met her in 2014. She came from a small village in Ratanakiri Province where NPA did work; she attended a meeting and learned about the organization. She decided she wanted to help clear mines in Cambodia. Before that, she worked on the family farm and assisted women in the community, helping children with disabilities. When she was 12 years old, the Khmer Rouge made her and other children carry ammunition and rockets 5-10 kilometers into the forest by foot. If she refused, she said, the Khmer Rouge would harm her parents – she saved their lives. During that period, she saw people injured by bombs; she helped give them first aid and carry them in a hammock. Shortly after I left, she was hired by NPA for a full-time position; on her first day, she found two bomblets. In 2019, she’s still with NPA.

Ban Lung, Ratanakiri Province, Cambodia, 2014 – Tang Kachrab, then a candidate for employment at NPA, cleans her metal detector after an EOD operation. As a child, the Khmer Rouge made her carry weapons and ammunition for them. Shortly after this photo was taken, she was hired as a full-time employee.

In fact, women were at least part of every team I travelled with in Indochina in 2014. Five years after I visited, Stoa is now NPA’s country director in Vietnam. He still believes his idea was the correct one and works “FANTASTIC.” Stoa instituted all-female teams in other countries as well – Lebanon, South Sudan and Tajikistan.¹⁵ In 2015, Nguyen Thi Dieu Linh, a 32 year-old woman, took over as Operations Manager at Project RENEW in Quang Tri Province, in charge of a staff of 160.¹⁶ There are also all-female teams at Project RENEW in Quang Tri Province, Vietnam. Stoa says that segregated teams are not a goal in themselves, but a way of demonstrating to government officials that women are more than equal to the work.¹⁷ Other NPA country programs have preferred to have teams with a diversity of gender, ethnicity and language. Starting next year, NPA-Vietnam will have four female and four male teams. NPA says it is working to achieve gender equality on its survey and clearance teams throughout the world.¹⁸

All Dogs Speak Norwegian 

One of the most valuable assets used by NPA for discovery of explosives are the dogs –Belgian Shepherd Malinois dogs bred, raised and trained by NPA at their Global Training Center (GTC) in Vogosca village near Sarajevo, Bosnia. After experimenting, NPA concluded that the Malinois are more active than German shepherds and more adaptable, with fewer health issues and hip and leg injuries. Training begins when the puppies are 4 weeks old, and they train 4-6 hours per day. They learn to smell every portion of a row the length of a search quadrant; if they smell any explosive, they lower their hind legs and freeze in position over the target. The dogs work far faster than humans with a metal detector, and with much greater accuracy. Although the dogs are used all over the world, they are trained to understand and obey commands in the Norwegian language. Currently NPA operates dogs in six countries, including Cambodia. NPA started training its own dogs at the GTC in 1999 and has never had a dog-related accident. (NPA also trains dogs for the Norwegian and Bosnian armies.)

Vogosca, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2014 – a trainer puts one of the Belgian Shepherd Malinois through its paces in a field at NPA’s Global Training Center, just outside Sarajevo.

NPA is now working with Special Detection Dogs in Cambodia and Bosnia. Instead of being controlled on a lead, they roam freely over a designated area, guided by their handlers who are safely out of the hazardous zone. The dogs wear light-weight harnesses that include a camera, a microphone, a speaker, a wireless connection, and battery in a pocket on the underside. The handlers communicate with the dogs through either a laptop or a smart phone.In May 2016, NPA opened a dog breeding and training facility in Siem Reap, Cambodia, giving the dogs training tailored to the contamination issues present in Southeast Asia.¹⁹ They are in the process of moving the Siem Reap training to Ratanakiri. And yes, the dogs all respond to commands in Norwegian.

Laos – Cruising the Ho Chi Minh Trail

Laos, known formally as the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), is considered the most heavily contaminated nation as a result of bombs and cluster munitions used by the United States to disrupt the movement of arms and material along the Ho Chi Minh Trail from North Vietnam through Laos into South Vietnam. The U.S. dropped over two million tons of bombs on Laos from 1964 to 1973 – including over 270 million cluster bombs – altogether more tonnage than was dropped by the U.S. on Germany and Japan combined in World War II.²⁰ According to NPA, up to 30% of the munitions dropped failed to detonate.²¹ Apart from direct victims of the bombs during the war, Laos has identified over 50,000 casualties from mines and ERWs, of which more than 29,000 were killed during the period 1964-2017.²²Many of the parcels of land where NPA teams work are far away from villages or in rugged terrain (such as the sides of mountains or steep hills). To minimize travel time and expenses, the teams will camp near the work areas for 22 days, then have eight days of leave. I’m told that the young deminers like it: they bond, play sports in the field, and save most of their salary. Many save most of their food allowance as well. Most of the NPA staff in Laos are in their early twenties – the work is difficult and requires stamina. NPA offers the staff drivers education (I was told that part of the impetus came when one staffer hit a water buffalo).

Attapeu Province, Lao PDR, 2014 – Chanthanousone Chanthavong, known as Teng, a field administrator with NPA-Lao PDR, signs in with the medic at a work site on a plantation near Phiavong Village which is being surveyed for cluster munitions and any other unexploded ordnance from the Indochina War. Every person entering an NPA search site must sign in with his/her name, organization, and blood type.

For my week in Laos, the local office made sure I saw a little of everything. Two and a half days at different work sites in Attapeu Province, two and a half at different work sites in Salavan Province (also spelled Saravane), including a morning observing EOD operations along what used to be the Ho Chi Minh Trail – really a complex of roads running through Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam – and a day or so at the regional office in Sekong. And a lot of time in 4-wheel drive vehicles on some truly awful roads.

My companion for the trip to Salavan Province was Phonesai Silavan, known as “Bob,” one of the national technical advisors. Bob came from a village in the Xieng Khoeng province, near the Plain of Jars in the northern part of the country. As a boy, he ploughed the land and planted rice; he says he was something of a gangster around his village. He survived two separate explosions of bomblets that went off near him: once when he was just playing, and later when he was trying to dismantle one for the ball bearings. His grandmother took him to the local Buddhist temple to stay for at least 15 days and learn how to avoid trouble; he stayed for 13 years. In 1988, at age 16, he became a novice in the Temple. He and the other boys would wake at 4 AM, pray 30-60 minutes, go begging for alms in the village, do chores, then engage in religious study with school in the afternoon. He wore a saffron robe and shaved his head and eyebrows. He left the temple in 2003 to attend college, majoring in English and the humanities. After college, he worked as a tour guide for a year, then joined MAG (formerly known as the Mines Advisory Group) as an interpreter, later receiving technical training. He left MAG in 2013 and joined NPA. Bob was friendly, diligent, spoke English well with an Australian accent, and cursed like a sailor. I’m told that he is now working for a different organization locating UXOs in Laos.

Salavan Province, Lao PDR, 2014 – Phonesai Silavan, known as “Bob,” at a technical survey site. Bob joined NPA in 2013 as a National Technical Advisor.

One morning we left the paved highway to follow a wide dirt road into higher elevations. Outside Ton Sa village, an EOD team was going to destroy numerous bombs, bomblets and many rounds of fighter plane ammunition that had been discovered near the old Ho Chi Minh Trail. On the way to the demolition site, we stopped to look at a U.S. 500-pound bomb that failed to detonate when dropped by a bomber during the war, lying peacefully in a forest near the road; it was a little rusty but completely intact. I took a photo and quietly moved away. There were plenty of bomb craters along the way.

The team executed three controlled explosions: one by TNT wired to a manual detonator; one by TNT with a wireless detonator; and one by C-4, a malleable and stable plasticized explosive often used by militaries. Boom, boom, boom – loud cracking noises, plumes of smoke, everything destroyed. Very satisfying.NPA now fields 24 Cluster Munitions Remnants Survey teams and 9 Battle Area Clearance teams in four southern provinces in Lao PDR.

Vietnam – The Smell of TNT in the Morning

Vietnam is also one of the most heavily contaminated areas in the world; in addition to unexploded heavy bombs and artillery shells, it is estimated that the U.S. dropped over 400,000 tons of cluster bombs during the period 1965-1973.²³ A ten-year impact survey concluded that more than 61,000 square kilometers of Vietnam were affected by UXOs.²⁴ Between the end of the war in 1975 and 2018, there have been over 105,000 casualties attributed to landmines and UXOs.²⁵ Project RENEW has recorded 8,516 mine/UXO casualties (including 3,422 people killed) between 1975 and 2015 in Quang Tri Province alone.²⁶

Dong Ha is a small city bordered on the north by the Cua Viet River in Quang Tri Province, about 18 kilometers south of the 17^th Parallel, the official dividing line between North and South Vietnams during the period 1954 to 1975. During the Vietnam War (what we call the Vietnam War and the Vietnamese call the American War), Dong Ha was part of a heavily contested battle zone that saw constant fighting and bombing. During the 1972 Spring Offensive by the North Vietnamese army, a battle to stop the North Vietnamese from crossing the river bridge at Dong Ha has become a part of U.S. Marine legend. By the end of the war, the province was in shambles.

In 2012, I had dinner in Hanoi with Chuck Searcy, an American veteran who now lives in Vietnam. Searcy’s experience in military intelligence during his service turned him against the war and prompted his work over many years to alleviate some of the damage caused to Vietnam by the war.²⁷ He told me about Project RENEW, a joint project of the Quang Tri Province government and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund to search for and eliminate UXOs.²⁸ Searcy arranged for me to return the following year and photograph Project RENEW’s work. NPA is a major partner of RENEW and, in addition to supporting the work in Quang Tri, also works in Thua Thien Hue Province further south. I came back to Vietnam in 2014 to spend a week near the ancient city of Hue and photograph NPA’s work there.

Quang Tri Province, Vietnam, 2013 – A Project RENEW EOD team digs a shallow trench to contain a controlled demolition of an artillery shell.

On both trips, I spent several work days with RENEW and NPA’s National Technical Advisor, Bui Trong Hong. During the Vietnam War, Hong served as an EOD specialist with the North Vietnamese army and spent a harrowing time under the American saturation bombing during the 1972 North Vietnamese Spring Offensive. He says he was surprised to survive the war; of 10 friends from his commune who went to war, only three came home alive. After 30 years he retired from the army as a colonel; now he trains EOD team leaders on setting explosives for disposal and supervising the controlled demolitions.²⁹ He was also diligent in keeping me safe while at clearance and demolition sites.

Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam, 2014 – Members of an EOD team go over the protocol for the day’s task: using TNT charges to detonate and render harmless several shells, bombs and cluster munitions found by the survey teams in the Province. Preparing red warning flags is Bui Trong Hong, a former EOD specialist with the North Vietnamese Army who survived the war and retired as a colonel, now a technical advisor to Project RENEW and NPA.

On both trips I witnessed several controlled demotions of recovered UXOs. The last one I watched took place in the early morning at a controlled demolition site – a large empty area outside of Hue, covered with sand and some occasional brush. Tran Hong Phuong was the EOD team leader, supervised by Col. Hong. After the briefing of all team members, Phuong started pulling the ordnance from the temporary storage container and carrying the munitions to the detonation spot. There would be two detonations that day, one for high explosives and one for munitions containing white phosphorous. The team dug shallow ditches and Phuong, with Hong watching, meticulously laid out a pattern of munitions and TNT explosives; the trick is to use enough TNT to destroy the explosives and fuses in the munitions without using too much. Phuong then positioned pink sand bags over the ditches to tamp the explosions.

Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam, 2014 – EOD Team Leader Tran Hong Phuong plants the ordnance to be destroyed, along with the TNT charges that will be tamped with the pink sandbags. Col. Hong (R) watches Phuong and offers advice on proper placement of the explosives and the amount to be used.

Phuong, Col. Hong and I retreated to a small bunker, trailing the detonator cord, some 250 meters away while several team members with bullhorns walked in all four directions to announce that an explosion was about to take place. Then a countdown over the bullhorn, a switch turned, and a very large explosion of high explosives erupted. Another countdown, and an even bigger cloud of smoke and debris burst forth, colored by the ignited white phosphorous and bits of shredded pink sand bags.

Quang Tri Province, Vietnam, 2013 – A controlled demolition conducted by an EOD team from Project RENEW.

Even at this early hour, the heat was oppressive, made more so by the white sand concentrating the heat. I didn’t check the temperature, but it was hot enough that the stitching on the sole of one of my work boots melted, and the sole started flapping up and down like a clown’s shoe. Col. Hong chuckled and put the boot back together by wrapping it with electrical tape used to connect the detonators to the TNT.

When the smoke cleared, Phuong took one of the metal detectors out to the ditches to inspect their work and insure that all explosive material was safely destroyed. By 10 AM, the day’s demolition work was done, and the team drove to a nearby café where, over Red Bull, they played spirited games of checkers.

Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam, 2014 – After completing the day’s ordnance destruction, they go for nonalcoholic drinks at a local café and play checkers.

Over the last four years, NPA has revised its strategy and is working jointly with MAG to survey and clear Quang Tri Province with funding by the U.S. Department of State. Phuong and Tung are still team leaders. And war veteran Col. Hong is still active as a Technical Advisor to Project RENEW, an organization started by American veterans of the same war in cooperation with the Vietnamese provincial leadership, together repairing a community to create the conditions for a better life for all. Concerning the late Ngo Thien Khiet, who died in an explosion in May 2016, his eldest son, Ngo Thien Hoang, started work on a nontechnical survey team for RENEW in September 2016. Hoang’s wife joined a technical survey team in March 2018.

Quang Tri Province, Vietnam, 2013 – EOD Team leader Le Xuan Tung of Project RENEW assembles his team in the field before canvasing a small village inquiring about any possible UXOs nearby.

Conclusion

Most articles about the dangers of mines and UXOs focus on the civilian victims- and rightly so. But following a group of young people in uniform as they lug giant 45 year-old bombs suspended between them is a good reminder that an important part of the UXO story is often overlooked – the people who remove the munitions, why they do it, and how they accomplish it. NPA’s work is important because it doesn’t just reclaim the land from the dangers of injury; it rebuilds civil society by making local citizens the agents of that change, making them leaders in their communities, with the skills and experience to help make civil society function. In teaching by example the importance of working together to accomplish difficult goals, NPA puts into practice the organization’s slogan, “Solidarity in Action.”

Quang Tri Province, Vietnam, 2013 – One of Project RENEW’s ambulances. All field teams of Project RENEW and NPA are accompanied by a medic and an ambulance.

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.

Ted Lieverman is an independent documentary photographer and writer in Philadelphia, working on issues of work, social justice and post-conflict communities. Some of his work is available here.

Notes

¹ See, e.g., A. Higginbotham, “There Are Still Thousands of Tons of Unexploded Bombs in Germany, Left Over From World War II,” Smithsonian Magazine, Jan, 2016, available online; J.W. Phippen, “50,000 Evacuate Hanover While Unexploded WWII Bombs are Disabled,” The Atlantic, May 6, 2017, available online. The same is true throughout Europe. “Barcelona’s popular beach evacuated over bomb,” BBC News, Aug. 26, 2019, available online; “Unexploded bombs: How common are they?” BBC News, Feb. 14, 2018, available online. See D. Webster, Aftermath: The Remnants of War (1996).

² Aftermath.

³ Landmine Monitor, (2018), available online.

⁴ NPA, Solidarity in Action, Annual Report 2017; available online.

⁵ The United States government actually contributes significant funds to weapons and munitions removal around the world, much of it channeled through various NGOs. The State Department work is largely conducted through its Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement. Its latest annual report, To Walk the Earth in Safety, describes its work in some detail, available online. The Department of Defense also contributes funds to support demining around the world. For a description of the work of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund and other U.S.-based NGOs in Vietnam, see T. Lieverman, “Good Boom,” Vietnam Magazine, 44 (Feb. 2014), available online.

⁶ NPA, Annual Report 2017.

⁷ NPA website.

⁸ See NPA, “Efficient Land Release can remove the threat of antipersonnel mines in ten years,” a video available online; NPA, Cluster Munition Remnants, available online. The latest international standard for land release, IMAS 7.11 amend. 4, created through the United Nations, is available online.

⁹ Landmine Monitor 2017 records 1,750 casualties through 2016; The 2018 report added 60 more through 2017, available online.

¹⁰ G. Black, “The Vietnam War is Still Killing People,” The New Yorker (May 20,2016); available online; emails with RENEW staff.

¹¹ Information supplied by NPA and RENEW.

¹² Mine Action Review, “Cambodia, Clearing Cluster Munition Remnants 2019,” available online.

¹³ Mine Action Review, “Cambodia, Clearing the Mines 2018,” available online.

¹⁴ Landmine Monitor 2018, available online. 

¹⁵ See “’I feel like I’ve saved a life;’ the women clearing Lebanon of cluster bombs,” The Guardian, Aug. 12, 2011.

¹⁶ “Young woman leads bomb-hunting team,” Viet Nam News, available online.

¹⁷ Emails with Jan Erik Stoa.

¹⁸ Mine Action Review, “Vietnam, Clearing Cluster Munition Remnants 2019,” available online.

¹⁹ NPA website.

²⁰ Mine Action Review, “Lao PDR: Clearing Cluster Munition Remnants 2019,” available online; Congressional Research Service, “War Legacy Issues in Southeast Asia,” p. 8, available online.

²¹ NPA website

²² Landmine Monitor 2018, available online.

²³ Mine Action Review, “Vietnam, Clearing Cluster Munitions Remnants 2019,” available online.

²⁴ Landmine Monitor 2018, available online.

²⁵ Landmine Monitor 2018, available online.

²⁶ Landmine Monitor 2019, available online.

²⁷ Interview with Chuck Searcy; see also J. Stevenson, Hard Men Humble, pp 99-113 (2002).

²⁸ For more information about the history of Project RENEW, see T. Lieverman, “Good Boom.”

²⁹ See “Good Boom;” also see interview on the website of Project RENEW.

All images in this article are from the author

Huge blazes were reported at two oil facilities in Saudi Arabia owned by Aramco. While Saudi authorities refused to assign blame, media outlets like the BBC immediately began insinuating either Yemen’s Houthis or Iran were responsible.

The BBC in its article, “Saudi Arabia oil facilities ablaze after drone strikes,” would inject toward the top of its article:

Iran-aligned Houthi fighters in Yemen have been blamed for previous attacks.

Following an ambiguous and evidence-free description of the supposed attacks, the BBC even included an entire section titled, “Who could be behind the attacks?” dedicated to politically expedient speculation aimed ultimately at Tehran.

The BBC would claim:

Houthi fighters were blamed for drone attacks on the Shaybah natural gas liquefaction facility last month and on other oil facilities in May.

The Iran-aligned rebel movement is fighting the Yemeni government and a Saudi-led coalition.

Yemen has been at war since 2015, when President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi was forced to flee the capital Sanaa by the Houthis. Saudi Arabia backs President Hadi, and has led a coalition of regional countries against the rebels.

The coalition launches air strikes almost every day, while the Houthis often fire missiles into Saudi Arabia.

Deliberately missing from the BBC’s history lesson are several key facts, leaving readers to draw conclusions that conveniently propel the West’s agenda versus Iran forward.

The US and Saudi Arabia vs. MENA

The war in Yemen was a result of US-backed regime change operations aimed at Yemen – along with Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Syria, and Egypt – starting in 2011.

Major hostilities began when the client regime installed by the US was ousted from power in 2015. Since then, the US and its Saudi allies have brutalized and ravaged Yemen triggering one of the worst humanitarian crises of the 21st century.

The UN’s own news service in an article titled, “Humanitarian crisis in Yemen remains the worst in the world, warns UN,” would admit:

An estimated 24 million people – close to 80 per cent of the population – need assistance and protection in Yemen, the UN warned on Thursday. With famine threatening hundreds of thousands of lives, humanitarian aid is increasingly becoming the only lifeline for millions across the country.

The cause of this catastrophe is the deliberate blockading of Yemen. Reuters in its article, “U.N. aid chief appeals for full lifting of Yemen blockade,” would report:

The United Nations appealed on Friday to the Saudi-led military coalition to fully lift its blockade of Yemen, saying up to eight million people were “right on the brink of famine”.

Essentially – the United States – with the largest economy and most powerful military in the world – along with its allies in Riyadh – are attempting to erase an entire nation off the map through bombings, starvation, and disease.

Saudi aggression carried out on behalf of Washington isn’t confined only to its war on Yemen. Saudi Arabia has played a key role in radicalizing, arming, and funding US-backed militants attempting to overthrow the government of Syria as well as extremist groups bent on destabilizing Iraq and even Iran itself.

Likewise, the militants who overran Libya in 2011 were drawn from extremist networks funded for decades by Riyadh. Thus, Saudi Arabia is not merely menacing neighboring Yemen, it is menacing the entire Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and even beyond.

Saudi Arabia the Victim?  

The BBC’s recent article attempting to portray Saudi-Yemeni hostilities as a tit-for-tat conflict rather than Yemen’s desperate struggle for survival is yet another illustration of not only the West’s hypocrisy in terms of upholding or in any way underwriting human rights, but also the Western media’ complicity in advancing this hypocrisy.

Saudi Arabia is no victim.

If the US can predicate the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of its government on deliberately false claims of possessing “weapons of mass destruction,” wouldn’t Yemen and its allies be justified in using any means possible to attack and undermine Saudi Arabia’s fighting capacity as it and its US allies openly carry out a war of aggression unequivocally condemned by the UN itself?

Houthi fighters or Iran would both be well within their rights to strike at the economic engine driving what even the UN has repeatedly declared as an illegal war of aggression waged by Saudi Arabia and its Western sponsors against the nation and people of Yemen.

Unfortunately, provoking such attacks – however justified – is key to US machinations toward igniting an even wider and more destructive regional conflict.

Two Possibilities 

The alleged attacks on Saudi oil facilities mean one of two things.

Either it is indeed retaliation against Saudi Arabia for its criminal activities across the region – showcasing new military capabilities raising the costs for Riyadh to continue down its current foreign policy path – or it was a staged provocation that will be used by the US to station yet more military forces in Saudi Arabia and to ratchet up tensions with both Iran to the east and Yemen’s Houthis to the south.

The recent departure of US National Security Adviser John Bolton led many to believe the US may be changing tack on its foreign policy – particularly toward Iran. However, it was much more likely a means of portraying the US as a “peacemaker” ahead of another round of attempts by the US to escalate tensions with Iran and if at all possible, trigger a wider conflict long sought by US special interests for years.

The US already used recent and highly questionable incidents in the Persian Gulf to justify sending hundreds of troops to Saudi Arabia. The New York Times in its July 2019 article, “U.S. to Send About 500 More Troops to Saudi Arabia,” would report:

The United States is sending hundreds of troops to Saudi Arabia in what is intended as the latest show of force toward Iran, two Defense Department officials said Wednesday. 

The roughly 500 troops are part of a broader tranche of forces sent to the region over the past two months after tensions between Washington and Tehran escalated. 

Since May, a spate of attacks have left six oil tankers damaged in the Gulf of Oman, with Washington accusing Tehran of inciting them. Iranian officials have denied that claim. The downing of an American drone in June by an Iranian surface-to-air missile only heightened tensions, prompting President Trump to approve military strikes against Iran before abruptly pulling back.

With a growing number of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the US will be well positioned to launch offensive attacks against Iran in any future war, as well as carry out defensive operations to protect Saudi Arabia and essential infrastructure from retaliation.

This most recent alleged attack, along with a series of questionable incidents in the Persian Gulf have afforded the US justification – however tenuous – to further build up its military presence along Iran’s peripheries it otherwise would have had to carry out in an openly provocative and unjustified manner.

It was just these sort of provocations that were described for years by US policymakers who sought to “goad” Iran into war with the West.

For example, in a 2009 Brookings Institution paper titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” US policymakers would openly admit (emphasis added):

…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. 

However beneficial this campaign of provocations may be for US foreign policy objectives, neither possibility – a provoked reaction from the Houthis or Iran or a staged attack organized by the US – bodes well for those ruling in Riyadh.

For Washington’s allies – the fact that they are just as likely – or more likely – to receive a devastating attack from the US itself than from their actual enemies – all to trigger an even more devastating war they will find themselves in the middle of – is added incentive for nations like Saudi Arabia to take the extended hands of future potential allies like Russia and China, and begin walking down a new and different path.

Only time will tell how far Saudi Arabia is willing to go down its current path, and how much they are willing to risk doing so, before they join the growing list of nations departing from America’s unipolar global order and choosing a more equitable multipolar future.

Whether the US and Saudi Arabia finally provoked genuine attacks from nations they’ve purposefully goaded for years, or staged the attacks themselves, a dangerous course toward war has been set – and a course the rest of the world must now work hard to steer away from.

*

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

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

Featured image is from NEO

Freedom is now in sight.  New evidence, recently found, and surpressed for decades could be the key to relief for Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Joe McGill and Ed Rendell, trial prosecutor and DA, respectively, manipulated evidence and framed Mumia Abu-Jamal for first degree murder in 1982.

Six boxes of undisclosed case files labeled “Mumia Abu-Jamal” were found in a furniture closet last December by new DA Larry Krasner. Here is the exculpatory “Brady” evidence that was inside:

• A letter from a witness demanding his money.
• Memo after memo to and from Joe McGill tracking the open cases of another key witness.
• Handwritten notes on original files, closely tracking the race of jurors.

Now we know that for 37 years the District Attorney’s office actively lied.  They scrubbed clean every single document production, during multiple appeals, for years.  It is cliché and almost predictable: evidence “lost” in a storage closet for 37 years by evil absent-minded hoarders.

Make no mistake- this evidence would have directly challenged the only “witnesses” at trial who identified Mumia Abu-Jamal as the shooter of officer Daniel Faulkner on Dec. 9, 1981.

The testimony of these two witnesses was compromised, something the jury was kept from knowing. One witness had as many as 35 prior convictions and 4-5 open cases. Now we know the DA was monitoring those cases very closely asking to be advised when they were in court. The other witness to the shooting was driving a cab on a suspended license and was on probation for throwing a Molotov cocktail into a school for pay. The jury never heard this.  This information certainly would have challenged prosecutor Joe McGill’s statement to the jury that they had nothing to gain from lying.  Remember this is a jury who asked for re-instruction on the charges and were wavering on a finding of 1^stDegree Murder. Remember Albert “I am going to help them they fry the nigger” Sabo, was the judge. And Alfonso “I retired with full pay and was indicted” Giordano, a commander, was the highest ranking officer on the scene that night.

On July 3rd, 1982, this was not an open and shut case.   The petition to the Superior Court also raises the reinstated appeal issues from the Castille decision handed down by Judge Tucker.  These include claims of improper jury selection (Batson Claims), Ineffective assistance of counsel, and errors of law made by the court in previous appeals.

Every time you see Joe McGill in the courtroom or at an FOP event, or you see Ed Rendell at a party or a campaign event, remember this- they were stepping on the scales of justice from the beginning.  

Mumia came within 10 days of being executed because of this misconduct. I was there. I got that call from the strip cell.  Mumia had nothing but an orange jump suit, a half a sheet of paper and the cartridge of a pen (so he could send another prisoner as a proxy to the law library). Before and after his two death warrants he was held in solitary confinement on death row for decades!

Fast forward to 2017: Common Pleas Court Judge Leon Tucker admonishes the District Attorney to produce all of the requested material from their files. Finally, having no faith in their review, he demands that they deliver all of their files to his chambers. There he found documents revealing the bias of PA Supreme Court Judge Castille that the DA had somehow “missed”  – or willfully suppressed. After all of that, in 2018, newly elected DA Larry Krasner comes across six boxes of original trial material labeled “Mumia Abu-Jamal” in a storage closet. A week later they find hundreds of more boxes in that “storage cavern.”

Please know that the road ahead may still be rough.  But there is hope.

Freedom is more possible than it has ever been before.

*

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 Venezuelan government wrapped up the international #NoMoreTrump campaign Sunday as thousands gathered in the Bolivar plazas, communities and neighborhoods of the country to sign the petition calling on the United States to lift the unilateral blockade.

“In every corner of the planet, we have seen the #NoMoreTrump campaign because it is a feeling that has expanded to the peoples of the world. This campaign symbolizes anti-imperialism,” Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodriguez who signed the petition herself during one of the closing acts in Caracas.

Rodriguez and Foreign Affairs Minister Jorge Arreaza were appointed by President Nicolas Maduro on Thursday to represent the nation at the 74th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, which will start on Sept. 17. The president also informed that more 12 million signatures had been collected from all over the world as of Sept. 12.

During the international meeting, the Venezuelan representatives will deliver a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres with the expected 13 million signatures and explain the global rejection of the unilateral economic blockade against the Latin American nation.

“The petition is the expression of the will of a people who want peace, progress, tranquility and above all want to guarantee a free and sovereign homeland,” the Vice President commented.

The campaign was convened on Aug. 10 by President Maduro, after Trump signed an executive order on Aug. 5 that officially seizes Venezuelan state assets in the U.S., essentially imposing a complete economic and diplomatic blockade on the country.

This includes the multibillion-dollar CITGO company, a subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company PDVSA, depleting it of $US12 billion that could be used to “pay for five full years of food and medicine for the Venezuelan population,” according to Arreaza.

The ongoing attack on Venezuela has taken the lives of around 40,000 people, according to a recent economic study. It makes it difficult and often impossible for Venezuela to pay for vital supplies of food and medicine from abroad as foreign banks refuse to process payments.

*

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: Thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets on the last day of the #NoMoreTrump campaign to reject the unilateral measures against the country. (Source: Venezuelan Ministry of Communication)

Dr Marcus Steven Papadopoulos, a British political journalist, and the founder and editor of Politics First magazine wrote a letter to the Youth of Hong Kong to safeguard their region from British and American colonialism and defend the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of China.

***

Dear Youth of Hong Kong,

I write this letter to you out of profound concern over what is happening in Hong Kong and in the hope that my words, which I offer to you in the form of a plea, will be taken into consideration by you.

Hong Kong is known across the world for the abundance of rich attractions which it has to offer visitors: its enchanting people, monumental history, splendid culture, intriguing heritage, fascinating architecture, magnificent transportation, graceful wildlife and spectacular natural scenery. Indeed, I have never met someone who, having visited Hong Kong, did not speak of their immense pleasure of having toured this region of the People’s Republic of China. Hong Kong is one of the Chinese people’s many historic jewels.

However, Hong Kong has a dark chapter in its history – a chapter written not by the Chinese people but by an aggressive outsider: the British.

Britain waged a brutal war on China in the 19th-century because Beijing refused to allow the British to flood the Chinese market with opium. As a result of that event, known as the Opium Wars, China was defeated and humiliated by the British and, among other degrading acts, forced to cede the historic Chinese region of Hong Kong to the British Empire. For approximately 150 years, Hong Kong was a colony of a ruthless colonial power in which London implemented its dictatorial will in the Chinese region through a British colonial governor there who enjoyed a luxurious and conceited lifestyle on soil which was being exploited by London, even though it was not Britain’s to enjoy in the first place.

In short, for well over a century, the British reaped the benefits of a piece of Chinese territory which they had stolen from China in the cruelest of circumstances, by having instigated a savage war against the peaceful Chinese nation, and exploited this region with the kind of arrogance and sense of Anglo-Saxon superiority that typified the British Empire.

I hope that you, the youth of Hong Kong, are aware of the savage and humiliating actions that your ancestors were subjected to by the British. And I hope, too, that you are aware that Britain has never apologized to the people of Hong Kong and China for its monstrous actions during the Opium Wars.

The year 1997 was a defining moment in Chinese history because it was in this year that a historical injustice of immense proportions for China was brought to an end: the return of Hong Kong to the Chinese motherland. Hong Kong is an integral part of the People’s Republic of China. And Hong Kong always has been, and forever will be, Chinese.

In a few weeks’ time, on Oct 1, the Chinese people will celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, rejoicing in the extraordinary achievements which have been accomplished by the Communist Party of China. From education to health to jobs to housing to welfare to engineering to science to military to sports to independence and sovereignty, the advancement of the People’s Republic of China has been nothing short of a miracle, both at home and abroad. Never before, in Chinese history, has China been so powerful than the country is today. I salute the magnificent achievements of the Chinese Communist Party!

However, there are countries in the world today which are resentful and envious of the successes of the People’s Republic of China and are intent on limiting and derailing Chinese progress through, among other hostile actions, sowing the seeds of discord in Chinese society, with the aim of collapsing China and then subjugating her. And those hostile countries are the United States and some other Western countries.

Those countries are leading colonial powers in the world which have never lost their appetite and lust for enslaving other countries and plundering their economies and resources.

In relation to China, those countries have shown their disdain for Chinese territorial integrity by their close political, economic and military relationships with Taiwan while, at the same time, interfering in Xinjiang in the most sinister of ways.

Since 1997, some American and British officials have privately lusted after Hong Kong – with some considering it China’s Achilles’ heel because of how, for some 150 years, it was ruled by Britain.

The ongoing violent protests in Hong Kong by extremists are, without doubt, being orchestrated by the US and some other Western countries, with the objective being to destabilize this Chinese region which, if successful, would jeopardize the Chinese economy and could act as a domino effect by which other regions of the motherland could become affected.

The protesters have vowed to keep on protesting. Even though they said that the bill is the reason for them having taken to the streets, the reality is that the extradition bill was simply used as a pretext by the protesters. The protesters, who are a fifth column of Western countries, receiving their orders from their masters in Washington, are intent on detaching Hong Kong from China and handing this region over to the Western political forces.

With the glorious date of Oct 1 approaching, I urge the youth in Hong Kong to be vigilant of a possible major provocation by the protesters against the Chinese authorities in this region, with the aim of making the situation in Hong Kong all the more dangerous.

Chinese youth of Hong Kong, I appeal to you to safeguard your region from British and American colonialism and, in doing so, to defend the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of China. And I appeal to you to ensure that the pain and suffering of your ancestors at the hands of the British during the Opium Wars was not in vain; let the hardships that they incurred serve as a source of patriotism and inspiration for you in your defense of your motherland.

Hong Kong is China!

*

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

Bloomberg News – August 2nd: Boris Johnson Widens Push for Singapore-Style Free Ports in the UK.  Boris Johnson’s government is expanding plans to create 10 free ports in the U.K., which he says will boost the post-Brexit economy.

Daily Telegraph 2nd July – Boris Johnson plans Singapore-style tax-free zones around UK to power post-Brexit economy.  “The benefits of tax-free zones in the country will boost the post-Brexit economy”.

Singapore Online 25th July – “despite the possible negative effects of a no-deal Brexit, there could be opportunities, such as Singapore seeing some “safe-haven flows from any ensuing flight to quality”, or people moving money to safer investments.”

The headlines of a post-no-deal Brexit world to some paint a picture of promised sunny uplands. It will be. For some.

Charles Woolfson is Professor emeritus at the Institute for Research on Migration, Ethnicity and Society (REMESO), Linköping University, Sweden. Since arriving in Sweden in 2009 after a decade of residency in the Baltic states, he has written on East-West migration from the newer EU member states, and on the impacts of radical austerity programmes in the Baltics following the crash of 2008.

Woolson wrote an article in the London School of Economics that the plan to turn Britain into some sort of Singapore, itself one of the worst performers in the world for inequality and worker exploitation, is merely a ‘race to the bottom’ to the significant detriment of existing standards.

***

Boris Johnson’s real agenda: The ‘Singapore scenario’

In Johnson’s eyes and those of fellow ardent free-marketeers, a ‘Singapore scenario’ would be achieved by an ultra-business-friendly environment with low or zero corporation tax, low wages, weak trade unions, vestigial welfare provisions and a significant temporary migrant ‘non-citizen’ workforce (around 30 per cent of the total workforce), largely without the protection of national labour laws or access to welfare provisions.

Yet, as the Prime Minister of Singapore pointed out, the transposition of a Singaporean model to the UK is not so simple. Currently, the UK government spending on the public sector accounts for 40 to 45 per cent of the GDP, while for the Singaporean government it accounts for a mere 16 to 17 per cent of the GDP (Bloomberg News, 2018). Furthermore, the Singaporean economy, while ranking second in the World Bank index of 190 countries in terms of ‘ease of doing business’ (pro-business regulation), is also accompanied by powerful regulatory social controls and an extensive system of government patronage (Trading Economics, 2019).

Social inequalities in Singapore are rising. A recent review of 157 countries in terms of commitment to reducing inequalities ranked Singapore overall at 149, among the 10 worst performers, and at 157 in terms of redistributive progressivity of tax policies (Development Finance International and Oxfam Report, 2018). Noting a decline in ranking since the previous year, the report concludes, ‘On labour, it (Singapore) has no equal pay or non-discrimination laws for women; its laws on both rape and sexual harassment are inadequate; and there is no minimum wage, except for cleaners and security guards’. As a prescription for a post-Brexit labour market, a ‘Singapore scenario’ leaves a lot to be desired.

None of this has dampened enthusiasm for turning Britain, free of European regulation, into some kind utopian free-market paradise. Johnson’s trademark rhetoric has consistently excoriated the EU for ‘trussing the nations together in a gigantic and ever-tightening cat’s cradle of red tape’. It was exemplified by Johnson’s theatrical appearance before the cheering Conservative Party faithful on the final leadership election hustings. Brandishing of all things, a kipper, Johnson claimed (incorrectly, as it happens) that ‘Brussels bureaucrats’ required that each kipper sent through the mail be accompanied by a coolant bag, an unnecessary and ludicrous burden on business.

There are echoes in Johnson’s buffoonery with the 1980s satirical BBC TV series, ‘Yes, Minister’. A 1984 Christmas special edition depicted an incompetent and opportunistic James Hacker as Minister heading the Department of Administrative Affairs, reluctant to sign a Xmas card to a Brussels Commissioner (one rather French-sounding ‘Maureece’ by name). In contention was a proposed Brussels directive to standardize the ‘EuroSausage’ and re-designate the ‘Great British Sausage’ as an unappetising ‘emulsified high-fat offal tube’. In the same election hustings speech, Johnson proclaimed, kipper to hand, ‘And when we come out, therefore, we will not only be able to take back control of our regulatory framework and end this damaging regulatory overkill but we will also be able to do things to boost Britain’s economy, which leads the world in so many sectors’ (New Statesman, 2019).

Hostility to EU regulation is merely a surrogate target for hostility to regulation in general, seen as holding back burgeoning British free enterprise. To realise full ‘regulatory divergence’ from EU controls (the glittering prize of a no-deal Brexit), Johnson has now proposed the creation of free economic zones or free ports, offering lower import taxes and customs tariffs, favourable manufacturing locations, and looser regulation to lure investment in up to 10 ports around the country. These free ports will be situated mainly in declining and ‘left-behind’ areas such as Teeside. Such zones are not specifically precluded by EU regulations, although it is true to say that they are regarded by the Commission as potential havens for counterfeiting goods and money laundering. In fact, over 80 exist within the EU, the majority in the newer member states of Eastern Europe. Besides providing free-enterprise zones where capitalism can be let loose to do what it does best, their attractiveness for employers is that they are typically insulated from employment protection and minimum wage legislation, while collective bargaining and trade union representation are generally non-existent. Free ports are ‘the Singapore scenario made real’ in the UK context. They will be the forward positions in a greater national project of wholesale deregulation accompanied by comprehensive labour subordination, UK-apore as one big free port.

The post-Brexit foreign trade and investment environment

Ironic, therefore, is the announcement by Brexit-supporting Sir James Dyson, one of Britain’s most celebrated entrepreneurs of the relocation of his corporate headquarters from England to Singapore. This comes only a few months after a previously announced ongoing UK investment programme, much welcomed by Theresa May, and portrayed as a sign of business confidence in Britain’s post-Brexit future. For Dyson, the business logic is presumably compelling. While preserving his UK sites, the company already has manufacturing and new R&D facilities in Singapore, in part following a previous relocation from the UK. The Singapore investment is proximate to profitable East Asian markets for his luxury products, not to mention providing a suitable base for Dyson’s new plan to develop electrical automotives. Not least, however, the move to Singapore potentially offers zero corporation tax. A further incentive is access to labour markets in the East Asia region providing both compliant and relatively cheap human resources when compared to the UK. Dyson Ltd presents a paradigmatic example of ‘foot-loose’ capital investment shopping for regulatory regime advantage in a globalised ‘race to the bottom’. As a pointer to the investment potential of a post-Brexit Britain, Dyson’s decision is ominous.

An additional dimension to the post-Brexit competitive challenges facing the UK economy is the fate of existing foreign direct investment. Japan, for example, is a significant investor in the UK. Nissan, Toyota, and Hitachi between them account for 40 billion pounds (nearly half of Japanese direct investment intended for the EU in 2015 and 144,000 UK manufacturing jobs. Japanese business has sought reassurances that the UK will remain in the European customs union and single market, a demand that is profound anathema to Johnson.

In or out of the single market and customs union, the fact is that the EU is itself remoulding the global trade and investment environment through an extensive series of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), several of which it was hoped would be with potential trading partners for the new ‘Global Britain’. Recent among these is the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) of 2017. This will remove nearly all significant tariff barriers to trade. While the UK has already one of the least regulated labour markets in the EU, such agreements place further competitive pressure on a post-Brexit UK to show even greater ‘flexibility’ on labour and other standards. It is pressure to downgrade that will surely intensify as the UK government embarks on the mammoth task of ‘replicating’ forty years of existing European trade deals or tries its unskilled hand at forging new ones. If preliminary exchanges with the US regarding food safety standards in a future trade deal (specifically, the acceptability of chlorine-washed chicken) are anything to go by, the prospects are not enticing.

Labour migration: an unresolved contradiction

Theresa May’s successful wooing of Nissan investment in Sunderland may prove to have been only a temporary demonstration of foreign investor confidence in the future of the UK economy. As the Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned, ‘Japanese businesses rely on inexpensive labour from Eastern Europe in the manufacturing and agricultural industries in the UK’.

Labour migration, the toxic driver of the Brexit debate, will present unique challenges to a free-market Johnson government, not least as its internal logic would suggest a more liberal and open regime. Migration, therefore, presents an unresolved contradiction at the heart of the ‘UK-apore’ project. To appease his core supporters it is more than likely that Johnson’s government will be forced, reluctantly or otherwise, to replicate much of the exclusionary path towards continued free movement of labour that informed the policies of his predecessor.

As Central-Eastern European migrants return home, (or refuse to come to the UK for the wages and conditions on offer) both of which increasingly they appear to be doing, UK nationals will need to be ‘persuaded’ to accept those low-paid ‘3D’ (dirty, dangerous, and demeaning) jobs that they had previously rejected. The ‘Singapore scenario’ applied to the UK would mandate a downgrading of current welfare and labour standards in a massive recalibration of labour expectations of the domestic labour force. Such a recalibration would be achieved by a radical shrinking of what remains of the welfare state, combined with a raft of ‘incentives’ to accept whatever jobs are on offer.

Questions of the downside of globalisation are not new but much accentuated by Britain’s current precarious political and economic conjuncture as it departs from the EU. In short, Boris Johnson’s ‘UK-apore’ can only be realised in a ‘race to the bottom’ to the significant detriment of existing standards. If the business model of labour and welfare devaluation in a ‘Singapore scenario’ is the pathway towards Britain’s economic salvation, then such standards now become integral to the democratic politics of post-Brexit Britain.

*

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

Featured image is from TP

Drone strikes on key oil facilities in Saudi Arabia on Saturday by Yemen’s Houthi rebels have triggered concerns about a potential major disruption in global oil supplies and a spike in oil prices. The attack, in retaliation for the brutal Saudi-led and US-backed war on Yemen, has sharply raised regional tensions and heightened the danger of a US war on Iran, which Washington accuses of backing the Houthis.

Houthi spokesman Brigadier-General Yahya Sare’e told the media that its forces had “carried out a massive offensive operation of 10 drones targeting Abqaiq and Khurais refineries.” Hijra Khurais is Saudi Arabia’s second largest oil field producing about 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, and Abqaiq is the world’s largest crude stabilisation facility, processing some 7 million barrels of oil for export.

While Saudi authorities insisted that fires at the two sites were under control, Saudi’s state-owned Armco oil company suspended production at the facilities, cutting output by about half. The price for Brent crude oil, the international benchmark, shot up by almost $12 a barrel to $71.95 a barrel, before easing to $68 a barrel, up by more than 12 percent.

The Trump administration immediately blamed Iran for the drone strikes. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted that

“Tehran is behind nearly 100 attacks on Saudi Arabia… Amid all the calls for de-escalation, Iran has now launched an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply. There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen.”

Pompeo provided not a shred of evidence for any of his allegations, simply asserting that the Houthi rebels did not have the ability to carry out such a sophisticated attack. To date, Saudi authorities have provided few details of the strikes and have not attributed blame to regional rival Iran. Pompeo’s provocative remarks undermine the possibility of talks between the US and Iran.

Tehran has denied any involvement in Saturday’s drone strikes. Foreign ministry spokesman Seyyed Abbas Mousavi dismissed Pompeo’s “blind accusations and inappropriate comments,” saying:

“Even hostility needs a certain degree of credibility and reasonable frameworks. US officials have also violated these basic principles.”

After speaking to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, President Trump issued a White House statement declaring that the US “strongly condemns today’s attack on critical energy infrastructure,” adding that strikes on “infrastructure vital to the global economy only deepen conflict and distrust.” Trump offered the crown prince “his support for Saudi Arabia’s self-defence.”

In a menacing threat against Iran, Trump later tweeted:

“There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the [Saudi] Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!”

In remarks on the “Fox News Sunday” program, senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway all but ruled out a meeting between Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the upcoming meeting of the UN General Assembly. She said that “we’ve never committed to that meeting” then added: “When you attack Saudi Arabia… you’re not helping your case much.” A Trump-Rouhani meeting had been mooted as a means of easing the dangerous US-Iran confrontation and paving the way for negotiations and a deal.

Right-wing Republican Senator Lindsay Graham seized on the drone attack to blame Iran for “wreaking havoc in the Middle East.” He called for military strikes on Tehran, saying:

“It is now time for the US to put on the table an attack on Iranian oil refineries… Iran will not stop their misbehavior until the consequences become more real, like attacking their refineries, which will break the regime’s back.”

The barbaric war waged by Saudi Arabia on Yemen, with US military assistance, has all but been omitted from the media coverage of the drone strikes. Since 2015, Saudi-led air strikes on towns and cities in Houthi-held areas have killed tens of thousands of civilians while leaving 80 percent of the population in need of food aid and several million on the brink of starvation.

Saudi war planes, armed with US and British bombs and provided with targeting information by US officers based in Saudi Arabia, have carried out repeated attacks on civilian targets, including schools, hospitals, residential areas, mosques and markets. Up to the end of last year, the US also provided mid-air refueling for the Saudi-led onslaught.

Saudi Arabia has a huge military budget—last year it ranked as the world’s third highest spender on military equipment, splurging an estimated $67.6 billion. The ability of the Houthi rebels to penetrate Saudi defences and strike crucial oil infrastructure has heightened fears of further attacks.

Saudi Arabia, along with the US and its allies, has sought to reassure nervous markets that any fall in oil production will be temporary and will not affect supplies. Riyadh declared that it would be able to supply oil from its reserve storage, as well as bring additional production on stream. Trump signaled that if needed he could make oil available from the US strategic oil reserve.

The International Energy Agency, based in Paris, represents the top energy-consuming nations and would co-ordinate any release of reserves. It last carried out an emergency release in the midst of the US-led military intervention in Libya in 2011 that took out production capacity of 1.7 million barrels a day.

Several analysts have noted that repairs on the Abqaiq crude processing centre, which prepares nearly 70 percent of Saudi oil for export, could be more difficult than officially suggested. Robert McNally, a former White House energy adviser under US President George W. Bush told the New York Times that specialised equipment would be difficult to replace. “A successful attack on Abqaiq is about worst thing that energy security planners think about,” he said.

Last weekend’s drone strikes also feed into growing concern about the international economy. The London-based Financial Times commented:

“A sharp rise in oil prices also comes at a delicate time for the global economy. Fears of a slowdown are percolating and unlikely to be helped by higher energy costs.”

Those fears will only be compounded by the belligerent rhetoric from Washington threatening strikes on Iran that could rapidly escalate into a far broader conflict.

*

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.

Back in May, retired USAF lieutenant colonel Karen Kwiatkowski said the CIA’s “Chemical Gina has her hands in this one, and we are being told that Assange is being ‘treated’ with 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate, known as BZ.” 

On September 14, Kwiatkowski wrote Julian Assange “is being held on behalf of the United States and he is being chemically and physically interrogated in Belmarsh (the British Gitmo) in order to reveal his private cryptographic keys, and the names and cryptographic information relating to others within the Wikileaks information network.” 

He has been reduced to the mental capacity of a drug-addled rubberhead, and some of these effects will be found to be permanent.  Physically he is reported to be underweight (under 100 pounds) with food and water being used as bargaining chips in his continued interrogation.  Ironically, even the prisoners at Gitmo, as part of the tender care by the USG, were force-fed when they tried to starve themselves to death.  Julian’s government caretakers are using food and water to break him completely.

The CIA and its media call this practice “enhanced interrogation,” an Orwellian term for torture. In the mid-1970s, the Church Committee and the Rockefeller Commission determined the CIA’s MKUltra was developed for the explicit purpose of breaking down individuals, destroying them psychologically and physically, and reformatting their minds. In the 1950s, the agency was searching for a way to brainwash subjects and turn them into amnesiac assassins. 

The full extent of this program will never be known. The CIA destroyed its records on the MKUltra project. 

In the case of Assange, as Kwiatkowski notes, the British and American torturers hope to break Assange’s “private cryptographic keys, and [reveal] the names and cryptographic information relating to others within the Wikileaks information network.”

This information would be highly beneficial to the state as it hunts down those who reveal uncomfortable truths about its psychopathic behavior. However, the primary objective in keeping Assange locked up in Belmarsh (as extradition drags on) is to break him down, similar to how the British state broke down and rendered mentally ill David Shayler, the former MI5 officer who revealed crimes of the state.

The difference here is dramatic. Shayler served time and was released. Assange will never be released. It’s fair to say he will be taken out of Belmarsh in a body bag. 

This is the message to whistleblowers and truth-tellers—mess with the state, expose its dirty dealings and war crimes, and you may end up like Julian Assange—a skeletal “rubberhead” tortured until a babbling ruin or dead. 

Ditto Chelsea Manning, Ola Bini, and others rounded up since Assange went into the Bolivarian embassy seeking asylum, only to be betrayed and turned over to the Brits who, with the eager help of the US government, are now in the process of slowly killing him, or possibly rendering him a mental patient or vegetable. 

Assange and those who may have worked with him will be interrogated with the full capability of the state (physical, mental and chemical torture).  They will not be tried, represented or defended in a public court, and as noted here for Assange, they will never be released regardless of what is discovered through various interrogations.

Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, who visited Assange prior to arrest, writes:

Yes, living in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard may seem like a sweet deal when you believe the rest of the lies. But when no one remembers the reason for the hate you endure, when no one even wants to hear the truth, when neither the courts nor the media hold the powerful to account, then your refuge really is but a rubber boat in a shark-pool, and neither your cat nor your skateboard will save your life.

The conspiracy to torture and murder Assange and his associates will never be reported by a government script-reading media. 

Melzer, who holds the Human Rights Chair at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in Switzerland, as well as serving as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is unable to get the word out to a larger audience about Assange and his sadistic punishment.  

“This Op-Ed has been offered for publication to the Guardian, The Times, the Financial Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, the Canberra Times, the Telegraph, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Thomson Reuters Foundation, and Newsweek… None responded positively,” he wrote on his Medium blog in June. 

And none will so long as the state continues to steer the narrative on Assange. His death will be on the hands of the government and its functionaries—the torturers, hired killers of journalists, and the serial murderers of innocent and helpless civilian populations. This horrific reality is buried beneath a mountain of slander, defamation, and lies pushed out by the CIA’s Mockingbird media. Remarkably, millions of Americans and Brits support the slow murder of Julian Assange. The state has long excelled at manipulating the public through ceaseless propaganda and calculated lies. 

Melzer concludes:

Even so, you may say, why spend so much breath on Assange, when countless others are tortured worldwide? Because this is not only about protecting Assange, but about preventing a precedent likely to seal the fate of Western democracy. For once telling the truth has become a crime, while the powerful enjoy impunity, it will be too late to correct the course. We will have surrendered our voice to censorship and our fate to unrestrained tyranny.

*

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

Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image is from the author

The attack on the world’s largest oil processing facility at Abqaiq in Saudi Arabia southwest of Aramco’s headquarters in Dhahran had a few predictable responses.  Given that the facility has a daily output of some 5.7 million barrels, damaging it was bound to cause a spike in the price of oil.

The question troubling the security chatterers was whether the party claiming responsibility – in this case, the Yemen-based Houthi rebels – had managed to engineer the feat.  Drones, it is claimed, were used, striking at some 17 points.  But such copyright is being denied to the rebels.  For one, Riyadh is considering the possibility that the attack might have come from Iraqi soil, involving another group armed with cruise missiles. The direction of the attack, it is claimed by US sources, was from the north or northwest, suggesting the direction of the Persian Gulf, Iran or Iraq.

The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has decided to pour cold water on any suggestion that the Houthis were competently responsible.  Having displaced John Bolton as hawk-in-chief, he is preparing the ground for possible retaliation.  In his view, there is only one state responsible for the attacks.

“We call on all nations to publicly and unequivocally condemn Iran’s attacks. The United States will work with our partners and allies to ensure that energy markets remain well supplied and Iran is held accountable for its aggression.”

In another tweet posted on Saturday, the convinced Pompeo accused Iran of being behind some 100 attacks on Saudi Arabia “while [Hassan] Rouhani and [Iranian Foreign Minister Javad] Zarif pretend to engage in diplomacy.”  He ruled out Yemen as a base for the assault. Iran had “launched an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply.”

Tehran is behind nearly 100 attacks on Saudi Arabia while Rouhani and Zarif pretend to engage in diplomacy. Amid all the calls for de-escalation, Iran has now launched an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply. There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen.

— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) September 14, 2019

President Donald Trump, for his part, is venting and waiting. 

“There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we should proceed!” 

The more immediate concerns for the president are economic: releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and expediting “approvals of the oil pipelines currently in the permitting process in Texas and various States.”  Many thanks to be had, it seems, for such strikes.

The machinery behind a military strike on Iran is being put in motion, one that was already being readied with claims of Iranian attacks on maritime shipping in the Persian Gulf and the shooting down of a US drone.  (The latter led to a flirtation with the use of force by Trump.)  Generally speaking, the legal basis of any such attack is questionable, despite Pompeo’s airy contention that,

“We have always had the authorisation to defend American interests”. 

Trump, however, has been briefed by a few warring enthusiasts in Congress suggesting that any assault on Iran can be brought within the purview of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). 

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is not troubled by legal niceties, happy to entertain the prospect of a regional apocalypse in the name of punishing the mullahs.  Having called the attacks “yet another example of how Iran is wreaking havoc in the Middle East” he considered it important “to put on the table an attack on Iranian oil refineries if they continue their provocations or increase nuclear enrichment.”  Like a delinquent of international relations, Iran, he tweeted over the weekend, “will not stop their misbehaviour till the consequences become more real, like attacking their refineries, which will break the regime’s back.”

Iran will not stop their misbehavior until the consequences become more real, like attacking their refineries, which will break the regime’s back.

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) September 14, 2019

Accepting Iranian responsibility for such attacks has been an easy matter for many on the Hill.  There are those, like Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, US Representative Adam Schiff, who are already satisfied that Tehran’s less than subtle hand is heavily involved. 

“I think it’s safe to say that the Houthis don’t have the capability to do a strike like this without Iranian assistance.”

Speculation and invention remain a foreign policy stable in Middle Eastern politics.  The region still labours with legacy of a US-led invasion of Iraq inspired by fictional Weapons of Mass Destruction supposedly harboured by Saddam Hussein. It involved grotesquely extravagant assessments of Iraq’s destructive prowess; it involved intelligence failures, bureaucratic bungling and venal manipulation of the record in Washington, London and Canberra. 

Zarif, for his part, is convinced that Pompeo, having failed in exerting maximum pressure on Iran, has now turned to a program of maximum deceit.  The US and its allies, he tweeted, “are stuck in Yemen because of illusion that weapon superiority will lead to military victory.  Blaming Iran won’t end disaster.”  The question, however, is bigger than Yemen, and bigger than oil.  The sole question here is whether Trump takes of the root of madness held out by Graham, or holds out for a meeting with Rouhani at the UN General Assembly.

*

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

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

Featured image: A fire boke out at the Saudi Aramco facility in the eastern city of Abqaiq on Saturday after a drone attack by Houthi rebels from Yemen. | Reuters

We are now just one week away from the end of Julian Assange’s uniquely lengthy imprisonment for bail violation. He will receive parole from the rest of that sentence, but will continue to be imprisoned on remand awaiting his hearing on extradition to the USA – a process which could last several years.

At that point, all the excuses for Assange’s imprisonment which so-called leftists and liberals in the UK have hidden behind will evaporate. There are no charges and no active investigation in Sweden, where the “evidence” disintegrated at the first whiff of critical scrutiny. He is no longer imprisoned for “jumping bail”. The sole reason for his incarceration will be the publishing of the Afghan and Iraq war logs leaked by Chelsea Manning, with their evidence of wrongdoing and multiple war crimes.

In imprisoning Assange for bail violation, the UK was in clear defiance of the judgement of the UN Working Group on arbitrary Detention, which stated

Under international law, pre-trial detention must be only imposed in limited instances. Detention during investigations must be even more limited, especially in the absence of any charge. The Swedish investigations have been closed for over 18 months now, and the only ground remaining for Mr. Assange’s continued deprivation of liberty is a bail violation in the UK, which is, objectively, a minor offense that cannot post facto justify the more than 6 years confinement that he has been subjected to since he sought asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador. Mr. Assange should be able to exercise his right to freedom of movement in an unhindered manner, in accordance with the human rights conventions the UK has ratified,

In repudiating the UNWGAD the UK has undermined an important pillar of international law, and one it had always supported in hundreds of other decisions. The mainstream media has entirely failed to note that the UNWGAD called for the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe – a source of potentially valuable international pressure on Iran which the UK has made worthless by its own refusal to comply with the UN over the Assange case. Iran simply replies “if you do not respect the UNWGAD then why should we?”

It is in fact a key indication of media/government collusion that the British media, which reports regularly at every pretext on the Zaghari-Ratcliffe case to further its anti-Iranian government agenda, failed to report at all the UNWGAD call for her release – because of the desire to deny the UN body credibility in the case of Julian Assange.

In applying for political asylum, Assange was entering a different and higher legal process which is an internationally recognised right. A very high percentage of dissident political prisoners worldwide are imprisoned on ostensibly unrelated criminal charges with which the authorities fit them up. Many a dissident has been given asylum in these circumstances. Assange did not go into hiding – his whereabouts were extremely well known. The simple characterisation of this as “absconding” by district judge Vanessa Baraitser is a farce of justice – and like the UK’s repudiation of the UNWGAD report, is an attitude that authoritarian regimes will be delighted to repeat towards dissidents worldwide.

Her decision to commit Assange to continuing jail pending his extradition hearing was excessively cruel given the serious health problems he has encountered in Belmarsh.

It is worth noting that Baraitser’s claim that Assange had a “history of absconding in these proceedings” – and I have already disposed of “absconding” as wildly inappropriate – is inaccurate in that “these proceedings” are entirely new and relate to the US extradition request and nothing but the US extradition request. Assange has been imprisoned throughout the period of “these proceedings” and has certainly not absconded. The government and media have an interest in conflating “these proceedings” with the previous risible allegations from Sweden and the subsequent conviction for bail violation, but we need to untangle this malicious conflation. We have to make plain that Assange is now held for publishing and only for publishing. That a judge should conflate them is disgusting. Vanessa Baraitser is a disgrace.

Assange has been demonised by the media as a dangerous, insanitary and crazed criminal, which could not be further from the truth. It is worth reminding ourselves that Assange has never been convicted of anything but missing police bail.

So now we have a right wing government in the UK with scant concern for democracy, and in particular we have the most far right extremist as Home Secretary of modern times. Assange is now, plainly and without argument, a political prisoner. He is not in jail for bail-jumping. He is not in jail for sexual allegations. He is in jail for publishing official secrets, and for nothing else. The UK now has the world’s most famous political prisoner, and there are no rational grounds to deny that fact. Who will take a stand against authoritarianism and for the freedom to publish?

*

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

In a hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court yesterday morning, British District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled that WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange will remain in prison, despite the fact that his custodial sentence for “absconding” bail expires on September 22.

The ruling is the latest in a series of attacks on Assange’s legal and democratic rights by the British judiciary. It means that the publisher and journalist will be detained until court proceedings next February for his extradition to the US, where he faces 175 years imprisonment for exposing American war crimes.

Given that the extradition proceedings will likely involve a protracted legal battle, Baraitser’s decision potentially confines Assange to the maximum-security Belmarsh Prison for years to come.

The court case was widely presented in the corporate media as a bail hearing for Assange. A statement posted by the official WikiLeaks Twitter account this morning rejected these claims, explaining:

“This morning’s hearing was not a bail hearing, it was a technical hearing. Despite this, the magistrate preemptively refused bail before the defence requested it.”

WikiLeaks stated:

“Magistrate says Assange to remain in prison indefinitely. He has been in increasing forms of deprivation of liberty since his arrest 9 years ago, one week after he started publishing Cablegate.”

“Cablegate” refers to WikiLeaks’ 2010 publication of hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables, exposing the sordid intrigues of the American government and its allies around the world.

In remarks directed at Assange, Baraitser reportedly stated:

“You have been produced today because your sentence of imprisonment is about to come to an end. When that happens your remand status changes from a serving prisoner to a person facing extradition.”

She continued:

“Therefore I have given your lawyer an opportunity to make an application for bail on your behalf and she has declined to do so. Perhaps not surprisingly in light of your history of absconding in these proceedings.”

This claim, however, is contradicted by the WikiLeaks statement, accusing the judge of preempting any application for bail by Assange’s lawyers.

Baraitser declared:

“In my view I have substantial ground for believing if I release you, you will abscond again.”

A further administrative hearing is scheduled for October 11, followed by a case management hearing on October 21.

Baraitser’s ruling was based on the fraudulent claim that Assange illegitimately “absconded” on bail in 2012. In reality, Assange exercised his right, protected under international law, to seek political asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy. He did so after British courts ruled that he would be extradited to Sweden to “answer questions” over manufactured and politically motivated sexual misconduct allegations.

The British and Swedish authorities refused to explain why extradition was necessary for a “preliminary investigation” to proceed, or why Swedish prosecutors would not agree to Assange’s repeated offer to answer any questions from London. Assange was finally questioned by prosecutors in December 2016, after which they dropped their fraudulent “investigation” in April 2017.

The issue for Assange was that Swedish authorities refused to guarantee that they would not extradite him to the US if he was in their custody.

The fact that seeking asylum was necessary to protect Assange from a politically-motivated US show trial was fully confirmed in April this year, when the Trump administration’s Justice Department unveiled 17 charges of espionage against him. If convicted of the espionage charges, and one lesser offence, Assange would face the life sentence of up to 175 years’ imprisonment.

Assange was convicted of absconding on bail, as a result of his application for political asylum, just hours after he was illegally expelled from Ecuador’s London embassy and arrested by the British police on April 11.

The British judge presiding over the hearing ignored the fact that Assange had forfeited the bail monies his supporters had paid; that he had spent close to seven years effectively detained by the British authorities in the small embassy building; and that his right to seek political asylum had been repeatedly upheld by United Nations’ bodies.

Assange was sentenced to 50 weeks. Under British legislation, the maximum sentence for a bail violation is 52 weeks. Those convicted of such an offence, however, are eligible for release after half of that time served.

Baraitser’s refusal to release Assange demonstrates the vindictive disregard of the British establishment for the warnings about his physical and mental health.

Recent visitors to Assange, including John Pilger and the WikiLeaks founder’s brother Gabriel Barber-Shipton, have stated that he has lost a significant amount of weight. Barber-Shipton publicly warned, after visiting Assange last month, that he fears he “might never see” his brother again.

UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer, who found earlier this year that Assange was the victim of a protracted campaign of “psychological torture,” has repeatedly condemned the British authorities for jailing him in a maximum-security prison.

In a letter to the British government in May, Melzer stated that the conditions of Assange’s detention had resulted in his “continued exposure to progressively severe psychological suffering and the ongoing exacerbation of his pre-existing trauma.”

For the past five months, Assange has frequently been held in conditions of virtual solitary confinement. His right to receive visitors has been heavily restricted and he has been denied access to a computer, the prison library and legal documents relating to his defence against US extradition.

Yesterday’s ruling demonstrates the determination of the British legal and political establishment to trample upon Assange’s democratic rights and facilitate his extradition. A US prosecution of Assange for WikiLeaks’ lawful publishing activities would represent a sweeping attack on fundamental democratic rights, including freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

The callous judgement underscores the urgent necessity of transforming the mass sympathy for Assange among workers, students and young people around the world, into a conscious political movement fighting for his immediate freedom.

In Australia, maximum pressure must be placed on the federal Liberal-National government to force it to uphold Assange’s rights as an Australian citizen and journalist. The demand must be raised internationally that the Australian government intervene with all its diplomatic weight and legal discretion to secure Assange’s immediate release from Belmarsh Prison and his right to return to Australia, if he chooses to do so, with a guarantee against extradition to the US.

*

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

David Cameron has no shame whatsoever. He has, cynically, come out of hiding – simply to promote his new book and make some money from an ongoing catastrophe of his making. For the last three years he hid from the political landscape he set fire to and finally pops up to say that he has ‘no regrets’. He even tried to shift the blame in an interview to publicise his book, where, according to him, Boris Johnson told him the Brexit campaign would be “crushed” during the referendum campaign. As if anyone took notice of Johnson in 2015, least of all David Cameron – a man who took no notice of senior civil servants or even the security services. But there’s more to come from his legacy of breaking Britain.

Every mainstream newspaper quotes about his forthcoming memoirs, where he admitted that he had underestimated “the strength of feeling that would be unleashed both during the referendum and afterwards”.

It was David Cameron and David Cameron alone who unleashed this nightmare. He owns this nightmare. He was strongly warned against it, after all, it contributed to the toppling of John Major and his idol Margret Thatcher. But in another cynical action to save his own skin in an election he thought he might not win, he decided that winning fifteen seats in the 2015 election was more important than the threat of ruining the country. It’s difficult to believe that that election was only a few years ago now. The British political, economic and social landscape has been irrevocably changed through his irresponsible stewardship of a political party once described as the most successful in a democracy the world had ever seen. Today, that party lies in ruins and democracy is threatened. Behind it is the social catastrophe that the same party is now walking civil society straight into.

Meanwhile, Cameron’s (second) successor, Boris Johnson, through his sociopathic advisor Dominic Cummings is ruthlessly exploiting divisions that Cameron created in the first place. The political parties (of what was once the United Kingdom) are pitting the people against their own elected representatives. and then turning in on themselves.

Worse still, is not the gloom of economic forecasts, medical or food shortages or the political battles in Westminster that still lies ahead – but what is happening to civil society. People, communities, towns and cities are now in a state of war mentality driven by this government. The language of politicians – an “outrage”, a “coup”, an “abomination”, a country tumbling into “failed state status”, Britain a “banana republic”, Boris Johnson a “tinpot dictator” is being echoed across the land through spit clenched teeth and pointing fingers. To stop the critics and the rule of law – Britain’s latest PM has shut parliament down and locked its doors to representative democracy that just turns the outrage volume up another notch.

The cool charm of Britishness has vanished, and newspapers around the world now run article’s entitled “Will Brexit trigger the Nation’s next civil war?” and “Is Britain Becoming a Failed State.”

Meanwhile, in the Westminster bubble, as Abby Innes, an Assistant Professor of Political Economy at the London School of Economics says –

‘No deal’ for this group promises an unprecedented fire sale of UK public, corporate, and land assets. That the extreme economic purpose of Brexit has been successfully conflated with an act of national liberation from tyranny is a product of a skilful charismatic politics, a polarised social media landscape nevertheless driven by conventional media skewed ever further to the right.”

Britain is on the verge of submerging its economy in increased debt caused by Brexit after a decade of austerity, that failed an entire nation. Tens of thousands have died at the hands of the Conservative party during austerity, millions pushed into despair and all the while, eyes are averted from this social calamity.

We’ve become numb, indifferent and anesthetised to the word ‘crisis.’ As this political firestorm sweeps the nation, there’s an ongoing crisis in every corner of society where no-one is left untouched, except those that afford it the most. Homelessness now kills someone every 19 hours on the streets of Britain, 17,000 disabled people have died desperately fighting the state for a meagre financial leg-up that they were denied. Councils are going bust and selling assets illegally to pay the bills. There’s a crisis with our elderly, our young and anyone who slips up or trips over in between.

We now live in a world where the culture of lies and populist scapegoating becomes the only option of our leaders. Brexit has offered a thick seam of just that. Monopolising power is now the end-game. It’s all they can see. Worse still, it’s all that the rest of us can see as well, as we no longer protest moderate politics being purged.

The result of all this is that government has been preparing for a civil uprising. Don’t think they haven’t – it’s the one thing that they really are scared of. The operation to defend their version of democracy in another leaked document is to measure the battle rhythm on the streets. Make no mistake, the threat of bricks and bottles being thrown at the political elite who caused pent up anger and frustration to explode will be met with a surveillance state with police state like powers who will be armed to the teeth.

It was David Cameron’s Home Secretary Theresa May who set up the very worst of the surveillance state. One look at how Julian Assange is being treated in Britain is enough to turn any protestor pale with fear today.

Prof Nils Melzer is the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. He visited Assange in Belmarsh high-security prison in early May, and concluded that he “showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture”.

Melzer also concluded:

“The only realistic explanation for this sustained systemic failure of the judiciary are that states are trying to make an example of Mr Assange before the eyes of the world.”

It is, as Meltzer quite rightly points out, that all three branches of state power – government, parliament and judiciary – have failed to show the impartiality and objectivity towards Mr Assange that is required under the rule of law.

This is Britain today.

Just a few years ago, the UK self-identified itself as a stable, tolerant and moderate nation, with a crown to symbolise its traditions that had been honed down the centuries. It wasn’t so ling ago we were celebrating ‘Cool Brittania‘. Now the country is revealed as little more than ferociously divided.

Nobody knew what David Cameron’s decomposing political corpse stood for until recently. But now we know. All he ever believed in was keeping his job at the top and making money out of it when he left it. But we should not forget about David Cameron as he should be held up as an example of the very worst in what Eton and what a very dangerous political class spews out today.

Cameron has left a legacy though. One nation Conservatism has gone up in flames – it is now the most right-wing government Britain has had for over 200 years. He is responsible for crushing the NHS, for killing thousands through a failed ideology called austerity that the United Nations has called out as the “systematic immiseration of a significant part of the British population“.

Another legacy is the cutting of the top rate of income tax, whilst tax credits to the poorest households were sliced and a bedroom tax designed purely out of spite drove even more desperation. These are the actions of the class warfare dogma bestowed to him in his school years.

And let’s not forget about another global disaster Cameron created. He illegally attacked the stable state of Libya, the wealthiest country in Africa and turned it into a slave-trading nation full of tribalalist gangs and some of the worst terrorists on the planet. The immigration cork he was emphatically warned about blew massive holes in the European Union’s project as tens of thousands attempted to escape the murderous nightmare of a failed state. How many were raped, murdered or drowned on the way is not known. I’ll bet that’s not in his memoir.

Cameron did something else no other peacetime Prime Minister had ever done in Britain. He rolled out an assassination programme specifically targeted on British citizens abroad. Extra-judicial assassination was outlawed in Britain even during the last World War. It was a no-go area no matter what the geopolitical landscape. But Cameron thought the better of it, sanctioned it and personally gave the authority to kill irrespective of the danger presented to innocent civilians. Years later, we have drone attacks on foreign soil where no war is being conducted, where over 90% of deaths are innocent bystanders who got in the way of a target.

Then we saw Cameron give permission for another atrocity. He had his henchmen walk into a British mainstream newspaper to trash their computers because of a whistleblower called Edward Snowden. Anything the state doesn’t like today is now dealt with in the name of national security. Our civil liberties have been ripped away from us all and with it any semblance of privacy.

All these things we’ve forgotten about because what we are dealing with today seems far worse. And it will get worse. Much worse, because that is the trajectory we are on today in large part to David Cameron.

Don’t buy his book – he doesn’t deserve to be paid for the living nightmare of his legacy soon to be lavished upon us – it would feel like an act of treachery, like you were letting down the country in its time of need.

*

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

Featured image is from TP

In the days leading up to the Israeli election on Sept. 17, President Donald Trump appears to have left Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu twisting in the wind.

While most observers have been attributing Trump’s cooling toward Netanyahu to either rational foreign policy differences–particularly rumors that Trump may make an overture to the leadership of Israel’s arch-enemy, Iran–or Trump’s irrational idiosyncratic irascibility, there’s another factor that is being largely ignored: Trump’s mega-fans, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson.

Leaked transcripts of testimony given to police, disclosed by the Israeli media in the past several days and recent weeks, reveal that the Adelsons are no longer backing Netanyahu, and have not been for quite some time. Sheldon Adelson reportedly testified to police investigators in October 2018, in connection with one of three ongoing corruption probes of Netanyahu, that he had cut his ties with Bibi and had vowed that he would never meet with him again.

In March 2017, in their coverage of the corruption charges for which Netanyahu was under investigation and could potentially be indicted—Israeli media reported that Netanyahu and Israeli media mogul Arnon Mozes, publisher of Yediot Aharonot [Latest News], had discussed ways to weaken or shut down the Adelsons’ Israel Hayom [Israel Today] newspaper. In exchange, Yediot Aharonot would give Netanyahu more favorable coverage and attack his political opponents. Founded in 1939, Yediot Aharanot had been Israel’s largest newspaper in circulation in sales and circulation until Sheldon and Miriam Adelson had established Israel Today in 2007 with the aim of getting Netanyahu elected and keep him power.

Subscriptions to Israel Today and copies in print and online are available at no cost—except to the Adelsons—and it is believed to be Israel’s most widely read newspaper. “Israel Hayom has consistently supported the prime minister,” according the English language Times of Israel. “Its unfailing backing of Netanyahu has been characterized by the playing down of his failures, the hyping of his achievements and the lashing of his critics. It has also shied away from praising his rivals.” The Adelsons don’t appear to be directly implicated in what became known as Case 2000, except insofar as Netanyahu appears to have been more than willing to throw them under the bus by supporting a law that would ban free newspapers—like Israel Hayom.

Recent Israeli news coverage of the leaks from Adelson’s testimony has focused on tensions between the Adelsons and Netanyahu’s wife Sara. In early August, Israel’s Channel 13 disclosed that Adelson and his wife Miriam had testified to police that Sara Netanyahu was media obsessed and “decides everything” in the Netanyahu household, holding sway with regard to key staff appointments and even some political matters, according to Haaretz:

“She’s completely crazy,” said Sheldon Adelson, publisher of the Israel Hayom daily. “She was compulsive about photos of herself and how she looked. She said, ‘I’m the first lady, I’m a psychologist and I teach children about psychology.’ … She would tell my wife that if Iran attacked it would be her fault … because we didn’t publish good pictures of her…”

According to Channel 13, via the Times of Israel, Sheldon told police that Sara Netanyahu had demanded the firing of Amos Regev, Israel Hayom’s editor since the paper’s inception. “She tossed around very rude comments about how [my wife] Miri might be having an affair with Amos,” Adelson recalled. “It indeed was a very rude comment. I intended to get up and go at that instant — but Miri didn’t want to.” Although the news outlet had given Netanyahu “positive coverage, to the point that some claim it is illegal propaganda,” Regev left Israel Hayom in May 2017—two and a half years later—due to ongoing friction with the Prime Minister’s Office over coverage of Sara and Bibi. The Netanyahus wanted Regev replaced with the family’s former media adviser, Nir Hefetz (currently a witness against the Netanyahus), but the Adelsons did not yield to the pressure.

Miriam Adelson, who officially became Israel Hayom’s publisher in May 2018, recounted a dinner party in her testimony during which “Sara lost her temper and started screaming so loudly that the prime minister asked the Adelsons to leave.” “She screamed that I was sucking her blood. It was awful…” according to the transcripts disclosed by Channel 13 on September 8. She also said that Sara had solicited lavish gifts from her.

The Adelsons’ accounts were corroborated by testimony leaked by Channel 13 on September 11. Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan—a key witness in Case 1000, another corruption probe of Netanyahu investigating whether he solicited and received expensive gifts from his tycoon friends—told police he had been present when Sara Netanyahu verbally abused the Adelsons. According to Haaretz:

“I was present at a dinner with Sheldon and Miri Adelson at the Netanyahus on Balfour [street],” Channel 13 quoted Milchan as saying in his testimony. “Sara started screaming at Miri [Miriam Adelson]: ‘You are spilling my blood, you are all spilling my blood…. You with your ‘Bibi-paper’ don’t help at all, only ruin.’”

Milchan then said that Sheldon Adelson responded to the verbal assault by saying: “Calm down, we’re doing the best we can. I lose 40-50 million dollars a year [on Israel Hayom] … We regularly write in your favor and you keep shouting at me.”

Despite the reported verbal abuse, it was only after the Adelsons learned of Bibi conspiring against Israel Hayom with its competitor that they broke off their relationship with him. The leaked transcripts of Adelson’s police interview disclose that the Adelsons’ relationship with Netanyahu was “never the same” after they learned of his betrayal. The Times of Israel reports that Sheldon told investigators, “I will never meet [Netanyahu] again because of what I read.”

Indeed, an examination of news stories about the Adelsons in the Israeli press over the past year and a half, Netanyahu has been conspicuously absent at major Adelson-honoring events. He was not present at the ceremonies at which U.S. Ambassador David Friedman presented Miriam (who is a medical doctor) with an honorary doctorate on behalf of Bar-Ilan University on June 4, 2019, nor at one at which one was conferred on Sheldon by the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) of Herzliya—an Adelson-funded academic think tank—on July 5.

When the Adelsons were honored for financing the establishment of a controversial medical school at Ariel University in the northern West Bank on August 19, 2018, Netanyahu was not among the 200 invited guests, which included Israeli President Reuven Rivlin and numerous government ministers and dignitaries. Also of possible significance: photos taken in May 2018 at the dedication of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem—a top priority for the Adelsons—show Miriam Adelson sitting next to U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, while Netanyahu, a few seats down in the same row, is seated next to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.

If they have in fact cut Bibi loose, whom might the Adelsons be supporting in the future?

In the leaked transcripts, Miriam Adelson mentions Sara’s role in Bibi’s disdain for Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked, formerly of the Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) party, both of whom had formerly worked as Netanyahu aides. “I was furious after the previous election when he [Netanyahu] was refusing to not [SIC] build a coalition with Bennett because she [Sara] hates him,” the Times of Israel quoted Miriam telling investigators. She criticized Netanyahu’s reluctance to include the Jewish Home party in the coalition negotiations that followed the 2015 election. “I mean, the fate of the Jewish people is doomed because the lady hates Bennett and Shaked, so he does not make a coalition with the right man who fits.”

While no outright declaration of support favoring any party or candidate has been forthcoming from the Adelsons, it is perhaps noteworthy that the Adelson-funded Jewish News Syndicate (JNS)—which provides right-slanted content to local and regional Jewish newspapers in the U.S. and Canada (competing with the more centrist Jewish Telegraphic Agency)—seems to be positively focused on Ayelet Shaked, who heads the list of the Yamina [Right] alliance of Israeli right wing parties in the upcoming election. Under Shaked’s leadership, Yamina is predicted to do well, attracting votes from settlers and right-wing Israeli nationalists. Shaked is expected to be a major player in the formation of any right-wing coalition government after the election.

A profile of Shaked, still prominent on the JNS website since its publication on September 4, approvingly describes Shaked’s Yamina alliance as “a hodgepodge of right-wing parties that come from different backgrounds, but share a nationalist agenda.” These include Shaked’s own New Right party, her previous Jewish Home party, and the even further right National Union party:

All three identify themselves as to the right of Likud, though they differ when it comes to religious issues. Shaked and the New Right include secular candidates and are more liberal; Jewish Home is religious and conservative; and National Union is more extreme.

But all three unified behind the leadership of Shaked, a secular woman.”

Shaked, who was Minister of Justice in Netanyahu’s cabinet from 2015 until its dissolution earlier this year, has called for radical judicial reform that would make the Israeli High Court subservient to the Israeli Knesset. She has vowed to curb the “judicial activism” of what right wingers consider to be the “left-leaning” Court. Although her detractors consider her political outlook to border on fascism, an independent judiciary being the indispensable hallmark of a democracy, Shaked, young (age 43) and attractive, is already being recognized by her admirers as a future prime minister.

If her star power succeeds in brightening the Israeli political sky darkened by the Netanyahus, Shaked may be just the sort of politician to appeal to the Adelsons—particularly Miriam, who recently ranked number one on the 2019 list of the wealthiest Israelis compiled by Haaretz’s “The Marker.” She is considered the driving force behind the couple’s investments and philanthropic projects in Israel and in Israeli politics since their marriage in 1991. The conclusion of Shaked’s JNS profile may well be reflecting Miriam’s own view that, “A new leader has emerged within the Israeli right—one who is determined to continue leading for the long term.”

*

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.

Marsha B. Cohen is an analyst specializing in Israeli-Iranian relations and US foreign policy towards Iran and Israel. Her articles have been published by PBS/Frontline’s Tehran Bureau. IPS, Alternet, Payvand and Global Dialogue. She earned her PhD in International Relations from Florida International University, and her BA in Political Philosophy from Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Featured image: Sheldon Adelson, left, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, center, and Adelson’s wife, Miriam (photo by Eyal Warshavsky)

For avalanche-level lying, deceiving, and misleading, mega-mimic Donald Trump need look no further than the history of the corporate advertising industry and the firms that pay them.

Dissembling is so deeply ingrained in commercial culture that the Federal Trade Commission and the courts don’t challenge exaggerated general claims that they call “puffery.”

Serious corporate deception is a common sales technique. At times it cost consumers more than dollars. It has led to major illness and loss of life.

Take the tobacco industry which used to sell its products in the context of health and facilitating mental concentration. Healthy movie stars and athletes were featured in print and on TV until 1970.

Despite studies showing that sugary soft drinks can damage health, increase obesity, and reduce life expectancy, the industry’s ads still feature healthy, fit families in joyous situations guzzling pop. Fortunately, drinking water has regained its first place position as the most consumed liquid in the U.S.

Whether it is the auto industry’s false inflation of fuel efficiency or the e-cigarette companies deceiving youngsters about vaping, or the food industry selling sugary junk cereals as nutrition for children, or the credit banking companies misleading on interest rates, truth in advertising is oxymoronic.

To counter these “fake ads,” the consumer movement pushed for mandatory labeling on food and other products. The Federal Trade Commission is a chief enforcer against deception in advertising, but it has waxed and waned over the decades. The FTC describes its duties to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices as follows:

“In advertising and marketing, the law requires that objective claims be truthful and substantiated. The FTC does not pursue subjective claims or puffery — claims like “this is the best hairspray in the world.” But if there is an objective component to the claim — such as “more consumers prefer our hairspray to any other” or “our hairspray lasts longer than the most popular brands” — then you need to be sure that the claim is not deceptive and that you have adequate substantiation before you make the claim.”

A few times, companies, caught engaging in false advertising, were compelled by the FTC to announce the correction in their forthcoming ads and apologize. Those days are long gone.

Another way consumers fought back is the spectacular success of Dr. Sidney Wolfe and his associates at Public Citizen’s Health Research Group. They researched hundreds of prescription drugs and over the counter medicines and found they were not effective for the purpose for which they are advertised. Relentless publicity on such dynamic mass media as the Phil Donahue Show led to the withdrawal of many of these products, likely saving consumers billions of dollars and protecting them from harmful side-effects (see Pills that Don’t Work).

When large companies are fighting regulation their lies become “clear and present dangers” to innocent people. I recall at a technical conference in the early nineteen sixties, a General Motors engineer warned that seatbelts in cars would tear away the inner organs of motorists from their moorings in sudden decelerations as in collisions. For the longest time, lead, asbestos, and a whole host of chemicals were featured as safe, not just necessary. All false.

Someone should write a book about all the prevarications by leading spokespersons of industry and commerce justifying the slavery of the “inferior races,” arguing against the abolition of child labor in dungeon factories, and predicting that legislating social security would bring on communism.

Interestingly, corporations can lie vigorously and not lose credibility. Artificial corporate personhood comes with immunity from social sanctions that apply to real human beings.

In 1972, The People’s Lobby in California, led by the impressive Ed and Joyce Koupal, qualified an initiative called “The Clean Environment Act.” Corporations threw millions of dollars and made false claims to defeat the Act. Their public relations firm, Whitaker and Baxter, put out a fact sheet reaching millions of voters. The oil companies declared that “lowering the lead content of gasoline would cause automobile engines to fail, resulting in massive congestion and transit breakdowns.” They also claimed that “reducing sulfur oxide emissions from diesel fuel would cause the state’s transportation industry to grind to a haul,” with huge joblessness and “economic chaos.”

Other companies said a “moratorium on nuclear power plant construction” would lead to “widespread unemployment and darkened city streets.” Banning DDT in California would “confront the farmer with economic ruin and produce critical shortages of fruits and vegetables” and more lurid hypotheticals.

The lies worked. Voters turned down the initiative by nearly two to one. All these reforms have since been advanced nationwide with no such disasters.

The media did not distinguish itself by separating the lies from the truth. Later in 1988, the media, led by the Los Angeles Times, did not let the auto insurance industry get away with lies about Prop 103, pushed by a $70 million television/radio buy. Prop 103 won and has saved California motorists over $100 billion according to leading actuary and consumer advocate J. Robert Hunter (see here).

Corporate fibbing pays monetary rewards. Informed consumers, their champions and regulatory agencies at the national, state, and local level must continue to make these companies pay a price, especially over social media. Madison Avenue calls the effect of such pushback “reputational risk.”

*

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.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His latest books include: To the Ramparts: How Bush and Obama Paved the Way for the Trump Presidency, and Why It Isn’t Too Late to Reverse Course, How the Rats Re-Formed the Congress, Breaking Through Power: It’s easier than we think, and Animal Envy: A Fable

Featured image is from Disney-ABC Television Group/flickr/cc

Seventy four years ago, on September 15, 1945, the US released a secret document which consisted in waging a coordinated nuclear attack directed against 66 major urban areas of the Soviet Union, which at the time was an ally of the US.

The War Department estimated that a total of 204 atomic bombs would be required to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”.

The War Department had studied the destructive impact of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (See Major General Grove’s letter to General Norstad dated September 25, 1945.

The military planners were talking about physical destruction rather than “death and destruction”. They failed to mention the impact of this diabolical and criminal undertaking on human life. Genocide is an understatement.

In Hiroshima, a 100,000 people died within the first seven seconds following and solely as a result of the explosion (without accounting for deaths resulting from radiation).

The War Department in its September 15, 1945 document referred to “the number of atomic bombings which should be available to insure our national security”. That number was 204 atomic bombs to be dropped on 66 cities. They had studied the impacts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were fully aware that “insuring their national security” would lead to millions of deaths.

The Cold War is a myth.

A US-led “hot war” against the Soviet Union was formulated at the height of World War II. For the US, the Cold War was a continuation of World War II.

The Manhattan project was launched in 1939, two years prior to America’s entry into World War II in December 1941. The Kremlin was fully aware of the secret Manhattan project as early as 1942.

The Manhattan project was largely directed at the Soviet Union.

Were the August 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks used by the War Department to evaluate the viability of  a much larger attack on the Soviet Union consisting of more than 204 atomic bombs?

The formulation of the secret September 15, 1945 document was preceded by an August 30, 1945 document which was dispatched by Major General Lauris Norstad  to the head of the Manhattan Project General Leslie Groves 

This document [outlined] “a total of 15 “key Soviet cities” to be struck with US atomic weapons, headed by the capital Moscow. This was followed by another 25 “leading Soviet cities” listed for annihilation, topping this latter group was Leningrad, almost destroyed during the Nazi siege finally lifted in late January 1944.”  

The above nuclear plans were being composed three days before the Second World War had even officially concluded (on 2 September 1945), and a mere two weeks following Japan’s surrender. (Shane Quinn, Global Research, May 28, 2019)

The key documents to bomb 66 cities of the Soviet Union (15 September 1945) were finalized 5-6 weeks after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (6, 9 August 1945). The US Nuclear Attack against the USSR had been planned as early as 1942.

The 1945 documents confirm that the US was involved in the “planning of genocide” against the Soviet Union.  

Central to our understanding of the Cold War which started (officially) in 1947, Washington’s September 1945 plan to bomb 66 Soviet cities into smithereens played a key role in triggering the nuclear arms race.

The Soviet Union was threatened and developed its own atomic bomb in 1949 in response to 1942 Soviet intelligence reports on the Manhattan Project.

While the Kremlin knew about these plans to “Wipe out” the USSR, the broader public was not informed because the September 1945 documents were of course classified.

Today, neither the September 1945 plan to blow up the Soviet Union nor the underlying cause of the nuclear arms race are acknowledged.

The Western media has largely focussed its attention on the Cold War US-USSR confrontation. The plan to annihilate the Soviet Union dating back to World War II and the infamous Manhattan project are not mentioned.

Had there not been a Manhattan Project leading up the September 1945 plan to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”, a nuclear arms race would not have taken place. There would not have been a Cold War.

Much of the analysis and history of the so-called “Cold War” are mistaken.

Washington’s Cold War nuclear plans are invariably presented in response to so-called Soviet threats, when in fact it was the U.S. plan released in September 1945 (formulated at an earlier period at the height of World War II) to wipe out the Soviet which motivated Moscow to develop its nuclear weapons capabilities.

see the following articles: 

“Wipe the Soviet Union Off the Map”, 204 Atomic Bombs against 66 Major Cities, US Nuclear Attack against USSR Planned During World War II

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 27, 2018

Prior to the Cold War: US Nuclear Plans Entailed Blowing Up Hundreds of Chinese, Soviet and Eastern European Cities

By Shane Quinn, May 28, 2019

Video: “Wipe the Soviet Union Off the Map”; Planned US Nuclear Attack Against USSR

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and South Front, December 03, 2017

Days ahead of Israeli Knesset elections on Tuesday, Netanyahu fighting for his political life, Trump tweeted the following:

“I had a call today with Prime Minister Netanyahu to discuss the possibility of moving forward with a Mutual Defense Treaty, between the United States and Israel…further anchor(ing)” bilateral relations, he added.

He tacitly endorsed Netanyahu’s reelection bid, saying

“I look forward…after the Israeli elections when we meet at the United Nations later this month!”

Trump suggesting a mutual US/Israeli defense treaty was a pre-election stunt, supporting Netanyahu’s bid to remain prime minister — a Ziofascist extremist, a recklessly dangerous Iranophobe, an enemy of peace, equity and justice.

Trump’s remark came when the last pre-election polls showed a dead heat between Netanyahu’s Likud party and Gantz/Lapid’s Blue and White party.

It’s also at a time when Netanyahu faces post-election indictment for bribery, fraud and breach of trust following an October hearing, his personal freedom at stake.

Saturday on Israeli television, he appealed to his base, saying

“I’m going to get us a defense pact that will provide us with security for centuries, but for that I need your votes.”

The US and Israel have no enemies, no threats to their security, so they’re invented.

What would a defense treaty mean between both countries? In 1989, the US designated Israel a major non-NATO ally (MNNA).

It’s the closest thing to alliance membership, affording the Jewish state significant military and other advantages not given to non-NATO countries.

In December 2014, the US-Israel Major Strategic Partner Act made the Jewish state more equal than other MNNA nations — the Orwellian notion.

In his novel “Animal Farm,” some animals were more equal than others — Israel at the top of the pecking order among US allies because of the power and influence of its lobby.

James Petras powerfully discussed it in his book, titled “The Power of Israel in the United States” — creating a “tyranny of Israel over the US,” he explained.

The Jewish state today is US-dominated NATO’s leading partner country. Since 1995, it’s been a Mediterranean Dialogue nation, reinforcing its partnership with alliance nations.

The US and Israel are imperial partners, allying in each other’s wars of aggression, the Jewish state provided aid and other benefits beyond what Washington affords other nations.

If consummated, a US/Israeli defense pact would elevate relations to a higher level. It would likely have provisions similar to what’s in the NATO Charter.

Its Article 4 calls for members to “consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any” is threatened.

Article 5 considers an armed attack (real or otherwise) against one or more member states, an attack against all, collective self-defense called for, alliance members mandated to intervene.

While the US already goes all-out to aid Israel militarily, a bilateral defense pact would mandate it.

For example, when Gazan rockets respond to Israeli aggression, followed by Israeli-terror-bombing, the US would be obligated to get involved if the Jewish state requested it.

The same goes if Israel manufactures a pretext for war on  Iran, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, or greater war on Syria than already.

A mutual defense pact elevates the risk of greater regional wars instead stepping back from the brink to avoid them — why it’s a dangerous idea if Trump actually pursues it.

For now, it’s just a DJT pre-election stunt to help save Netanyahu’s political future.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image: President Trump meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York on Sept. 18, 2017. (Screenshot from Whitehouse.gov)

When Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev received his peace prize in 1990, the Nobel Prize committee declared that “the two mighty power blocs, have managed to abandon their life-threatening confrontation” and confidently expressed that “It is our hope that we are now celebrating the end of the Cold War.” Recently, U.N. General Secretary António Guterres funereally closed the celebrations with the realization that “The Cold War is back.”

In a very short span of history, the window that had finally opened for Russia and the United States to build a new international system in which they work cooperatively to address areas of common interest had slammed back closed. How was that historic opportunity wasted? Why was the road from the Nobel committee’s hope to the UN’s eulogy such a short one?

The doctrinal narrative that is told in the U.S. is the narrative of a very short road whose every turn was signposted by alleged Russian lies, betrayal, deception and aggression. The American telling of history is a tale in which every blow to the new peace was a Russian blow. The fact checked version offers a demythologized history that is unrecognizably different. The demythologized version is also a history of lies, betrayal, deception and aggression, but the liar, the aggressor, is not primarily Russia, but America. It is the history of a promise so historically broken that it laid the foundation of a new cold war.

But it was not the first promise the United States broke: it was not even the first promise they broke in the new cold war.

The Hot War

Most histories of the cold war begin at the dawn of the post World War II period. But the history of U.S-U.S.S.R. animosity starts long before that: it starts as soon as possible, and it was hot long before it turned cold.

The label “Red Scare” first appeared, not in the 1940s or 50s, but in 1919. Though it is a chapter seldom included in the history of American-Russian relations, America actively and aggressively intervened in the Russian civil war in an attempt to push the Communists back down. The United States cooperated with anti-Bolshevik forces: by mid 1918, President Woodrow Wilson had sent 13,000 American troops to Soviet soil. They would remain there for two years, killing and injuring thousands. Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev would later remind America of “the time you sent your troops to quell the revolution.” Churchill would record for history the admission that the West “shot Soviet Russians on sight,” that they were “invaders on Russian soil,” that “[t]hey armed the enemies of the Soviet government,” that “[t]hey blockaded its ports, and sunk its battleships. They earnestly desired and schemed for its downfall.”

When the cause was lost, and the Bolsheviks secured power, most western countries refused to recognize the communist government. However, realism prevailed, and within a few short years, by the mid 1920s, most countries had recognized the communist government and restored diplomatic relations. All but the US It was not until several years later that Franklin D. Roosevelt finally recognized the Soviet government in 1933.

The Cold War

It would be a very short time before the diplomatic relations that followed the hot war would be followed by a cold war. It might even be possible to pin the beginning of the cold war down to a specific date. On April 22 and 23, President Truman told Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov to “Carry out his agreement” and establish a new, free, independent government in Poland as promised at Yalta. Molotov was stunned. He was stunned because it was not he that was breaking the agreement because that was not what Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin had agreed to at Yalta. The final wording of the Yalta agreement never mentioned replacing Soviet control of Poland.

The agreement that Roosevelt revealed to congress and shared with the world – the one that still dominates the textbook accounts and the media stories – is not the one he secretly shook on with Stalin. Roosevelt lied to congress and the American people. Then he lied to Stalin.

In exchange for Soviet support for the creation of the United Nations, Roosevelt secretly agreed to Soviet predominance in Poland and Eastern Europe. The cold war story that the Soviet Union marched into Eastern Europe and stole it for itself is a lie: Roosevelt handed it to them.

So did Churchill. If Roosevelt’s motivation was getting the UN, Churchill’s was getting Greece. Fearing that the Soviet Union would invade India and the oil fields of Iran, Churchill saw Greece as the geographical roadblock and determined to hold on to it at all cost. The cost, it turned out, was Romania. Churchill would give Stalin Romania to protect his borders; Stalin would give Churchill Greece to protect his empire’s borders. The deal was sealed on October 9, 1944.

Churchill says that in their secret meeting, he asked Stalin, “how would it do for you to have ninety percent predominance in Romania, for us to have ninety percent predominance in Greece? . . .” He then went on to offer a fifty-fifty power split in in Yugoslavia and Hungary and to offer the Soviets seventy-five percent control of Bulgaria. The exact conversation may never have happened, according to the political record, but Churchill’s account captures the spirit and certainly captures the secret agreement.

Contrary to the official narrative, Stalin never betrayed the west and stole Eastern Europe: Poland, Romania and the rest were given to him in secret. Then Roosevelt lied to congress and to the world.

That American lie raised the curtain on the cold war.

The New Cold War

Like the Cold War, the new cold war was triggered by an American lie. It was a lie so duplicitous, so all encompassing, that it would lead many Russians to see the agreement that ended the cold war as a devastating and humiliating deception that was really intended to clear the way for the US to surround and finally defeat the Soviet Union. It was a lie that tilled the soil for all future “Russian aggression.”

At the close of the cold war, at a meeting held on February 9, 1990, George H.W. Bush’s Secretary of State, James Baker, promised Gorbachev that if NATO got Germany and Russia pulled its troops out of East Germany, NATO would not expand east of Germany and engulf the former Soviet states. Gorbachev records in his memoirs that he agreed to Baker’s terms “with the guarantee that NATO jurisdiction or troops would not extend east of the current line.” In Super-power Illusions, Jack F. Matlock Jr., who was the American ambassador to Russia at the time and was present at the meeting, confirms Gorbachev’s account, saying that it “coincides with my notes of the conversation except that mine indicate that Baker added “not one inch.” Matlock adds that Gorbachev was assured that NATO would not move into Eastern Europe as the Warsaw Pact moved out, that “the understanding at Malta [was] that the United States would not ‘take advantage’ of a Soviet military withdrawal from Eastern Europe.” At the February 9 meeting, Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President or I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place.”

But the promise was not made just once, and it was not made just by the United States. The promise was made on two consecutive days: first by the Americans and then by West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. According to West German foreign ministry documents, on February 10, 1990, the day after James Baker’s promise, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher told his Soviet counterpart Eduard Shevardnadze

“‘For us . . . one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east.’ And because the conversation revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: ‘As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general.’”

A few days earlier, on January 31, 1990, Genscher had said in a major speech that there would not be “an expansion of NATO territory to the east, in other words, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union.”

Gorbachev says the promise was made not to expand NATO “as much as a thumb’s width further to the east.” Putin also says mourns the broken promise, asking at a conference in Munich in February 2007,

“What happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them.”

Putin went on to remind his audience of the assurances by pointing out that the existence of the NATO promise is not just the perception of him and Gorbachev. It was also the view of the NATO General Secretary at the time:

“But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr. [Manfred] Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: ‘The fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.’ Where are those guarantees?”

Recent scholarship supports the Russian version of the story. Russian expert and Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent, Richard Sakwa says that

“[r]ecent studies demonstrate that the commitment not to enlarge NATO covered the whole former Soviet bloc and not just East Germany.”

And Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Politics at Princeton University and of Russian Studies and History at New York University, adds that the National Security Archive has now published the actual documents detailing what Gorbachev was promised. Published on December 12, 2017, the documents finally, and authoritatively, reveal that

“The truth, and the promises broken, are much more expansive than previously known: all of the Western powers involved – the US, the UK, France, Germany itself – made the same promise to Gorbachev on multiple occasions and in various emphatic ways.”

That key promise made to Gorbachev was shattered, first by President Clinton and then subsequently supported by every American President: NATO engulfed Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in 1999; Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004, Albania and Croatia in 2009 and, most recently, Montenegro.

It was this shattered promise, this primal betrayal, this NATO expansion to Russia’s borders that created the conditions and causes of future conflicts and aggressions. When, in 2008, NATO promised Georgia and Ukraine eventual membership, Russia saw the threat of NATO encroaching right to its borders. It is in Georgia and Ukraine that Russia felt it had to draw the line with NATO encroachment into its core sphere of influence. Sakwa says that the war in Georgia was “the first war to stop NATO enlargement; Ukraine was the second.” What are often cited as acts of Russian aggression that helped maintain the new cold war are properly understood as acts of Russian defense against US aggression that made a lie out of the promise that ended the Cold War.

When Clinton decided to break Bush’s promise and betray Russia, George Kennen, father of the containment policy, warned that NATO expansion would be “the most fateful error of American foreign policy in the entire post-cold-war era.” “Such a decision,” he prophesied, “may be expected to . . . restore the atmosphere of the cold war in East-West relations . . ..”

The broken promise restored the cold war. Though it is the most significant root of the new cold war, it was not the first. There was a prior broken promise, and this time the man who betrayed Russia was President H.W. Bush.

The end of the Cold War resulted from negotiations and not from any sort of military victory. Stephen Cohen says that

“Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush negotiated with the last Soviet Russian leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, what they said was the end of the Cold War on the shared, expressed premise that it was ending ‘with no losers, only winners.’”

The end of the Cold War and the end of the Soviet Union occurred so closely chronologically that it permitted the American mythologizers to conflate them in the public imagination and create the doctrinal history in which the US defeat of the Soviet Union ended the cold war. But the US did not defeat the Soviet Union. Gorbachev brought about what Sakwa calls a “self-willed disintegration of the Soviet bloc.” The Soviet Union came to an end, not by external force or pressure, but out of Gorbachev’s recognition of the Soviet Union’s own self interest. Matlock flatly states that

“pressure from governments outside the Soviet Union, whether from America or Europe or anywhere else, had nothing to do with [the Soviet collapse].” “Cohen demythologizes the history by reinstating the chronological order: Gorbachev negotiated the end of the cold war “well before the disintegration of the Soviet Union.”

The Cold War officially ended well before the end of the Soviet Union with Gorbachev’s December 7, 1988 address to the UN.

Matlock says that “Gorbachev is right when he says that we all won the Cold War.” He says that President Reagan would write in his notes, “Let there be no talk of winners and losers.” When Gorbachev compelled the countries of the Warsaw Pact to adopt reforms like his perestroika in the Soviet Union and warmed them that the Soviet army would no longer be there to keep their communist regimes in power, Matlock points out in Superpower Illusions that “Bush assured Gorbachev that the United States would not claim victory if the Eastern Europeans were allowed to replace the Communist regimes that had been imposed on them.” Both the reality and the promise were that there was no winner of the Cold War: it was a negotiated peace that was in the interest of both countries.

When in 1992, during his losing re-election campaign, President Bush arrogantly boasted that “We won the Cold War!” he broke his own promise to Gorbachev and helped plant the roots of the new cold war. “In psychological and political terms,” Matlock says, “President Bush planted a landmine under the future U.S.-Russian relationship” when he broke his promise and made that claim.

Bush’s broken promise had two significant effects. Psychologically, it created the appearance in the Russian psyche that Gorbachev had been tricked by America: it eroded trust in America and in the new peace. Politically, it created in the American psyche the false idea that Russia was a defeated country whose sphere of interest did not need to be considered. Both these perceptions contributed to the new cold war.

Not only was the broken promise of NATO expansion not the first broken American promise, it was also not the last. In 1997, when President Clinton made the decision to expand NATO much more than an inch to the east, he at least signed the Russia-NATO Founding Act, which explicitly promised that as NATO expanded east, there would be no “permanent stationing of substantial combat forces.” This obliterated American promise planted the third root of the new cold war.

Since that third promise, NATO has, in the words of Stephen Cohen, built up its “permanent land, sea and air power near Russian territory, along with missile-defense installations.” US and NATO weapons and troops have butted right up against Russia’s borders, while anti-missile installations have surrounded it, leading to the feeling of betrayal in Russia and the fear of aggression. Among the earliest moves of the Trump administration were the moving of NATO troops into Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria and nearby Norway.

Mikhail Gorbachev, who offered the West Russia and cooperation in place of the Soviet Union and Cold War, was rewarded with lies, broken promises and betrayal. That was the sowing of the first seeds of the new cold war. The second planting happened during the Yeltsin years that followed. During this stage, the Russian people were betrayed because their hopes for democracy and for an economic system compatible with the West were both destroyed by American intervention.

The goal, Matlock too gently explains, “had to be a shift of the bulk of the economy to private ownership.” What transpired was what Naomi Klein called in The Shock Doctrine “one of the greatest crimes committed against a democracy in modern history.” The States allowed no gradual transition. Matlock says the “Western experts advised a clean break with the past and a transition to private ownership without delay.”

But there was no legitimate private capital coming out of the communist system, so there was no private money with which to privatize. So, there was only one place for the money to come. As Matlock explains, the urgent transition allowed “privileged insiders[to] join the criminals who had been running a black market [and to] steal what they could, as fast as they could.” The sudden, uncompromising transition imposed on Russia by the United States enabled, according to Cohen, “a small group of Kremlin-connected oligarchs to plunder Russia’s richest assets and abet the plunging of some two-thirds of its people into poverty and misery.”

The rape of Russia was funded, overseen and ordered by the United States and handed over by President George H.W. Bush to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Much of their advice, Matlock says generously, “was not only useless, but sometimes actually damaging.”

Sometimes damaging? In the first year, millions lost their entire life savings. Subsidy cuts meant that many Russians didn’t get paid at all. Klein says that by 1992, Russians were consuming 40% less than they were the year before, and one third of them had suddenly sunk below the poverty line. The economic policies wrestled onto Russia by the US and the transition experts and international development experts it funded and sent over led to, what Cohen calls, “the near ruination of Russia.” Russia’s reward for ending the Cold War and joining the Western economic community was, in Cohen’s words, “the worst economic depression in peacetime, the disintegration of the highly professionalized Soviet middle class, mass poverty, plunging life expectancy [for men, it had fallen below sixty], the fostering of an oligarchic financial elite, the plundering of Russia’s wealth, and more.” By the time Putin came to power in 2000, Cohen says, “some 75% of Russians were living in poverty.” 75%! Millions and millions of Russian lives were destroyed by the American welcoming of Russia into the global economic community.

But before Putin came to power, there was more Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin was a necessity for Clinton and the United States because Yeltsin was the pliable puppet who would continue to enforce the cruel economic transition. But to continue the interference in, and betrayal of, the Russian people economically, it would now be necessary to interfere in and betray the Russian democracy.

In late 1991, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin won a year of special powers from the Russian Parliament: for one year, he was to be, in effect, the dictator of Russia to facilitate the midwifery of the birth of a democratic Russia. In March of 1992, under pressure from the, by now, impoverished, devastated and discontented population, parliament repealed the dictatorial powers it had granted him. Yeltsin responded by declaring a state of emergency, re-bestowing upon himself the repealed dictatorial powers. Russia’s Constitutional Court ruled that Yeltsin was acting outside the constitution. But the US sided – against the Russian people and against the Russian Constitutional Court – with Yeltsin.

Intoxicated with American support, Yeltsin dissolved the parliament that had rescinded his powers and abolished the constitution of which he was in violation. In a 636-2 vote, the Russian parliament impeached Yeltsin. But, President Clinton again sided with Yeltsin against the Russian people and the Russian law, backed him and gave him $2.5 billion in aid. Clinton was blocking the Russian people’s choice of leaders.

Yeltsin took the money and sent police officers and elite paratroopers to surround the parliament building. Clinton “praised the Russian President has (sic) having done ‘quite well’ in managing the standoff with the Russian Parliament,” as The New York Times reported at the time. Clinton added that he thought “the United States and the free world ought to hang in there” with their support of Yeltsin against his people, their constitution and their courts, and judged Yeltsin to be “on the right side of history.”

On the right side of history and armed with machine guns and tanks, in October 1993, Yeltsin’s troops opened fire on the crowd of protesters, killing about 100 people before setting the Russian parliament building on fire. By the time the day was over, Yeltsin’s troops had killed approximately 500 people and wounded nearly 1,000. Still, Clinton stood with Yeltsin. He provided ludicrous cover for Yeltsin’s massacre, claiming that “I don’t see that he had any choice…. If such a thing happened in the United States, you would have expected me to take tough action against it.” Clinton’s Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, said that the US supported Yeltsin’s suspension of parliament in these “extraordinary times.”

In 1996, elections were looming, and America’s hegemonic dreams still needed Yeltsin in power. But it wasn’t going to happen without help. Yeltsin’s popularity was nonexistent, and his approval rating was at about 6%. According to Cohen, Clinton’s interference in Russian politics, his “crusade” to “reform Russia,” had by now become official policy. And so, America boldly interfered directly in Russian elections. Three American political consultants, receiving “direct assistance from Bill Clinton’s White House,” secretly ran Yeltsin’s reelection campaign. As Time magazine broke the story, “For four months, a group of American political consultants clandestinely participated in guiding Yeltsin’s campaign.”

“Funded by the US government,” Cohen reports, Americans “gave money to favored Russian politicians, instructed ministers, drafted legislation and presidential decrees, underwrote textbooks, and served at Yeltsin’s reelection headquarters in 1996.”

More incriminating still is that Richard Dresner, one of the three American consultants, maintained a direct line to Clinton’s Chief Strategist, Dick Morris. According to reporting by Sean Guillory, in his book, Behind the Oval Office, Morris says that, with Clinton’s approval, he received weekly briefings from Dresner that he would give to Clinton. Based on those briefings, Clinton would then provide recommendations to Dresner through Morris.

Then ambassador to Russia, Thomas Pickering, even pressured an opposing candidate to drop out of the election to improve Yeltsin’s odds of winning.

The US not only helped run Yeltsin’s campaign, they helped pay for it. The US backed a $10.2 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan for Russia, the second-biggest loan the IMF had ever given. The New York Times reported that the loan was “expected to be helpful to President Boris N. Yeltsin in the presidential election in June.” The Times explained that the loan was “a vote of confidence” for Yeltsin who “has been lagging well behind … in opinion polls” and added that the US Treasury Secretary “welcomed the fund’s decision.”

Yeltsin won the election by 13%, and Time magazine’s cover declared: “Yanks to the rescue: The secret story of how American advisers helped Yeltsin win”. Cohen reports that the US ambassador to Russia boasted that “without our leadership … we would see a considerably different Russia today.” That’s a confession of election interference.

Asserting its right as the unipolar victor of a Cold War it never won, betraying the central promise of the negotiated end of the cold war by engulfing Russia’s neighbors, arming those nations against its written and signed word and stealing all Russian hope in capitalism and democracy by kidnapping and torturing Russian capitalism and democracy, the roots of the new cold war were not planted by Russian lies and aggression, as the doctrinal Western version teaches, but by the American lies and aggression that the fact checked, demythologized version of history reveals.

*

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.

Ted Snider writes on analyzing patterns in US foreign policy and history.

A future without independent media leaves us with an upside down reality where according to the corporate media “NATO deserves a Nobel Peace Prize”, and where “nuclear weapons and wars make us safer”

.

.

If, like us, this is a future you wish to avoid, please help sustain Global Research’s activities by making a donation or taking out a membership now!

Click to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

*     *     *

Sen. Graham Wants to Bomb Iran in Response to Houthi Attack on Saudi Oil

By Kurt Nimmo, September 15, 2019

Following the early morning attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil processing facility—the largest oil processing plant in the world—and a similar drone attack at the Khurais oil field on Saturday, the neocon senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, has called for attacking Iran. 

US Sponsored War: Formidable Yemeni Houthi Fighters Strike Back

By Stephen Lendman, September 15, 2019

On Saturday, explosive-laden Houthi drones attacked two Saudi Aramco oil facilities, setting targets struck ablaze — the kingdom’s Abqaiq refinery (the world’s largest) and Khurais oil field.

Both attacks caused huge fires visible from outer space. The facilities are crucial world energy supply chain links.

Will the IMF, the Federal Reserve, Negative Interest Rates and Digital Money Kill the Western Economy?

By Peter Koenig, September 14, 2019

The IMF, has been instrumental in helping destroying the economy of a myriad of countries, notably, and to start with, the new Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, Greece, Ukraine and lately Argentina, to mention just a few. Madame Christine Lagarde, as chief of the IMF had a heavy hand in the annihilation of at least the last three mentioned.

The 5G Electromagnetic “Mad Zone” Poised to Self-Destruct: The 5G “Dementors” Meet the 4G “Zombie Apocalypse”

By Claire Edwards, September 14, 2019

It appears that every expansion of the use of electricity since the 19^th century correlates with drastic rises in all the modern diseases of civilization, but this information has been kept from the public in order not to impede commercial profit, military expansion and universal convenience.

Video: Imperial Wars of Aggression. Interview with Syrian Scientist Dr. Ayssar Midani

By Ayssar Midani and Mark Taliano, September 14, 2019

The interview below with Syrian Scientist and antiwar activist Dr. Ayssar Midani lays bare the converging lies that grease the wheels of imperial wars of aggression.

Post-9/11 Terrorism Watchlist of More Than 1 Million Judged Unconstitutional

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, September 14, 2019

The U.S. government has used the post-9/11 war on terror to launch two major wars, mount gunship and drone attacks on several countries, and institute a widespread program of torture and abuse. Casualties of those conflicts number in the hundreds of thousands.

Brexit Reveals Jeremy Corbyn to be the True Moderate

By Jonathan Cook, September 13, 2019

If there is an upside to Brexit, it is this: it has made it increasingly hard to present Jeremy Corbyn, contrary to everything the corporate media has been telling us for the past four years, as anything but a political moderate.

*

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 18th anniversary of 9/11 is over, but 9/11 isn’t.  September 11, 2001, is the defining event of America’s 21st century.  The neoconservatives used their false flag event to destroy the Bill of Rights and turn the American people over to a police state, and they used the New Pearl Harbor that they orchestrated to launch their wars of aggression in the Middle East for the purpose of reconstructing the Middle East in Israel’s interest.  The new American police state will become more oppressive as time goes by, and now that Israel has the bit in its teeth the United States will likely be forced into a war that will result in nuclear Armageddon.  

The evil inherent in Washington’s attacks on Islamic countries has resulted in the intervention by other powerful countries who are threatened by the chaos that Washington has sowed for two decades in the Middle East. Russia for one intervened in Syria and stopped the neoconservative orchestrated overthrow of the Syrian government, thereby making the world aware that American unilateralism was over.  This realization together with the constant stream of lies and threats issuing from Washington has undermined America’s influence in the world and will lead to the breakup of Washington’s empire.

Edward Curtin explains how the insouciant American people were set up in advance through a form of linguistic mind control to accept the utterly implausible official explanation of 9/11.  Indeed, the term 9/11 is itself part of the mind control.  Curtain disavows its use.  I agree with him. We need a different way of naming the event. I am open to suggestions.

I found convincing Curtin’s explanation of how language was used to set up the American people in advance to accept the official explanation of the defining event of 21st century America.  I recommend it to you:

***

Why I Don’t Speak of the Fake News of “9/11” Anymore

by Edward Curtin 

Global Research

September 11, 2018

This article was posted last year but is still pertinent, so I am re-posting it.

Tuesday, September 11, 2001, was a non-teaching day for me.  I was home when the phone rang at 9 A.M.  It was my daughter, who was on a week’s vacation with her future husband.  “Turn on the TV,” she said.  “Why?” I asked.  “Haven’t you heard?  A plane hit the World Trade Tower.”

I turned the TV on and watched a plane crash into the Tower.  I said, “They just showed a replay.”  She quickly corrected me, “No, that’s another plane.”  And we talked as we watched in horror, learning that it was the South Tower this time.  Sitting next to my daughter was my future son-in-law; he had not had a day off from work in a year.  He had finally taken a week’s vacation so they could go to Cape Cod.  He worked on the 100th floor of the South Tower.  By chance, he had escaped the death that claimed 176 of his co-workers.

That was my introduction to the attacks.  Seventeen years have disappeared behind us, yet it seems like yesterday.  And yet again, it seems like long, long ago.

Over the next few days, as the government and the media accused Osama bin Laden and 19 Arabs of being responsible for the attacks, I told a friend that what I was hearing wasn’t believable; the official story was full of holes. I am a born and bred New Yorker with a long family history rooted in the NYC Fire and Police Departments, one grandfather having been the Deputy Chief of the Fire Department, the highest ranking uniformed firefighter, and the other a NYPD cop; a niece and her husband were NYPD detectives deeply involved in the response to that day’s attacks. Hearing the absurd official explanations and the deaths of so many innocent people, including many hundreds of firefighters, cops, and emergency workers, I felt a suspicious rage. It was a reaction that I couldn’t fully explain, but it set me on a search for the truth.  I proceeded in fits and starts, but by the fall of 2004, with the help of the extraordinary work of David Ray Griffin, Michael Ruppert, and other early skeptics, I could articulate the reasons for my initial intuition.  I set about creating and teaching a college course on what had come to be called 9/11.

But I no longer refer to the events of that day by those numbers.  Let me explain why.

By 2004 I had enough solid evidence to convince me that the U.S. government’s claims (and The 9/11 Commission Report) were fictitious.  They seemed so blatantly false that I concluded the attacks were a deep-state intelligence operation whose purpose was to initiate a national state of emergency to justify wars of aggression, known euphemistically as “the war on terror.”  The sophistication of the attacks, and the lack of any proffered evidence for the government’s claims, suggested that a great deal of planning had been involved.

Yet I was chagrined and amazed by so many people’s insouciant lack of interest in questioning and researching the most important world event since the assassination of President Kennedy.  I understood the various psychological dimensions of this denial, the fear, cognitive dissonance, etc., but I sensed something else as well.  For so many people their minds seemed to have been “made up” from the start.  I found that many young people were the exceptions, while most of their elders dared not question the official narrative.  These included many prominent leftist critics of American foreign policy, such as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Alexander Cockburn, and others, whose defenses of the official government and media explanations (when they even made such defenses; often they just trashed skeptics as “9/11 conspiracy nuts,” to quote Cockburn) totally lacked any scientific or logical rigor or even knowledge of the facts.  Now that seventeen years have elapsed, this seems truer than ever.  There is a long list of leftists who refuse to examine matter to this very day.  And most interestingly, they also do the same with the assassination of JFK, the other key seminal event of recent American history.

I kept thinking of the ongoing language and logic used to describe what had happened that terrible day in 2001 and in the weeks to follow.  It all seemed so clichéd and surreal, as if set phrases had it been extracted from some secret manual, phrases that rung with an historical resonance that cast a spell on the public, as if mass hypnosis were involved.  People seemed mesmerized as they spoke of the events in the official language that had been presented to them.

So with the promptings of people like Graeme MacQueen, Lance deHaven-Smith, T.H. Meyer, et al., and much study and research, I have concluded that my initial intuitive skepticism was correct and that a process of linguistic mind-control was in place before, during, and after the attacks.  As with all good propaganda, the language had to be insinuated over time and introduced through intermediaries.  It had to seem “natural” and to flow out of events, not to precede them.  And it had to be repeated over and over again.

In summary form, I will list the language I believe “made up the minds” of those who have refused to examine the government’s claims about the September 11 attacks and the subsequent anthrax attacks.

1. Pearl Harbor.  As pointed out by David Ray Griffin and others, this term was used in September 2000 in The Project for the New American Century’s (PNAC) report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (p.51).  Its neo-con authors argued that the U.S. wouldn’t be able to attack Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. “absent some catastrophic event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”  Then on January 11, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s “Space Commission” warned that the U.S. could face a “space Pearl Harbor” if it weren’t careful and didn’t increase space security.  Rumsfeld urged support for the proposed U.S. national missile defense system opposed by Russia and China and massive funding for the increased weaponization of space.  At the same time he went around handing out and recommending Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision (1962) by Roberta Wohlstetter, who had spent almost two decades working for The Rand Corporation and who claimed that Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack that shocked U.S. leaders. Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor – those words and images dominated public consciousness for many months before 11 September 2001, and of course after.  The film Pearl Harbor, made with Pentagon assistance and a massive budget, was released on May 25, 2001 and was a box office hit.   It was in the theatres throughout the summer.  The thought of the attack on Pearl Harbor (not a surprise to the U.S. government, but presented as such) was in the news all summer despite the fact that the 60th anniversary of that attack was not until December 7, 2001, a more likely release date. So why was it released so early?  Once the September 11 attacks occurred, the Pearl Harbor analogy was “plucked out” of the social atmosphere and used constantly, beginning immediately. Another “Day of Infamy,” another surprise attack blared the media and government officials.  A New Pearl Harbor!  George W.  Bush was widely reported to have had the time that night, after a busy day of flying hither and yon to avoid the terrorists who for some reason had forgotten he was in a classroom in Florida, to allegedly use it in his diary, writing that “the Pearl Harbor of the twenty-first century took place today.  We think it is Osama bin Laden.”  Shortly after the 50th anniversary of Pearl Harbor on December 7th, Bush then formerly announced, referencing the attacks of September 11, that the U. S. would withdraw from the ABM Treaty. The examples of this Pearl Harbor/ September 11 analogy are manifold, but I am summarizing, so I will skip giving them.  Any casual researcher can confirm this.

2. Homeland.  This strange un-American term, another WW II word associated with another enemy – Nazi Germany – was also used many times by the neo-con authors of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.”  I doubt any average American referred to this country by that term before.  Of course it became the moniker for The Department of Homeland Security, marrying home with security to form a comforting name that simultaneously and unconsciously suggests a defense against Hitler-like evil coming from the outside.  Not coincidentally, Hitler introduced it into the Nazi propaganda vernacular at the 1934 Nuremberg rally. Both usages conjured up images of a home besieged by alien forces intent on its destruction; thus preemptive action was in order.  Now the Department of Homeland Security with its massive budget is lodged permanently in popular consciousness.

3. Ground Zero.  This is a third WWII (“the Good War”) term first used at 11:55 A.M. on September 11 by Mark Walsh (aka “the Harley Guy” because he was wearing a Harley-Davidson tee shirt) in an interview on the street by a Fox News reporter, Rick Leventhal. Identified as a Fox free-lancer, Walsh also explained the Twin Towers collapse in a precise, well-rehearsed manner that would be the same illogical and anti-scientific explanation later given by the government: “mostly due to structural failure because the fire was too intense.” Ground zero – a nuclear bomb term first used by U.S. scientists to refer to the spot where they exploded the first nuclear bomb in New Mexico in 1945 – became another meme adopted by the media that suggested a nuclear attack had occurred or might in the future if the U.S. didn’t act. The nuclear scare was raised again and again by George W. Bush and U.S. officials in the days and months following the attacks, although nuclear weapons were beside the point in terms of the 11 September attacks, but surely not as a scare tactic and as part of the plan to withdraw from the ABM treaty that would be announced in December.  But the conjoining of “nuclear” with “ground zero” served to raise the fear factor dramatically.  Ironically, the project to develop the nuclear bomb was called the Manhattan Project and was headquartered at 270 Broadway, NYC, a few short blocks north of the World Trade Center.

4. The Unthinkable.  This is another nuclear term whose usage as linguistic mind control and propaganda is brilliantly analyzed by Graeme MacQueen in the penultimate chapter of his very important book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception.  He notes the patterned use of this term before and after September 11, while saying “the pattern may not signify a grand plan …. It deserves investigation and contemplation.”  He then presents a convincing case that the use of this term couldn’t be accidental.  He notes how George W. Bush, in a major foreign policy speech on May 1, 2001, “gave informal public notice that the United States intended to withdraw unilaterally from the ABM Treaty”; Bush said the U.S. must be willing to “rethink the unthinkable.”  This was necessary because of terrorism and rogue states with “weapons of mass destruction.”  PNAC also argued that the U.S. should withdraw from the treaty.  A signatory to the treaty could only withdraw after giving six months notice and because of “extraordinary events” that “jeopardized its supreme interests.” Once the September 11 attacks occurred, Bush rethought the unthinkable and officially gave formal notice on December 13 to withdraw the U.S. from the ABM Treaty, as previously noted.  MacQueen specifies the many times different media used the term “unthinkable” in October 2001 in reference to the anthrax attacks.  He explicates its usage in one of the anthrax letters – “The Unthinkabel” [sic].  He explains how the media that used the term so often were at the time unaware of its usage in the anthrax letter since that letter’s content had not yet been revealed, and how the letter writer had mailed the letter before the media started using the word.  He makes a rock solid case showing the U.S. government’s complicity in the anthrax attacks and therefore in the Sept 11 attacks.  While calling the use of the term “unthinkable” in all its iterations “problematic,” he writes, “The truth is that the employment of ‘the unthinkable’ in this letter, when weight is given both to the meaning of this term in U.S. strategic circles and to the other relevant uses of the term in 2001, points us in the direction of the U.S. military and intelligence communities.”  I am reminded of Orwell’s point in 1984: “a heretical thought – that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc – should be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is dependent on words.”  Thus the government and media’s use of “unthinkable” becomes a classic case of “doublethink.”  The unthinkable is unthinkable.

5.  9/11.  This is the key usage that has reverberated down the years around which the others revolve. It is an anomalous numerical designation applied to an historical event, and obviously also the emergency telephone number.  Try to think of another numerical appellation for an important event in American history.  It’s impossible.  But if you have a good historical sense, you will remember that the cornerstone for the Pentagon was lain on September 11, 1941, three months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, and that the CIA engineered a coup against the Allende government in Chile on Sept 11, 1973.  Just strange coincidences?  The future editor of The New York Times and Iraq war promoter, Bill Keller, introduced the emergency phone connection on the morning of September 12th in a NY Times op-ed piece, “America’s Emergency Line: 911.”  The linkage of the attacks to a permanent national emergency was thus subliminally introduced, as Keller mentioned Israel nine times and seven times compared the U.S. situation to that of Israel as a target for terrorists.  His first sentence reads: “An Israeli response to America’s aptly dated wake-up call might well be, ‘Now you know.’”  By referring to September 11 as 9/11, an endless national emergency fear became wedded to an endless war on terror aimed at preventing Hitler-like terrorists from obliterating us with nuclear weapons that could create another ground zero or holocaust.  Mentioning Israel (“America is proud to be Israel’s closest ally and best friend in the world,” George W. Bush would tell the Israeli Knesset) so many times, Keller was not very subtly performing an act of legerdemain with multiple meanings.  By comparing the victims of the 11 September attacks to Israeli “victims,” he was implying, among other things, that the Israelis are innocent victims who are not involved in terrorism, but are terrorized by Palestinians, as Americans are terrorized by fanatical Muslims.  Palestinians/Al-Qaeda.  Israel/U.S.  Explicit and implicit parallels of the guilty and the innocent.  Keller tells us who the real killers are.  His use of the term 9/11 is a term that pushes all the right buttons, evoking unending social fear and anxiety.  It is language as sorcery. It is propaganda at its best. Even well-respected critics of the U.S. government’s explanation use the term that has become a fixture of public consciousness through endless repetition.   As George W. Bush would later put it, as he connected Saddam Hussein to “9/11” and pushed for the Iraq war, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”  All the ingredients for a linguistic mind-control smoothie had been blended.

I have concluded – and this is impossible to prove definitively because of the nature of such propagandistic techniques – that the use of all these words/numbers is part of a highly sophisticated linguistic mind-control campaign waged to create a narrative that has lodged in the minds of hundreds of millions of people and is very hard to dislodge.

It is why I don’t speak of “9/11” any more. I refer to those events as the attacks of September 11, 2001, which is a mouth-full and not easily digested in the age of Twitter and texting.  But I am not sure how to be more succinct or how to undo the damage, except by writing what I have written here.

Lance deHaven-Smith puts it well in Conspiracy Theory in America. The rapidity with which the new language of the war on terror appeared and took hold; the synergy between terms and their mutual connections to WW II nomenclatures; and above all the connections between many terms and the emergency motif of “9/11” and “9-1-1” – any one of these factors alone, but certainly all of them together – raise the possibility that work on this linguistic construct began long before 9/11….It turns out that elite political crime, even treason, may actually be official policy.

Needless to say, his use of the words “possibility” and “may” are in order when one sticks to strict empiricism.  However, when one reads his full text, it is apparent to me that he considers these “coincidences” part of a conspiracy.  I have also reached that conclusion.  As Thoreau put in his underappreciated humorous way, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

The evidence for linguistic mind control, while the subject of this essay, does not stand alone, of course.  It underpins the actual attacks of September 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks that are linked.  The official explanations for these events by themselves do not stand up to elementary logic and are patently false, as proven by thousands of well-respected professional researchers from all walks of life – i.e. engineers, pilots, scientists, architects, and scholars from many disciplines (see the upcoming 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth, to be released September 11, 2018).  To paraphrase the prescient Vince Salandria, who said it long ago concerning the government’s assassination of President Kennedy, the attacks of 2001 are “a false mystery concealing state crimes.”  If one objectively studies the 2001 attacks together with the language adopted to explain and preserve them in social memory, the “mystery” emerges from the realm of the unthinkable and becomes utterable. “There is no mystery.” The truth becomes obvious.

How to communicate this when the corporate mainstream media serve the function of the government’s mockingbird (as in Operation Mockingbird), repeating and repeating and repeating the same narrative in the same language; that is the difficult task we are faced with, but there are signs today that breakthroughs are occurring, as growing numbers of international academic scholars are pushing to incorporate the analysis of the official propaganda surrounding 11 September 2001 into their work within the academy, a turnabout from years of general silence.  And more and more people are coming to realize that the official lies about 11 September are the biggest example of fake news in this century.  Fake news used to justify endless wars and the slaughter of so many innocents around the world.

Words have a power to enchant and mesmerize.  Linguistic mind-control, especially when linked to traumatic events such as the September 11 and the anthrax attacks, can strike people dumb and blind.  It often makes some subjects “unthinkable” and “unspeakable” (to quote Jim Douglass quoting Thomas Merton in JFK and the Unspeakable: the unspeakable “is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said.”).

We need a new vocabulary to speak of these terrible things.  Let us learn, as Chief Joseph said, to speak with a straight tongue, and in language that doesn’t do the enemies work of mind control, but snaps the world awake to the truth of the mass murders of September 11, 2001 that have been used to massacre millions across the world.

*

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

Edward Curtin is a distinguished author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Following the early morning attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil processing facility—the largest oil processing plant in the world—and a similar drone attack at the Khurais oil field on Saturday, the neocon senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, has called for attacking Iran. 

.

.

It is now time for the U.S. to put on the table an attack on Iranian oil refineries if they continue their provocations or increase nuclear enrichment.

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) September 14, 2019

Although the Houthis claimed responsibility for the crippling attack, there is little evidence who is actually responsible. It is just as likely the Saudis did this to 1) ramp up hostilities against their arch enemy, Shia Iran, 2) jack up the price of oil, and 3) in the process make the impending Aramco IPO more lucrative.

In addition, the Saudis fear the end of the illegal war on the people of Yemen negotiated by the US:

US in Direct Talks With Yemen’s Houthis
Talks 'narrowly focused on trying to end the war'#Yemen #SaudiArabia #UAE #Houthishttps://t.co/5uSQgVnfh8 pic.twitter.com/CL48LIqsHR

— Antiwar.com (@Antiwarcom) September 6, 2019

Zerohedge notes:

According to Reuters reports the drone attacks will impact up to 5 million bpd of oil production, which suggests that the price of oil—already severely depressed by the recent news that John Bolton is out, making de-escalation with Iran far more likely—is set to soar when trading reopens late on Sunday, just what the upcoming Aramco IPO desperately needs, which in turn has prompted some to wonder if the “Yemen” attack on Saudi Arabia wasn’t in fact orchestrated by Saudi interests. (Emphasis mine.) 

Meanwhile, the corporate media, as should be expected, is placing the blame indirectly on Iran. From the beginning of the Saudi campaign to bomb the daylights out of Yemen, creating one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent memory, the corporate media has stated as an indisputable fact the Houthis are an Iranian proxy doing the bidding of the mullahs in Tehran. 

The attack by the Iranian-backed Houthi militias against the two Aramco pumping stations proves that these militias are merely a tool that Iran's regime uses to implement its expansionist agenda in the region, and not to protect the people of Yemen as the Houthis falsely claim.

— Khalid bin Salman خالد بن سلمان (@kbsalsaud) May 16, 2019

On the contrary, the Iranians have very little to do with supporting the Houthis, a fact rarely mentioned because it conflicts with the narrative that fallaciously states Iran is the most vicious terror state in the world (that designation is better suited for the United States and Israel). 

Thomas Juneau, the assistant professor at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs and an analyst with Canada’s Department of National Defense, wrote for The Washington Post in 2016, “Tehran’s support for the Houthis is limited, and its influence in Yemen is marginal. It is simply inaccurate to claim that the Houthis are Iranian proxies.” 

Breaking News: Drone strikes set 2 major oil refineries ablaze deep in Saudi Arabia. Houthi rebels in Yemen, who are supported by Iran, claimed responsibility.https://t.co/N8qk7MOdE9

— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 14, 2019

Iran’s assistance “remains limited and far from sufficient to make more than a marginal difference to the balance of forces in Yemen, a country awash with weapons. There is, therefore, no supporting evidence to the claim that Iran has bought itself any significant measure of influence over Houthi decision-making.”

Graham sits on a number of committees—including the Foreign Relations Committee, and he is the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs—so it really isn’t possible he doesn’t know the oft-claimed accusation Iran controls the Houthis is little more than war propaganda.  

But then Graham, as a neocon fellow traveler, is enthusiastically in favor of Israel’s wars in the Middle East. If it takes a few lies to get things moving, so be it. Iran must be bombed because it cannot be allowed to challenge the Zionist apartheid state, and condemn its disruptive behavior, violation of human rights, and relentless agitation for a war that would suck in America and crash an already teetering world economy.  

*

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

Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Things aren’t going well for the US, NATO, Israel, Riyadh, and their jihadist proxies in Yemen.

They’re losing endless war to Ansarullah Houthi rebels, their capabilities much more sophisticated than earlier believed.

Their explosive-laden drones and missiles are able to penetrate Saudi defenses effectively, damaging strategic targets, including kingdom oil fields, its soft underbelly super-wealth producing lifeline.

On Saturday, explosive-laden Houthi drones attacked two Saudi Aramco oil facilities, setting targets struck ablaze — the kingdom’s Abqaiq refinery (the world’s largest) and Khurais oil field.

Both attacks caused huge fires visible from outer space. The facilities are crucial world energy supply chain links.

The attacks halted over five million barrels of crude operations per day, more than half the kingdom’s daily output, around 5% of world oil supply.

Its natural gas production was also affected, halting about half its output. It’s unclear how much damage was done and how long it will take to restore operations.

Along with other strategic kingdom targets, key Saudi oil fields remain vulnerable to repeated attacks as long as Riyadh wages war on Yemen.

A Houthi spokesman claimed responsibility for Saturday’s attacks, saying:

They “carried out a massive offensive operation with ten drones targeting the refineries  Abqaiq and Khurais affiliated to Aramco in the eastern region of Saudi Arabia this morning, and the hit was accurate and direct,” adding:

Houthi attacks on the kingdom are “within the framework of our legitimate and natural right to respond to the crimes of aggression and the ongoing siege on our country for five years.”

“This operation is one of the largest operations carried out by our forces in the depth of Saudi Arabia and came after an accurate intelligence operation and advance monitoring and cooperation of honorable and free mans within the Kingdom.”

“We promise the Saudi regime that our future operations will expand further and be more painful than ever as long as it continues its aggression and siege.”

“We affirm that our goals bank is expanding day by day and that there is no solution for the Saudi regime except to stop the aggression and siege on our country.”

Houthis showed they can back threats with effective action. As long as Saudi warplanes terror-bomb Yemeni targets and blockade on the country remains in place, significant Houthi retaliation on strategic kingdom targets will likely continue.

Endless war cost Riyadh tens of billions of dollars, its economy adversely affected, its 2019 budget deficit expected to be about 7% of GDP, according to the IMF.

Its figures are based of average daily Saudi output of 10.2 million barrels of oil daily, priced at $65.50 on average.

On September 13, Brent crude was below this figure at $60.25 per barrel. If economic conditions weaken ahead, the price could drop sharply.

If Saudi output is reduced significantly for an extended period, oil prices could go much higher.

According to the Wall Street Journal in late August, the Trump regime “is preparing to initiate direct talks with (Ansarullah) Houthi(s) in an effort to end…war…according to (unnamed) people familiar with the plans.”

Before the latest phase of US war in Yemen began in March 2015, The Journal said Obama regime officials “met secretly with Houthi rebels for the first time in Oman to press for a cease-fire,” adding:

“US officials met with Houthi leaders last December in Sweden during United Nations-led peace talks.”

“But there haven’t been any significant direct negotiations since (Trump) took office in 2017, current and former US officials said.”

Its hardliners blame Iran for war in Yemen — launched by Bush/Cheney in late October 2001, weeks after US aggression on Afghanistan began.

Will direct Trump regime/Houthi talks be held now, aiming to end years of war?

Whenever US negotiations are held, its promises are empty time and again — proving its officials can never be trusted.

If war-weary Saudis cease warmaking on Yemen, endless US war will likely continue — directly or indirectly with Pentagon/CIA controlled jihadist proxies, along with drone war.

On Saturday, Pompeo falsely blamed Iran for retaliatory Houthi attacks on Saudi targets, tweeting:

“Tehran is behind nearly 100 attacks on Saudi Arabia (sic) while Rouhani and Zarif pretend to engage in diplomacy (sic).”

“Amid all the calls for de-escalation, Iran has now launched an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply (sic).”

“There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen (sic).” Possibly they came from Houthi-captured Saudi territory along the border between both countries.

“We call on all nations to publicly and unequivocally condemn Iran’s attacks. The United States will work with our partners and allies to ensure that energy markets remain well supplied and Iran is held accountable for its aggression (sic),” Pompeo added.

Time and again, the world’s leading aggressor/human rights abuser USA blames others for its own high crimes.

Pompeo stopped short of urging US strikes on Iranian targets. Neocon Senator Lindsey Graham said: “It is now time for the US to put on the table an attack on Iranian oil refineries…”

On Sunday, Iran’s IRGC Aerospace Force commander Amirali Hajizadeh said the following:

“Everybody should know that all American bases and their aircraft carriers, at a distance of up to 2,000 km around Iran, are within the range of our missiles,” adding:

“Al-Udeid base in Qatar, az-Zafra base in the UAE and a US vessel in the Gulf of Oman would be targeted if Washington took military action.”

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi responded to hostile US accusations, saying:

“The US policy of exerting ‘maximum pressure,’ that apparently failed, veered towards (a) ‘maximum lie’ policy.”

In response to a cut in oil supply following damage to Saudi oil facilities Saturday, the US Energy Department said it’s ready to release oil from its strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) if needed.

According to Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy director Jason Bordoff:

“Oil prices will jump on (Saturday’s) attack, and if the disruption to Saudi production is prolonged, an SPR release…seems likely and sensible.”

If endless war continues, further Houthi attacks on strategic Saudi targets are likely, notably striking its oil producing and refining facilities.

*

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.

Not so much a Desperate House Wife as a desperate mother, a contrite Felicity Huffman, known for playing Lynette Scavo, has been convicted for her role in the university admissions scandal in the United States.  The scene is set for another dramatization, though few can go past the sheer levels of tinkering Huffman was engaged in to have her daughter’s entrance exams marked in 2017.  Money changed hands – $15,000 – a deed that has cost her 250 hours of community service, a $30,000 fine, and 14 days in prison.

The defence had requested a year of probation in lieu of jail time, with the same number of hours of community service and a more modest fine of $20,000.  While not feeling particularly vindictive, the prosecutors suggested that this was just a touch rich, arguing in a memo that “neither probation nor home confinement (in a large home in the Hollywood Hills with an infinity pool) would constitute meaningful punishment or deter others from committing similar crimes.”

Huffman has been the conspicuous face of an admissions furore that should have enticed a yawn rather than any horror.  It involved keen parents; it involved weak willed coaches; it involved generally thick children (the latter have been spared indictments) and it had the mandatory mastermind, William Sanger.  The actress was gracious in punishment, wanting to“especially apologise to the students who work hard every day to get into college, and to their parents who make tremendous sacrifices supporting their children.”  Some fine acting, indeed.

The picture of those 50 or so individuals involved in this rigging matter is not pretty.  It is the usual galling picture of failed meritocracy, an incitement to cheat and hustle your way through life.  Manuel Henriquez, CEO and founder of a Silicon Valley hedge fund in Palo Alto, was proud about how he and his daughter managed to cheat without detection. 

Such scandals are only horrific as brief moments of shock: the ceremonial of it all is how normal it is, the acceptable face of a certain type of corruption.  Money speaks garrulously, and university admissions are little different, seduced by the prospect of chocked bank accounts.  There are ties to pull, people to bribe.   

The means of payments vary, given the sort of packaging that university officials find acceptable.  In India, for instance, the donation is a formidable instrument to smooth the process.  The problem is rife among medical colleges.  Government records, as reported by Reuters in 2015, revealed that 69 Indian medical colleges and teaching hospitals had fallen foul of “rigging entrance exams or accepting bribes to admit students” since 2010. 

There are deeper issues at play.  To manipulate a system, the means to do so, and their assured success, must be present. There must be willing functionaries, questionable processes, and connivance.  The Huffman-University problem is one writ large, a global pandemic of institutional failure.  The Council for Higher Education Accreditation’s recent report noted “the ubiquity and diversity of corruption in higher education, including unethical, inappropriate, sometimes illegal practices” with evidence suggesting “that in every part of the world higher education is affected by corruption to some extent.”  Wonky parents are simply a small component of the sprawling picture.  

Transparency International identifies four grounds fertile for corruption in global higher education: the increase in the number of students which has not been met with adequate state funding; the need for universities to find their own funding; the remorseless pursuit of university rankings, feeble and intellectually questionable as that is; and the grant of “greater administrative autonomy” to universities, detached from the traditional role of education ministries. 

In the US case, examiners were willing to disgorge the answers in certain prominent cases.  Athletic directors happily received cash for favours, forging sporting records that never existed.  In Australia, where education has become an insufferable cash cow, universities of various degrees of standing have been softening standards, going generous on poor results (admitting foreign students, for instance, with scores of 4.5 on the English Language Testing System, when the recommended minimum score is 7). The University of Tasmania went one better in 2018, with an enterprising staff member writing an email noting the waiving of English proficiency altogether as a requirement “to encourage acceptances for July 2018”.  While university officialdom fattens, the thick shall inherent the earth. 

The New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption released a smoulderingly damning report in 2015 making the plain-as-day point that universities had to part business and academic functions.  Intertwining “compliance and profit rather than separating them, and to reward profit over compliance, can be conducive to questionable and corrupt behaviour.”  

This modest and cool assessment has proven idealistic: universities in Australia have conflated this to such a horrendous degree, subordinating toiling academic functions to those of the business model.  This is not helped by the suffocating structures of pseudo-corporate vultures, pecking the institution of needed cash to pad out salaries that verge on the criminal.  Vice Chancellors of limited education but supposedly equipped with acute business sense are prized; irrelevant, over-remunerated Pro-Vice Chancellors with egos the size of kept sporting fields extol “lived” values that seem distinctly dead.  Universities, in other words, cannot be trusted with setting the standards, notably in areas such as English proficiency; the call of the lucre is too strong. 

A convicted parent is purely sacrificial here, ignoring the point that universities are also prone to relaxing (well, breaking) rules and admitting the inappropriate, the under-qualified and the shoddy.  If there is room in prison for the briber, there should just as well be room for the recipient.  Overly keen parents may well desire their children to get a leg up in life (Huffman called it “giving my daughter a fair shot”), splashing generous cash in that endeavour, but it has to find a sympathetic audience.  The corporate university, unscrutinised and policed, supplies it.

*

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

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

It does not bother President Trump the Israelis are spying on him. In fact, he believes it is not true despite evidence to the contrary. Every president since Truman knew about Israel’s aggressive intelligence efforts, but not Trump the Clueless. 

.

.

.

President Donald Trump said he does not believe Israel is spying on the United States after a published report said Israel was most likely behind cellphone surveillance devices found near the White House and elsewhere in Washington. More here: https://t.co/EX762d6ckt pic.twitter.com/kwN0L3Pw2A

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) September 13, 2019

Israel has long spied on its “special friend” the United States. 

More than a decade ago, Christopher Ketcham wrote:

Israel’s spying on the U.S., however, is a matter of public record, and neither conspiracy nor theory is needed to present the evidence. When the FBI produces its annual report to Congress concerning “Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage,” Israel and its intelligence services often feature prominently as a threat second only to China. In 2005 the FBI noted, for example, that Israel maintains “an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States.” A key Israeli method, said the FBI report, is computer intrusion. In 1996, the Defense Intelligence Service, a branch of the Pentagon, issued a warning that “the collection of scientific intelligence in the United States [is] the third highest priority of Israeli Intelligence after information on its Arab neighbors and information on secret U.S. policies or decisions relating to Israel.” In 1979, the Central Intelligence Agency produced a scathing survey of Israeli intelligence activities that targeted the U.S. government. Like any worthy spy service, Israeli intelligence early on employed wiretaps as an effective tool, according to the CIA report. In 1954, the U.S. Ambassador in Tel Aviv discovered in his office a hidden microphone “planted by the Israelis,” and two years later telephone taps were found in the residence of the U.S. military attaché. In a telegram to Washington, the ambassador at the time cabled a warning: “Department must assume that all conversations [in] my office are known to the Israelis.” The former ambassador to Qatar, Andrew Killgore, who also served as a foreign officer in Jerusalem and Beirut, told me Israeli taps of U.S. missions and embassies in the Middle East were part of a “standard operating procedure.”

This well-known fact and betrayal of trust continue without a serious threat of being closed down and the perpetrators facing arrest and prosecution for espionage. 

Despite the discovery of cellphone eavesdropping Stingrays placed around DC and intelligence assessments indicating the devices are linked to Israel, Trump has taken Bibi Netanyahu’s word that Israel is not involved. 

PM Netanyahu has denied a media report stating Israel spied on mobile phones in the vicinity of the White House – and US President Trump said he believed him https://t.co/HVsWLbEMjJ pic.twitter.com/xx743HHyn8

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) September 13, 2019

The fact of Israeli penetration into the country is not a subject oft-discussed in the media or in the circles of governance, due to the extreme sensitivity of the U.S.-Israel relationship coupled with the burden of the Israel lobby, which punishes legislators who dare to criticize the Jewish state. 

While Israel and others (most notably China) steal US technology secrets, the Zionist state is more interested—despite the embarrassment of the Epstein affair—in maintaining a sex and blackmail scheme to make certain Congress supports Israel’s ethnic cleansing, the sniper murder of children, medics, and journalists, a wholesale theft of land and a mountain of UN resolutions condemning the Zionist state for a large list of crimes against humanity. 

It’s an easy decision for the average Congress critter—tote the criminal Israeli line or face election defeat, a ruined career, maybe even a video surfacing of Joe McDemopublican having sex with a boy or girl.

A report leaked in 2015 reveals how Israel exploits sex as an intelligence tool. 

A section dealing with the operational practices of Israeli field intelligence officers says Mossad puts no pressure on female agents to use sex as a “weapon” but it is expected. It adds: “If sexual blackmail or entrapment is an integral part of the mission, however, Mossad often employs actual prostitutes.”

There is less hesitation among Mossad chiefs about using male agents to become intimate with embassy secretaries, airline stewardesses and others who might provide valuable information.

This is lightweight stuff compared to sexually compromising a president, as Israel did when Bill Clinton was president. In Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad, Gordon Thomas writes that Israeli intelligence tapped Clinton’s phone and taped his sex-talk conversations with Monica Lewinsky, who may or may not have been a Mossad plant in the White House. 

The real Mossad operative in the WH was known as MEGA. “So far as anyone knows, the Israeli agent MEGA—a much more important spy than the imprisoned CIA traitor Jonathan Pollard, and probably his controller—is still in place at the White House,” the author told The New York Post in 1999. 

Both the FBI and independent counsel Kenneth Starr refused to look into the Israeli spying and potential blackmail of a sitting US president.

However, it isn’t merely presidents and members of Congress under Israel surveillance—it turns out millions of Americans were also being snooped on by the Zionist state through Comverse Infosys, a now-defunct Israeli technology company that provided hardware and software systems for voice and fax messaging. 

Nancy Murray writes for Mondoweiss:

Thanks to the investigative work done by pioneering analyst of the NSA James Bamford in his book The Shadow Factory and numerous articles, journalists Christopher Ketcham and Carl Cameron in his Fox News four-part report on Israeli spying in the US soon after 9/11, we know that the products of several Israel-originated companies with alleged ties to Israel intelligence (especially its secretive version of the NSA, Unit 8200) and military services appear to have been embedded in US communications systems well before 9/11 and, in the words of former commander of Unit 8200, “dominate the U.S. eavesdropping and surveillance market.”

Meanwhile, we’re told by the state’s propaganda media that Russia is the problem. Israel and its control over the election process in America through blackmail and intimidation are rarely if ever mentioned. 

“Since the late 1990s, federal agents have reported systemic communications security breaches at the Department of Justice, FBI, DEA, the State Department, and the White House.  Several of the alleged breaches, these agents say, can be traced to two hi-tech communications companies, Verint Inc. (formerly Comverse Infosys), and Amdocs Ltd.,” writes Ketcham for Counterpunch. 

Both companies are based in Israel—having arisen to prominence from that country’s cornering of the information technology market—and are heavily funded by the Israeli government, with connections to the Israeli military and Israeli intelligence (both companies have a long history of board memberships dominated by current and former Israeli military and intelligence officers).   

Trump is followed closely by Israeli intelligence, same as any other president over the last 70 years. This, however, isn’t really necessary. The Trump administration has demonstrated it is a resting place for Israel-first neocons. John Bolton may be out—basically because he argued with Trump—but Israeli minders are all around this president. 

The Stingrays planted around Washington monitoring government calls are no longer operational—if we can believe the corporate media—but that’s a minor loss considering Israel basically controls US foreign policy in the Middle East. 

The Mossad and Epstein’s child rape ring is now fading from view, replaced by less important stories, and the various blackmail operations will continue, having cleared the hurdle. No big names will be revealed from Epstein’s black book. The same will happen with this latest revelation about duplicitous Israelis and their underhanded and criminal efforts to compromise the US government and its officials. It will be swept into the memory hole and it will once again be business as usual. 

Bibi Netanyahu’s latest threat to launch a massive invasion of the Gaza Strip and finally eliminate Hamas—which Israel helped establish as a way to counter the Palestinian Liberation Organization—as part of a desperate election ploy, may finally precipitate the sort of widespread death and destruction across the Middle East the Zionists have planned for decades. The Greater Israel scheme depends on balkanized neighboring states and endless ethnic and sectarian violence among Arab and Muslims. 

If total war breaks out—taking down the world economy—the latest Israeli snooping caper will be little more than a footnote, no different than past Israeli spying ops, the strafing of a US ship, and dancing Mossad agents joyously celebrating the murder of 3,000 people on September 11, 2001.  

*

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

Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

“The worst act of terrorism in the history of our country which claimed almost 3000 innocent lives and which dramatically altered the course of our nation and the world and it had a proposed deadline of just 18 months which was extended by two months, and it had an initial budget of just 3 million dollars. Remember what the chairman and the vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission said. They were set up to fail, and they were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. Who could have imagined that?”

– 9/11 first responder Christopher Gioia, [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

A generation has now passed since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The Official 9/11 Commission, overseen by co-chairs Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton published its final report in August of 2004. Yet in the 15 years since that report was released, much of the public remains unconvinced that this body truly got to the bottom of the attack which directly led to the deaths of thousands of people in the United States, including first responders.

This act of terrorism, and the official explanation that it was a sneak attack by Islamic militants, was used to justify a ‘Global War on Terrorism’ which has so far come with a price tag of almost six trillion U.S. dollars, and human cost of roughly half a million souls. [2]

Many independent researchers have arrived at the conclusion that the official explanation is false, and that a new investigation is in order. One of these groups of researchers is the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. On their website is a petition with the names of over 3,000 architects and engineers along with over 23,000 members of the general public who doubt the veracity of the official account and are demanding a new investigation.

On September 11, 2017, 9/11 family members together with Architects and Engineers would announce draft legislation to re-investigate the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers.

In April 2018, legal professionals with the Lawyers’ Comittee for 9/11 Inquiry initiated a process that will see a Federal Grand Jury review the evidence not considered by the 9/11 Commission.

In July of 2019, Franklin Square and Munson Fire District just outside of Queens in New York City became the first legislative body in the United States to officially support a new investigation into the events of 9/11, following a unanimous vote by all five of its commissioners.

And on September 3, 2019, a brand new draft study was released to the public which conducted a detailed reevaluation of what caused the third World Trade Center tower, Building 7, to collapse at 5:20 in the afternoon despite never having been struck by an airplane. The report found that, contrary to the finding by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), fires in the structure could not have been the cause of the collapse.

On this week’s Global Research News Hour radio program, at the end of the week marking the 18th anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks, we update listeners on efforts to not only expose the truth of what happened, but also to achieve justice for the victims at home and abroad.

In the first half hour of the program, former guest Richard Gage, AIA of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is joined by Barbara Honegger of the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry to provide some background on the Grand Jury petition, the lobbying of members of Congress, the fire fighters call for a new investigation, and ongoing lobbying of legislators.

In our second half hour we will hear part of the presentation from fire commissioner and 9/11 first responder Christopher Gioia as heard during a September 11, 2019 news conference in Washington D.C. (See video below.)

Finally, we will hear an in depth interview with Professor Leroy Hulsey, the lead researcher in the WTC7 collapse reevaluation study, in which he points out the erroneous assumptions and conclusions in NIST’s report.

Barbara Honegger, M.S. is a Board member with the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, and a leading researcher, author and public speaker on 9/11. Honegger  served as White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, Director of the Attorney General’s Law Review at the Dept. of Justice, and for more than a decade was the Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School. She also wrote the 1989 book October Surprise: Did the Reagan-Bush election campaign sabotage President Carter’s attempts to free the American hostages in Iran?

Richard Gage, AIA, is an international speaker, a San Francisco Bay Area architect, a member of the American Institute of Architects, and the founder and CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. An architect for over 30 years, he has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed, steel-framed buildings.

Christopher Gioia is a fire Commissioner with the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District in New York City and a 9/11 first responder. In July 2019, Gioia drafted and introduced the resolution adopted by his fire district to re-open the investigation into the 9/11 events.

J. Leroy Hulsey is a Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). His research is in the fields of bridge engineering and effects of temperature extremes on structural systems like composite wall panels for buildings. Dr. Hulsey has owned and run three high-tech engineering-research corporations. Dr. Hulsey also taught at the University of Missouri Rolla, and North Carolina State University. He has also served as Head of the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering at the UAF.

Be sure to check out Global Research’s dossier on 9/11:

THE 9/11 READER. The September 11, 2001 Terror Attacks 

(Global Research News Hour Episode 268)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

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

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

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=707&v=HLW0_wCYyqY
2. https://www.statista.com/chart/16125/the-cost-of-the-war-on-terror/

The IMF, has been instrumental in helping destroying the economy of a myriad of countries, notably, and to start with, the new Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, Greece, Ukraine and lately Argentina, to mention just a few. Madame Christine Lagarde, as chief of the IMF had a heavy hand in the annihilation of at least the last three mentioned.

She is now taking over the Presidency of the European Central Bank (ECB). There, she expects to complete the job that Mario Draghi had started but was not quite able to finish: Further bleeding the economy of Europe, especially southern Europe into anemia.

Let’s see what we may have in store – to come.

Negative interest, we have it already – it’s the latest banking fraud stealing money from depositors to give to large borrowers. It’s a reverse cross-subsidy, the poor financing the rich. That’s the essence. It’s a new form of moving money from the bottom to the top. Now, a Danish bank has launched the world’s first negative interest rate mortgage. It provides mortgages to home owners for a negative rate of 0.5%. The bank pays borrowers to take some money off their books. Of course, as usual, only relatively well-off people can become home owners and benefit from this reverse cross-subsidy. It is a token gesture, duping the public at large into believing that they are benefitting from the new banking stint. The bulk of such operations serve large corporations.

The borrower pays back less than the full loan amount. Switzerland may soon go into the direction of Denmark. Bank deposits with central banks pay negative interest almost everywhere in the western world, except in the US – yet. It’s only a question of time until the average consumer will have to reimburse the banks for their central bank deposit expenses, meaning, the customers are getting negative interest on their deposits. That’s inflation camouflage. A sheer fraud, but all made legal by a system that runs amok, that does not follow any ethics or legal standards. A totally deregulated western private banking system, compliments of the 1990s Clinton Administration, and, of course, his handlers. As Professor Michael Hudson calls it, financial barbarism. We are haplessly enslaved in this aberrant ever more abusive private – fiat money – banking shenaniganism.

RT’s Max Keiser recently interviewed Karl Denninger of Market-Ticker.org. Denninger told Keiser, “Negative yielding bond is forced inflationary instrument: you buy it, you’re guaranteed inflation in the amount of a negative yield.” He blasted the tool as plain “theft” by any government that issues these bonds, which is done in an effort to nominally expand a country’s GDP. “If the government is issuing more in sovereign debt their GDP is expanding in nominal terms. If you have negative interest rates on those government bonds, you’re creating excess space for the government to run the fiscal deficit […] in excess of GDP expansion. Nobody in any civilized nation should allow this to happen because it is theft, on the scale of that differential, from everybody in the economy,”

—–

To make sure the little saver doesn’t think about depositing his savings under his matrass or in a hole in the ground instead of bringing it to the bank, money will be digitized and cash will disappear. Madame Lagarde has already more than hinted at that, when she gave a pre-departure speech at the IMF – explaining on how she sees the future of monetary banking. The future, according to her, being no more than 15 to 20 years away, is a no-cash society. Just enough time for the elder generations – those that may still feel an instinct of rejection and have some consciousness about personal privacy, those that may resist money digitization – may have died out. The young, up-and-coming age groups may be brainwashed enough to find a cashless society so cool.

Since Madame Lagarde is moving to head the ECB in Frankfurt, it is fair to assume that Europe will be one of the largest test grounds for digitized money, i.e. towards a cashless society. In fact, it is already a test ground – many department stores and other shops in Nordic countries – Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland – do no longer accept cash, only electronic money. In Denmark already up of 80% of all monetary transactions are made digitally.

Imagine, for your chewing gum wrapper, pack of cigarette, or candy bar, you swipe a card in front of an electronic eye – and bingo, you have paid, not touching any money – “that’s mega cool!” – That’s what the young people may think, oblivious to leaving a trail of personal data behind, among them their bank account details, their GPS-geared location, what they are shopping, a pattern of data that is in ten years-time expected to amount to about 70,000 points of information about an individual’s characteristics, emotions, preferences, photos, personal contacts… what Cambridge Analytica in the superb documentary “The Great Hack” revealed as already today on average 5,000 points of data per citizen. The system will know you inside out better than you know yourself. And you will be exposed to algorithms that know exactly how to influence every action, every move of yours. Cool!

That, combined with face recognition which is advancing rapidly around the globe, will be super cool.
—-

A horrendous trial on how an entire country, India, with the world’s second largest population, may react to demonization, was introduced in 2016 by President Modi, bending to the pressure of the western financial system, with support of the IMF and implementation funding by USAID. It amounted in a disastrous and cruel demonetization, invalidating almost over-night the most popular 100 Rupee (Rs) bank note, replacing it with a 200 Rs note – which in most places, especially in rural towns, where banks are scarce, was not available. Never mind that less than half of the Indian population has a bank account, where the bank note exchange transactions had to be carried out.

The sudden disappearance of the most popular bank note – more than 80% of all monetary cash transactions in India took place in 100 Rs notes – was a proxy to digitization of money. Countless people starved to death especially in rural areas, because their 100 Rs were declared worthless and became unacceptable to buy food

(see also http://www.globalresearch.ca/india-death-by-demonetization-financial-genocide-the-crime-of-the-century/5569859).

——

The 340,000 citizens of Iceland have already a fully digitized e-ID, now moving towards a mobile ID, i.e. accessible through your smart phone – uniting every possible data that belongs to you, from medical records to insurance policies, all the way to dog, cat and car registrations – you name it. Most say they trust their government and are not unhappy with their divulging their most intimate data. Many have no or little idea, though, to what extent the private sector is involved in setting up such a hermetic countrywide data bank for the government. – Even if the regulator is within the government and you trust your government, how much can you trust the profit-oriented private sector in protecting your data?

The surveillance state that you, among other clandestine intrusions into your privacy, will allow by willy-nilly accepting digitization of money, and eventually digitization of your entire private data, pales Orwell’s imagination of “1984”. Every citizen is registered in every western “security agency’s” electronic data bank – and of course those of the empire and Middle East affiliate, Israel, CIA, NSA, FBI, Mossad – and so on – no escaping anymore.

It just so happens that you, dear citizen, are oblivious to all of what is going on behind your back, since your attention will be captured by massive marketing and directed towards the nefarious machinations of the corporate elite ruled, globalized world, making you an eternal and ever-more intense consumer. You must spend the last penny of your income on trendy stuff, all those fashion things that will be pumped non-stop day-in-day-out into your brain, what’s left of it, by propaganda on television, radio, electronic cartoon-like billboards, internet – and that at every turn you take. And let’s not forget sports events – they increase every year and are the most direct deviation tactic take-over from the Roman Empire.

The most aberrant trends will be cool, like shredded jeans, for which you pay a premium, body-paintings, called tattoos, footballer hair styles, because they are fashionable and your looks are key to fit into a standardized, globalized society that has seized thinking for itself – no more interest in politics, in what your non-democratically elected representatives decide for you. It’s what Noam Chomsky calls the marginalization of the populace.

You are made believe that you are living in a democracy where you can do what you want, shop what you want, watch what you want, and even when the elections or occasional referenda are offered to request your opinions, you are cheated into believing your choice is free. Of course, it is not. It is all programmed. Algorithms drawing on your profile of 70,000 points of information on emotions, desires and dreams, will clandestinely help the ‘system’ to enslave, cheat and master you – and you won’t even notice.

That’s where we are headed, largely thanks to digitalization of money – but not only, because surveillance will also follow all your steps on internet, on facebook, twitter, Instagram, Whatsapp – and many more of those especially created marketing tools, implanted in societies’ social media, that make life and communication so much easier.

And there is more to digital money. Much more. In 2014, the unelected European Commission (EC) has put on its books of regulations, following a similar decree in the US, the rule that an overextended  bankrupt too-big-to-fail private bank will no longer be rescued by the state, by your tax money – which used to be called a “bail-out”. Instead, there will be “bail-ins”, meaning that the bank will seize your deposits, your savings and sanitize itself with money stolen from you. You have no choice, there will be no ‘run on the banks’ – because there is no cash to withdraw. We have seen signs of this when Greece collapsed after 2010, and cash machines spitting out no more than 20 € per day – if at all. For many of Greek citizens – especially the poorer class living from day to day – this meant often cruel starvation.

Bail-ins are little talked about, but they happen already today and ever more so. In 2014, the Austrian bank Hypo Alpe Adria – the Heta Asset Resolution AG, was given green light by the Austrian Banking Regulator, the Austrian Financial Market Authority (FMA), to refinance itself by a so-called “haircut” of an average 54%, meaning, stealing 54% of depositors’ money

(see also https://www.mondialisation.ca/austria-just-announced-a-54-haircut-of-senior-creditors-in-first-bail-in-under-new-eu-rules/5520162).

But the first and largest “haircut” test took place in Cyprus, when in 2013 the Bank of Cyprus depositors lost about 47.5% in a “haircut” to bail out their bank. Of course, the big sharks were forewarned, so they could withdraw their money in time and transfer it abroad

(see also https://www.globalresearch.ca/infringing-upon-the-eurozones-sovereignty-on-behalf-of-wall-street-the-ecbs-haircut-measures-undermining-trade-and-investment-with-russia-and-china/5412477

and

https://www.globalresearch.ca/retrenchment-robotization-and-crypto-currencies-the-runaway-train-towards-full-digitization-of-money-and-labor/5624050).

It could get worse. The state, tax authority, an institution, a corporation says you owe them money which you deny, possibly for a good reason – but they have access to your bank account and just seize the amount they pretend is their due. You are powerless against these tyrannical monsters and may have to hire expensive legal service to get your stolen money back – if at all. Because the “system” is run by the “system”. And once that level has been reached, a form of Full Spectrum Dominance, a key target of the PNAC (Plan for a New American Century), there is hardly any escaping. That has all happened already, in front of our publicity-blinded eyes, little spoken about, the trend is growing – and this even without necessarily a digitized world.

Is it that the kind of society you want?
———-

Then there are the rather prominent gurus who bet on gold and bitcoins to replace the faltering dollar, like a last-ditch solution. None of them is any more viable than the fiat dollar. Gold is highly volatile due to its vulnerability for manipulation – as it is largely controlled bit the BIS (Bank for International Settlement, in Basle, Switzerland, also called the central bank of all central banks, and yes, the same bank that helped the FED finance Hitler’s war against the Soviet Union – so you see where this bank is coming from). It is entirely privately owned and largely controlled by the Rothschild clan. And as an associated side note – few people talk about it, there is in excess of 100 times more paper gold in circulation than you could ever cash in, if you needed it. It is another one of those bank-invented ‘derivative’ bubbles that will explode and serve to enrich them when the time is ripe.

Bitcoins, the most prominent of some 3,000 to 4,000 cryptocurrencies flooding the world, is totally unreliable. A year after it was created in 2008 allegedly by an unknown person or group of people using the name Satoshi Nakamoto, bitcoin’s value in 2009 was US$ 0.08, It gradually rose and eventually jumped in December 2017 briefly above US$ 20,000, but dropped within a year to about US$ 3,500. Today bitcoin is hovering around US$ 9,500 (August / September 2019). Bitcoin – along with other cryptocurrencies – is highly speculative, lends itself to Mafia-type money-laundering and other fraudulent transactions. It is about equivalent to fiat money and certainly inept to be the backing for a monetary system.

And let’s not forget, the latest Facebook initiative – a cryptocurrency, the Libra, to be launched in 2020 out of Geneva, Switzerland – is expected to dominate within a few years 70% to 80% of the international money market. You see, the same clan that has been manipulating and cheating you with the dollar, is now ‘banking’ on you falling for the Facebook currency – as it will be so easy to use your smart phone for any kind of monetary transaction, thus, avoiding traditional predatory banking. Looks like a good thing at the outside – right? – Nope! It’s entirely privately owned and run by an unscrupulous mafia that is being set up to continue milking the masses for the benefits of an ever-smaller elite.

There is however a role for blockchain cryptocurrencies, to circumvent private banking, those that are government controlled and regulated. China and Russia are about to launch their government-controlled cryptocurrencies and others – Iran, Venezuela, India – are following in the same steps. But they all ban privately run cryptocurrencies in their countries – and rightly so. A combination of government-regulated blockchain cryptos and public banking, where no private profits are in the fore, but rather the wellbeing of the citizen and the country’s economy, may be a viable solution into a new monetary scheme, protected from the kleptocracy of western banking.
—–

Desperation about the dollar losing its world hegemony is growing – and growing fast. To salvage the western fiat monetary system, Madame Lagarde and others are also talking about some kind of Special Drawing Rights (SDR) to replace the dollar as a reserve currency, since there is no escaping – the dollar as reserve currency is doomed. The current IMF SDR basket consists of five currencies, the US-dollar (weighing 41.73%), the British Pound (8.02%) the Euro (30.93%), the Japanese Yen (8.33%) and since 2017 the Chinese Yuan, the currency of the world’s largest economy compared by Purchasing Power GDP (10.92%).

At this point thinking of any reshuffling of the SDR basket’s contents is purely speculative. However, it can easily be assumed that the dollar would remain in a very prominent position within the basket, as it should remain the leading hegemon of world economy. Let’s not forget, The US Treasury controls the IMF with an absolute veto, in other words – 100%. It can also be assumed that the Chinese Yuan would either be kicked out altogether or would be given a minor weight in the basket, so to diminish its role. If this was to become the chosen option by the US Treasury, it could and probably might prompt China to withdraw the Yuan from the SDR basket, as the Yuan does no longer need SDR recognition in the world to be considered a primary reserve currency.

Unless this is stealthily done – outside of public sight and in disguise of countries still holding major US-dollar reserves, the world would unlikely accept such an alternative, especially since it is widely known among treasurers of countries around the globe that the Chinese Yuan is rapidly raising to become the key world reserve currency.

As reported by William Engdahl’s analytical essay “Is the Fed Preparing to Topple the US Dollar?” – , the outgoing Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, delivered at the recent annual meeting of central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, a set of ideas that went into a similar direction, towards a shift away from the dominant role of the US dollar as a reserve currency. Similar to Mme. Lagarde’s earlier remarks about an SDR-type reserve currency, he made it understood that though, the Chinese Yuan, the currency of the key trading nation, may have a role in the basket, it would – for now – not be an important one. He also was clear about the current disturbing and destabilizing imbalance – where a faltering dollar still pretends to hold the hegemonic scepter over the world economy.

Keeping the dollar still in a leading role, while the US economy is declining, was no longer a viable option for an increasingly globalized world economy. Carney was hinting at a multipolar monetary and reserve system for a multipolar globalized world. Similar remarks came from former New York Federal Reserve Bank chief, Bill Dudley. However, Dudley, hinted that for the United States to give up her dollar dominance, the backbone for her world hegemony, may not come voluntarily. Might that lead to a major, maybe armed world conflict?

Much of this is speculation from the western perspective. It is however clear, that there is a tremendous and mounting uneasiness about the western, dollar-based fiat monetary system, backed by nothing, not even by the western economy. You compare this with the Chinese Yuan and the Russian Ruble, both backed by gold and – more importantly – by their own economy. It becomes increasingly clear that much of the speculation and efforts by influential central banking figures to save the western monetary Ponzi scheme, maybe just propaganda to calm the minds of western financiers – holding them back from jumping ship.

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

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

First published by the New Eastern Outlook – NEO

The entities rolling out 5G are tormenting humanity and sucking their humanity from them by taking their minds and their health, while on the other side, you have the zombie apocalypse of all the people with their 4G cell phones, blindly going about destroying the world. 

The 4G zombie apocalypse lot have to wake up.  They need to wake up now before it is too late and time is of the essence. 

***

It is time we asked a crucial question. How did we come to be in this 5G mad zone, poised to self-destruct? How on earth did we get here?

It appears that every expansion of the use of electricity since the 19^th century correlates with drastic rises in all the modern diseases of civilization,[i] but this information has been kept from the public in order not to impede commercial profit, military expansion and universal convenience.[ii]

Since 100+ years of quantum physics has had little to no impact on the way we live our lives or how we perceive reality, we in the West still labour under the illusion that our bodies are made up of lumps of discrete matter that can be conveniently excised by a surgeon’s knife when they go wrong, this having been established in the 19^th century by a grave-robbing spree to collect corpses for surgical experiments.[iii] Since no one seems to have considered the possibility that a living body might differ significantly from a dead one, this crude experimentation formed the foundation for the system that we now call Western medicine.[iv] All traditional and ancient healing wisdom based on a holistic view of a living body was outlawed by enforcing membership of a “professional body”.[v] In an inversion typical of our Western thinking, natural healing methods dating back thousands of years could then be termed not “traditional”, but “alternative” and “backward”.

Taking advantage of this – let us charitably call it an induced misconception – our militaries discovered that microwave weapons could be deployed silently and secretly to “defend us” from alleged enemies or perhaps for some more sinister purpose.[vi] They gleefully amassed compendia of thousands of studies,[vii][viii] many done in the Soviet bloc,[ix] in order to solidify their knowledge of the many and varied types of biological damage that these weapons could inflict on human beings at very little cost or inconvenience to those deploying them.

There was even a symposium organized by the World Health Organization in 1973 to discuss The Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation,[x] but the participants must have subsequently decided not to share this information with the public in view of their intelligent propensity to suspect that one day microwave weapons might be turned on them.

Instead of informing the public that their bodies were, in fact, not solid at all but entirely electrical,[xi] these military and industrial entities kept secret all their thousands of studies on the biological effects of microwaves.[xii]

They established regulatory bodies with grand names intended to impress the public, filled them with industry and military stooges,[xiii][xiv]and set electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure limits so high that it would be impossible to exceed them,[xv] similar to setting car speed limits at a million miles/kilometres per hour. Russia’s public exposure standards are 100 times more stringent than those in the US.[xvi]

The self-proclaimed international commission on non-ionizing radiation protection (icnirp), which is an NGO with no international or official status that appoints its own members with no oversight or transparency and protects no one from anything, while disclaiming all liability on its website for any of its pronouncements,[xvii] sets non-legally enforceable and astronomically high exposure guidelines that are time-averaged over 6 minutes to avoid taking peak pulsations into account and thereby falsify exposure calculations. What a pity no one told Jackie Kennedy about the 6-minute average when that magic bullet changed her life![xviii] How different history might have been! These implausible guidelines are embraced enthusiastically by the WHO and the International Telecommunication Union, both UN bodies, and most of the world’s governments, with no basis in law.

4G uses 2.45 GHz, which has been shown in more than 100 studies to cause a wide variety of severe damage to the body and nature at levels below the so-called safety guidelines of icnirp.[xix]

.[xx]

They have published pictures of plastic mannequin heads filled with gel that they put probes inside to demonstrate the heating effect. “Look at our wonderful science!”, they seem to say, “The mannequin head has suffered no ill-effects!  Why should you worry?”[xxi]

Of course, there were people who spent a lot of time exposed to EMR through computer screens or other devices, who started to complain of illnesses. This was not good because it could affect the sales of electrical products and impede the military developing ever more sophisticated weapons, so the corrupt WHO just called these people mad:[xxii] on its website, it claimed that the EMR-related symptoms experienced by millions of people worldwide “may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself”. Any apparent rise in cancer rates is rapidly attributed to improved diagnostic techniques rather than the more obvious true cause of exposure to an environmental toxin.

This was a good solution, for such people could not use machines to communicate to anyone else that they were experiencing health problems, and in fact even more conveniently, they became societal outcasts because many of them became homeless, living in cars in the woods where there was no EMR. And thus it was that almost no one learned that there was any problem.[xxiii]

As you would expect, there were a few scientists who didn’t care for the idea of  getting paid lots of money to tell lies that kill people and they started to try to advertise the truth, but it’s not difficult to arrange for them to lose their jobs or their study funding to silence them.[xxiv] All you need do then is simply buy up the media and pay journalists to dismiss tens of thousands of awkward scientific studies on the basis that they do not provide “solid”, “real”, “proven”, ”credible”, “convincing”, ”conclusive”, “valid” or “established” evidence. And you employ pliable scientists to “war-game” the science by producing studies that show inconclusive results.

As time went on, the military wanted industry to develop better weapons for them, but this was expensive, and frankly it was becoming quite difficult to convince the public that there were that many enemies that they needed to be protected from. A lot of effort was put into creating and funding so-called terrorists, but it didn’t do much good because the public didn’t need to make much effort to realise that they were way less likely to be killed by a terrorist than by a lightning bolt, which is pretty unlikely in the first place.[xxv]

So the military and industry had a brilliant idea.[xxvi] What about commercialising this weapons technology as a communications technology that they could sell to the public, and then the public would pay for all the research and development of new and improved weapons?[xxvi]

Even better, they knew that cell phones would be addictive so everyone would want a phone.[xxvii] And they would be able to control people’s minds and tell them what to think, what to do and what to buy.[xxviii],[xxix] You could have complete physical surveillance inside and outside people’s homes.[xxx] How perfect! You could have a completely orderly society, with no one complaining about how eight people had accumulated wealth equal to that possessed by half the population of the planet.[xxxi] And if one in two children become autistic,[xxxii] they will make really efficient, robotic workers, will always be happy and never make trouble! We see endless articles saying it makes good business sense.[xxxiii]

After the kleptocracy of neoliberal economics,[xxxiv][xxxv] during which everything that could be stolen was stolen, all that is left is to consume the consumer him- or herself.  Companies like Facebook are designed to do just that and Zuckerberg regards consumers as “dumb fucks” for giving away their information for free.[xxxvi]

Already in 1981, icnirp’s predecessor organization, irpa, acknowledged that general population exposure from man-made sources of microwave and radiofrequency (RF) radiation exceeded that from natural sources by many orders of magnitude.[xxxvii] In 1999, Dr. George L. Carlo warned that the occurrence of brain cancer and certain types of tumours among cellular phone users was twice that of non-users so that consumers could make an “informed judgment about how much of this unknown risk they wish to assume in their use of wireless phones”. His evidence was suppressed.[xxxviii]

Work done by Russian and Ukrainian researchers published in a US review in 2001 established that, during the previous 50 years, the round-the-clock power of radio emissions had increased by a factor of more than 50,000.[xxxix] The same paper discussed the development of psychic disturbances under EMR exposure showing effects ranging from changes in mood to nonsensical ideas and aural and visual hallucinations, and disturbances in behaviour all the way to attempts at suicide.

While people’s minds are disturbed by their exposure to EMR, the mainstream media plies them with blanket coverage of Greta Thunberg fear-porning about an unsubstantiated 12 years until doomsday from non-existent anthropogenic climate change in order to persuade them that they need a totalitarian, world government that can guarantee their safety in uncertain times.[xl],[xli][xlii]

Populations have been discombobulated by 25 years of cell phone use, 12 of them under intense “smart” phone attack. Parents are so fascinated by their phones that their children drown in swimming pools right in front of them.[xliii] More and more people walk out into the road when a car is coming or fall over or down something while peering into “smart’ phones.[xliv] We hear of adverse effects on learning, attention, and behaviour.[xlv] Children are being exposed to magnetic fields from cell phones that breach WHO’s recommended 0.3μT safety limit by a factor of 20,000.[xlvi]

Meanwhile, insurance companies, which presumably have to protect their existence by keeping a grip on reality, refuse to insure against EMF injuries or damage.

The deployment of 5G is presented by militaries, governments[xlvii] and commercial entities as a race in which the winner takes all. Why should such a dangerous and completely untested technology have to be rolled out so quickly? Could it be that the Internet is empowering people who are increasingly impoverished to open their eyes about the kleptocrats who plunder the planet? Could it be that the true health effects of 25 years of cell phone use cannot much longer be hidden?[xlviii]

Whatever the reason, Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex has revealed itself in the 5G project, showing its hand clearly in the crossover between the two, including in the regulatory agencies (see image below showing affiliations of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) meeting participants).[xlix] The limited frequencies available have to be shared among commercial and military entities.

Thus 25 years of diminishing mental capacity among populations due to irradiation facilitated by the lie of the thermal hypothesis, combined with the apparent urgency to protect ill-gotten gains and prevent populations awakening to the truth and flexing their muscles to redress the power balance have conspired to produce a mad free-for-all – a licence to irradiate without constraint from every corner of the planet and from above our heads.

Technicians have been given free rein to dream up ways of attacking populations: from under manhole covers; from cabinets on the street; from lamp posts that blast blue light with no more diffusers,[l] as well as 5G EMR in laser-like beams; from adhesive strips of tiny but powerful antennas hidden under carpets; on the street; in trains; in planes; in cars; in buses; blasting through the walls of our homes; from our television sets; from fridges, hairdryers, milk cartons, babies’ diapers, baby monitors, “smart” phones, “smart” meters, and soon from the billions of devices that are planned to be connected to the Internet of Things. This is not to mention the plethora of “wearables” and cell phone apps that purport to help you monitor your health status while seriously undermining it. The plan is to beam 5G down to Earth from satellites in the Earth orbits, from networked civil aircraft, from pseudosatellites in the stratosphere … In other words, from everywhere. The stated plan and the word trumpeted in the 5G literature is to “blanket” every inch of the Earth, with no escape for any of the approximately 100 million people worldwide already made sick by the toxic environment supplied courtesy of the first to fourth generations of WiFi, to which 5G will be additional.

There will also be no escape for the trees,[li] which have to go as they block the 5G signals and risk interrupting the continuous signals essential for self-driving vehicles,[lii] nor for the birds,[liii] the insects[liv] or the food chain.[lv] Any remnants of a sane, balanced, calm and quiet life will be wiped out by 5G, 4G, 3G, or any other G of wireless technology. We are complicit in our own destruction and, worse, in the wanton destruction of all life on this Earth.

Greed, fear, stupidity and hubris have brought us to this point, complemented by inanity, laziness, complacency and unconsciousness.

The 5G Dementors are closing In for the kill. The question is whether the people choosing to play out the 4G Zombie Apocalypse on their “smart” phones can tear themselves away long enough to care.  If they can, or if at least some of them can, they need to understand certain realities:

1. There is no safe limit for artificial EMR. It is alien to our biology.
2. Cell phones were never tested for health or safety and we should not be using them.[lvi] They destroy us, our children,[lvii] our fertility, our minds and our planetary home. Convenient they may be, but they have to go.
3. WiFi was never tested for health or safety and we should not be using it. It destroys us, our children, our fertility, our minds and our planetary home. Convenient it may be, but it has to go.
4. The problem with cell phones and WiFi has nothing to do with power levels. Wireless technology cannot be made safe by reducing the power. There are effects at near-zero power, and for some effects, there is an inverse power relationship, i.e. the lower the power, the worse the harm.
5. Electricity has been killing us slowly since its introduction. We need to constrain its use, not expand it. Fibre-optic cable enables 5G. If you don’t want 5G because it’s dangerous, don’t build the infrastructure that it depends on.
6. Our bodies function on biophotons. Blue light from car headlamps and street lights– both of which for some unexplained reason suddenly are no longer fitted with diffusers[lviii]– is blinding and then killing us and the biosphere. Modulating light for LiFi would kill us faster and possibly even more effectively than 5G.[lix]
7. There is one solution only to the problems of WiFi, cell phones and 5G: STOP USING THEM. All the time you pretend to ask the telcos to stop building this infrastructure while you pay them to do so, you are sending the wrong message.
8. Wake up! Choose life!Choose love!  Choose the Earth! 

• Smash your phone
• Get a landline
• Cable your computer
• OR … you could keep your portable not-smart-at-all computer, just as long as it is never connected to WiFi and not killing life on this planet.

It’s not rocket science. 

It’s just simple common sense.

*

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.

Claire Edwards, BA Hons, MA, worked for the United Nations as Editor and Trainer in Intercultural Writing from 1999 to 2017. Claire warned the Secretary-General about the dangers of 5G during a meeting with UN staff in May 2018, calling for a halt to its rollout at UN duty stations.  She part-authored, designed, administered the 30 language versions, and edited the entirety of the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space (www.5gspaceappeal.org) and vigorously campaigned to promote it throughout 2019. In January 2020, she severed connection with the Appeal when its administrator, Arthur Firstenberg, joined forces with a third-party group, stop5ginternational, which brought itself into disrepute at its foundation by associating with the Club of Rome/Club of Budapest eugenicist movement. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[i] Arthur Firstenberg. The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life(summary). Available at https://www.5gexposed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/English-Summary-of-The-Invisible-Rainbow-A-History-of-Electricity-and-Life-3.pdf.

[ii] Microwave Weapons Expert Barrie Trower: “This is the saddest and most despicable document ever published in history”: “Biologic Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation (Radiowaves and Microwaves – Eurasian Communist countries (U) – DST-1910S-074-76 Date of Publication: March 1976). This is a Department of Defense Intelligence Document prepared by the US Army Medical Intelligence and Information Agency and approved by the Directorate for Scientific and Technical Intelligence of the Defense Intelligence Agency.”

Page vii:

“If the more advancecl nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military functions.” (Translation: Western nations must have lax exposure limits so that military weapons and dangerous commercial products can be developed.) Available at https://www.orsaa.org/uploads/6/7/7/9/67791943/__us_dia_1976_biological_effects_of_electromagnetic_radiation.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2_Y3DCG4i2IH29tA03jS49bj0_9ab6LzYe5ByGT6WCCqZdcR_YhsI-9Lc.. Accessed 11 September 2019.

[iii] Mike Williams. Grave Robbing in Washington: A History of the Morbid Trade. 26 October 2015. Available at https://blogs.weta.org/boundarystones/2015/10/26/grave-robbing-washington-history-morbid-trade. Accessed 13 September 2019.

[iv] Chris Kanthan. World Affairs. How Rockefeller founded modern medicine and killed natural cures. Available at https://worldaffairs.blog/2015/10/20/how-rockefeller-founded-modern-medicine-and-killed-natural-cures/. Accessed 13 September 2019.

[v] Dr. Mercola. Chiropractors and Naturopaths – Are They Dangerous? Available at https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/30/rethinking-medical-associations-best-interests.aspx. Accessed 13 Setember 2019. “The medical profession has a long history of opposing alternative healing professions. The rules of engagement have changed; as the AMA is finding new “legal” ways to discredit and limit practitioners of natural medicine. … Other medical associations have joined forces to manipulate the public into believing natural medicine is quackery by spreading propaganda and mistruths.”

[vi] Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars. Introduction: “This document represents the doctrine adopted by the Policy Committee of the Bilderburg Group during its first known meeting in 1954. The document, dated May 1979, was found on 7 July 1986 in an IBM copier that had been purchased at a surplus sale.” Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_38tsQ4p0I;

https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&v=s_38tsQ4p0I&redir_token=L7h3DsobfUbnD56o9VTeOLzDQDB8MTU2ODI4ODIwM0AxNTY4MjAxODAz&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stopthecrime.net%2Fdocs%2FSILENT%2520WEAPONS%2520for%2520QUIET%2520WARS.pdf.

[vii] Rome Laboratory, Air Force Materiel Command, Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. June, 1994. Available at: https://emfrefugee.blogspot.com/2014/09/radiofrequencymicrowave-radiation.html. Accessed 11 September 2019. Conclusion: Exposure to RF/MW radiation is known to have a biological effect on living organisms. … Adherence to the ANSI Standard [9] should provide protection against harmful thermal effects and help to minimize the interaction of EM fields with the biological processes of the human body [9].

Excerpts

• Absorption: It is known that RF/MW radiated energy will be absorbed by the tissue of the human body. The depth of energy penetration into the tissue depends primarily on the wavelength of the incident radiation and the water content of the tissue [3], [6].
• Auditory effects: Individuals exposed to pulsed RF/MW radiation have reported hearing a chirping, clicking or buzzing sound emanating from inside or behind the head.
• Biological effects:
  • Adverse biological effects can occur when the body is subjected to high doses of RF/MW radiation [161.
  • Exposure of living organisms to RF/MW radiation can have a potentially dangerous biological effect. … Union. East Block countries have set more stringent standards than nations in the West [3], (8], (11], [22].
  • Exposure to higher levels of radiation can cause serious biological effects.
  • Investigators in the Soviet Unionand Eastern Europe have placed a great emphasis on the nonthermal effects of biological exposure to RF/MW radiation. They contend that electromagnetic interactions with the bioelectrical and biochemical functions of the body constitute a more serious health risk than effects from thermal heating. Nonthermal disruptions have been observed to occur at power density levels that are much lower than are necessary to induce thermal effects.
• Blood:
  • Blood circulation can be altered in the affected area and other biological functions could be indirectly affected [12].
  • There is evidence that RF/MW radiation can effect the blood and blood forming systems of animals and humans.
• Body:
  • Depth of energy penetration: Biological materials such as skin are dielectrics that consist mostly of water. Hence, these dielectrics are rich in molecular dipoles and are able to quickly absorb millimeter-wave radiation.
  • Body geometry: The orientation of the human body with respect to the incident EM field will determine the amount of RF/MW energy that is absorbed by the tissue.
  • RF/MW radiated energy is nonuniformily deposited over the whole-body surface.
• Burns:
  • Burns can cause increased vascular permeability. This can lead to significant losses of body fluids and electrolytes.
  • Serious burns can suffer fluid losses for a few days.
• Cancer:
  • In 1962, S. Prausnitz and C. Susskind reported experimental results that showed an increase in cancer among test animals exposed to RF/MW radiation.
  • In 1976, A. A. Kapustin, M. I. Rudnev, G. I. Leonskaia, and G.I. Knobecva (reference found in [17]) reported alterations in the chromosomes of bone marrow cells in laboratory animals that were exposed to RW/MW radiation.
  • Nonthermal effects may provide important clues to the understanding of carcinogenic reactions in the human body [8],[32].
  • Pulsed and CW radiation ranging in frequency from 15 to 2950 MHz and power densities from 7 to 200 mW/cm2 have caused abnormalities to occur in chromosomes. … They concluded that irradiation of tissue by pulsed RF/MW sources causes cell membranes to become more permeable to destructive chemical mutagens [8].
• Cardiovascular effects:
  • Researchers examined 100 patients suffering from radiation sickness. It was found that 71 of the patients had some type of cardiovascular problem.
  • Soviet investigators claim that exposure to low levels of RF/MW radiation that are not sufficient to induce hyperthermia can cause aberrations in the cardiovascular system of the body [7].
  • The WHO investigation found evidence linking exposure of RF/MW radiation to cardiovascular disease and cancer.
• Clothing effects: Figure 6 shows the relationship between clothing thickness and coupling efficiency as a function of frequency. The authors note that wet or damp clothing may actually reduce the amount of energy absorbed by the body because of the Debye relaxation of the water molecules [6].
• Congenital abnormalities: They found gross congenital abnormalities in rodent fetuses that were irradiated by a 2450 MHz RF/MW source at an incident power intensity of 107.4 mW/g [8].
• Eyes:
  • However, minimum exposure levels sufficient to cause ocular damage are not certain [301].
  • In 1970, Zaret, Kaplan and Kay (reference found in [30]) reported a large number of cataracts induced in humans as result of occupational exposure.
  • The researchers concluded that exposure to RF/MW radiation had caused the lens of the eye to age faster than normal (30].
• Heating: wavelengths the perception of warmth may occur at a power density level of about 8.7 mW/cm 2.
• Neurological effects: It was observed that rabbits exposed to the 5 and 10 uW/cm2 power density levels suffered alterations in the electrical activity of the cerebral cortex and disturbances to the conditioned reflex response.
• Neurological effects: observations of laboratory animals subjected to low power EM fields showed alterations in the electrical activity of the cerebral cortex and disruptions in the activity of neurons [17].
• Resonance frequency: The ANSI Standard [9] reports that the human body will absorb 7 times more energy fron radiation emitted at the resonance frequency than at a frequency of 2450 MHz [9]. … The free space whole-body resonance frequency is reported to be between 61.8-77 MHz for a Standard Model of Man [91, [22], (25]. … When the human body is in contact with the electrical ground, the whole-body resonance frequency is reduced to about 47 MHz (22]. Figure 3 shows the SAR versus the incident EM field frequency for conditions of free space and grounding [22].
• Skin: IR [Ionizing] radiation will not penetrate the outer body surface as deeply as RF/MW radiation emitted at a frequency of 2.45 GHz.
• Symptoms: The symptoms were listed as: hypotension, slower than normal heart rates, an increase in the histamine content of the blood, an increase in the activity of the thyroid gland, disruption of the endocrine-hormonal process, alterations in the sensitivity to smell, headaches, irritability, and increased fatigue.

[viii] Bioeffects of Selected Nonlethal Weapons. Department of The Army, United States Army Intelligence and Security Command. Freedom of information/Privacy Office. 17 February 1998. Available at: https://www.petermooring.nl/blog/?p=93. Accessed 11 September 2019. Effects described:

• Microwave heating – Heating the human body to incapacitate a person
• Microwave hearing – Letting a person hear sounds/voices in his head without normal sound
• Neural control – Disrupt normal muscle control, invoke muscle spasms
• Acoustic energy – Pressure sensations, nausea, eye spasms, see the world turning
• Laser induced biological effects:
  • Chemical effect
  • Thermal effects – The primary mechanism for laser induced injury
  • Mechanical or acoutical mechanical effects – Pressure wave can result in explosive tissue injury
• The effects of lasers on eyes:
  • Dazzling or induced glare
  • Flashblinding or loss of night adaptation
  • Permanent or semipermanent blinding.

[ix] Influence of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation at non-thermal intensities on the human body (a review of work by Russian and Ukrainian researchers). Published in No Place To Hide – Newsletter of the Cellular Phone Taskforce Inc., February 2001. Available at: https://magdahavas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RFR-Russian-Ukrainian-1.pdf.

Highlights:

• Humanity may have crossed a threshold of recoverability from PEM exposure …
• No safe dose, even at extremely low EMF intensity …
• Russian standards hundreds to thousands times more stringent than Western ones …
• Information flow disturbance in the body among bio-damage mechanisms.

[x] Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation. This 350-page document is the result of a symposium (convened by the World Health Organization, among others), held in Warsaw from 15–18 October 1973, with the participation of 60 researchers specializing in the biological effects of microwaves on humans.

The document describes primarily the adverse effects of microwave radiation on neurological, vascular and cardiac systems, as well as on the thyroid and thrombocytes; it also reports that microwaves can cause Type II diabetes, sleep issues, cataracts, opacification of the ocular lens, and behavioural disorders, among others. Available at:

https://www.emfoff.com/symposium/. Accessed 11 September 2019.

[xi] Jerry Tennant, MD: Healing is Voltage — The Physics of Emotions | EU2017

29 September 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm-Ia6vI4PA. Accessed 11 Septembr 2019.

Most people have heard of the “mind/body connection” and are aware that emotions affect the way people act. However, few can describe how that works. What is relatively new is our understanding that emotions are stored in and around the body as magnetic fields. Not only do these magnetic fields cause the biochemical effects noted above, but they also block the flow of voltage in the associated muscle battery packs that provide the voltage necessary for organs to function and repair themselves. He will discuss the human body’s battery packs, wiring system, and the physics of how our electronic systems are affected by these emotions. In addition, he will discuss how other magnetic fields and scalar energy can be used to erase these emotions, leaving behind only memories that do not disrupt our health and physiology. (cont.)

[xii] Department of the Army, United States Army Intelligence and Security Command. Bioeffects of Selected Nonlethal Weapons. 17 February 1998 (date of FOIA release 13 December 2006).

www.targetedamerica.com/uploads/1/2/3/9/123991101/bioeffects_of_selected_non-lethal_weapons.pdf.

[xiii] Environmental Health Trust (https://ehtrust.org/policy/outdated-ansi-and-ieee-standards/): In 1985 the United States government adopted an exposure limit from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI-an industry & military organization), ANSI C95.1-1982 Exposure Limit Standard. In 1996 the U.S. government adopted (updated from the ANSI Standard) the IEEE C95.1-1991 Exposure Limit Standard. IEEE, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers is substantially an industry and military organization.

[xiv] Video (in French): Être connecté peut nuire gravement à la santé – Reportage suisse remarquable (Being connected can seriously harm your health – remarkable Swiss reporting). 31 May 2017. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnnUbWRGJz8. Excerpt”

(Switch on English subtitles at 15.05)

“… hence the following question. Do the current emission standards effectively protect us from electromagnetic radiation? it should be borne in mind that the standards were drawn up well after the time when all electrical equipment was already in place. These standards are set by the industry in such a way as to have irradiation values that are acceptable and to avoid lawsuits.

“These images from Norwegian television show the power of industry in the establishment of standards.

“The footage was shot at a meeting of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), an organization of world telecommunications experts. When their members specialising in electromagnetic safety reveal the names of their employers, here’s what we learn:

“[(C Keito?), Motorola; (Mike Welby?), US Air Force; (?) US Army; Motorola; Alcatel-Lucent; US Air Force; Nokia; France Telecom; Ericsson; US Air Force]

“In fact, they are industry representatives. IEEE has issued recommendations on exposure values related to mobile telephony, which have been adopted without much modification by Europe and Switzerland.

“The standards are defined not for health protection, saying there are no effects, there are no risks. They simply say, “Above these values one is certain that there is a risk of biological effects in the short term”. And actually that message has been distorted a bit by saying that below those values, nothing happens.

“In most countries today, the maximum exposure value for antennas is 61 volts per metre. Switzerland has adopted this standard by adding a precautionary principle limiting exposure to 6 volts per metre in places designated “places of sensitive use”. This includes housing, schools, workstations inside buildings, some playgrounds, but not outdoor public spaces or transit areas such as railway stations.

“The telcos are constantly getting greedier. They want to get rid of the 6-volt per-metre straitjacket that they feel limits their activities. …”

[xv] Amy Worthington. The Radiation Poisoning Of America. Global Research, 9 October 2007; Idaho Observer, 7 October 2007. Excerpt: “Prior to 1996, the wireless age was not coming online fast enough, primarily because communities had the authority to block the siting of cell towers. But the Federal Communications Act of 1996 made it nearly impossible for communities to stop construction of cell towers “even if they pose threats to public health and the environment. Since the decision to enter the age of wireless convenience was politically determined for us, we have forgotten well-documented safety and environmental concerns and, with a devil-may-care zeal that is lethally short-sighted, we have incorporated into our lives every wireless toy that comes on the market. We behave as if we are addicted to radiation. Our addiction to cell phones has led to harder “drugs” like wireless Internet. And now we are bathing in the radiation that our wireless enthusiasm has unleashed. Those who are addicted, uninformed, corporately biased and politically-influenced may dismiss our scientifically-sound concerns about the apocalyptic hazards of wireless radiation. Available at https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/the-radiation-poisoning-of-america/. Accessed 11 September 2019.

[xvi] Ibid. “Myriad symptoms of radiation poisoning can be induced at exposure levels hundreds, even thousands of times lower than current standards permit. Russia’s public exposure standards are 100 times more stringent than ours because Russian scientists have consistently shown that, at U.S. exposure levels, humans develop pathological changes in heart, kidney, liver and brain tissues, plus cancers of all types.”

https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/the-radiation-poisoning-of-america/.

[xvii] Disclaimer on icnirp website: ICNIRP e.V. undertakes all reasonable measures to ensure the reliability of information presented on the website, but does not guarantee the correctness, reliability, or completeness of the information and views published. The content of our website is provided to you for information only. We do not assume any responsibility for any damage, including direct or indirect loss suffered by users or third parties in connection with the use of our website and/or the information it contains, including for the use or the interpretation of any technical data, recommendations, or specifications available on our website. Available at https://www.icnirp.org/en/legal-notice.html. Accessed 11 Septembr 2019.

[xviii] Bill Hicks on the Kennedy Assassination. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aaqN7SqLpU. Accessed 11 Seotember 2019.

[xix] Review: Biological and pathological effects of 2.45 GHz radiation on cells, fertility, brain, and behaviour. 26 June 2019. Available at http://www.emfsa.co.za/research-and-studies/review-biological-and-pathological-effects-of-2-45-ghz-radiation-on-cells-fertility-brain-and-behavior/. Accessed 13 September 2019. Original German: https://www.diagnose-funk.org/publikationen/artikel/detail&newsid=1256. Conclusions: Based on the extensive body of research and the adverse health effects demonstrated in the majority of the studies, it is recommended that steps should be taken to minimize RF radiation exposure in accordance with official recommendations. Wired solutions should be given preference. Current exposure limits and SAR values do not protect from health risks associated with Wi-Fi radiation.

[xx] Dr. Lennart Hardell. ICNIRP draft on new radiofrequency guidelines is flawed. 2 July 2019. Available at http://www.avaate.org/spip.php?article2828. Accessed 13 September 2019. “Most remarkable is that the science on health effects is still based on thermal (heating) effect from RFR just as the evaluations published 1998 and updated in 2009. In the draft only thermal effects are considered for health effects (page 7). Van Rongen states there is ’No evidence that RF-EMF causes such diseases as cancer’ (page 8). These comments are based on the power point presentation. However, there is no evidence that non-thermal effects are considered and thus a large majority of scientific evidence on human health effects, not to mention hazards to the environment. Thus the basis for new guidelines is flawed and the whole presentation should be dismissed as scientifically flawed.”

[xxi] EMF Dosimetry (General methodology and RF region) EMF Dosimetry (General methodology and RF region). Dr. Soichi Watanabe, ICNIRP Member Affiliated with National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT), Japan  Available at https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/presentations/NIR2012pdf/watanabe.pdf. Accessed 13 September 2019.

[xxii] Olga Sheean. The [World Health Organization] WHO cover-up that is costing us the Earth.

Video available at: https://www.emfoff.com/cover-up/?fbclid=IwAR0x-VNP6A4UTpCgwasElSJOG_GyuswK3vED7piTY4RWDmAFPq-rlDwNckE. The facts about 5G and other sources of wireless radiation have been very skilfully downplayed and covered up by WHO, industry and governments, causing many people to believe it’s not a problem. The truth is that it’s causing havoc all over the planet. Find out what WHO and governments have been hiding from you. Download PDF – The WHO cover-up that is costing us the Earth: Are you ready to say goodbye? The 5G spin, the deeper truth and what you can do: https://www.emfoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/WHO-cover-up.pdf.

[xxiii] Belpomme D, Campagnac C, Irigaray P. Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(4):251-71. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0027. Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder.

[xxiv] United Nations. Human Rights Council: 5G is cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under resolution 39/46. 22 February 2019. Available at. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/40/NGO/217/. Henry Lai: Cell Phones and Cancer – TalkingStickTV. 23 June 2011. Available at https://youtu.be/NZl2MSHDKls. Accessed 13 September 2019.

[xxv] Deadly Statistics. The chances of being killed ina terrorist attackare about 1 in 20 million. A person is as likely to bekilled by his or her own furniture, and more likely to die in a car accident, drown in a bathtub, or in a building fire than from a terrorist attack. Available at http://www.lifeinsurancequotes.org/additional-resources/deadly-statistics/. Accessed 13 September 2019.

[xxvi] Barrie Trower. Microwaves in weapons and wireless telecommunication. “Weapons utilize much less power [than telecom radiation].” Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3QeSOU8qC0. Accessed 13 September 2019.

[xxvii] Peter Delos. “The Way to a New Phased Array Radar Architecture.” TechTime: Electronics & Technology News. 15 January 2018. Available at https://techtime.news/2018/01/ 15/analog-devices-phased-array-radar/. Accessed 14 September 2019. “Although there is a lot of discussion of massive MIMO and automotive radar, it should not be forgotten that most of the recent radar development and beamforming R&D has been in the defense industry, and it is now being adapted for commercial applications. While phased array and beamforming moved from R&D efforts to reality in the 2000s, a new wave of defense focused arrays are now expected, enabled by industrial technology offering solutions that were previously cost prohibitive.”

[xxviii] Democracy Now! How Big Wireless War-Gamed the Science on Risks, While Making Customers Addicted to Their Phones. Available at https://youtu.be/un-vXIzIIOo. Accessed 13 September 2019. We continue our conversation with Mark Hertsgaard, The Nation’s environment correspondent and investigative editor, who co-authored a major new exposé: “How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe.” He discusses how wireless companies “war-gamed the science” by funding friendly studies and attacking critical ones; the potential dangers of the pending expansion of 5G with the “Internet of Things”; the role of the telecommunications industry officials turned federal regulators; and how companies deliberately addicted customers to this technology through the addition of social media.

[xxix] Ben Piven. Rebelling against attention economy, Humane Tech movement expands: A growing coalition of social groups is pushing back against tech companies that feed digital addiction and overload. 25 July 2019. Available at

https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/rebelling-attention-economy-humane-tech-movement-expands-190724210851788.html. |Tristan Harris is fighting to save you. An ex-Google design ethicist, Harris cofounded the Time Well Spent movement and the Center for Humane Technology (CHT) to combat the ‘existential threat’ of unchecked technological power over humanity, from digital addiction and information overload to Twitter bots and political polarisation. CHT is trying to halt what it calls the ‘downgrading’ of humans by smartphones and social media – within an ‘extractive’ attention economy where Silicon Valley firms profit from “playing tricks” on people’s minds. ‘More than two billion people – a psychological footprint bigger than Christianity – are jacked into social platforms,’ says a pamphlet from CHT. ‘Algorithms recommend increasingly extreme, outrageous topics to keep us glued to tech sites fed by advertising … It’s a race to the bottom of the brainstem.’”

[xxx] Garfield Benjamin. Silicon Valley wants to read your mind – here’s why you should be worried. 16 August 2019. Available at

https://www.activistpost.com/2019/08/silicon-valley-wants-to-read-your-mind-heres-why-you-should-be-worried.html?utm_source=Activist+Post+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=61979a3ea3-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b0c7fb76bd-61979a3ea3-387959801. Accessed 13 September 2019. “Not content with monitoring almost everything you do online, Facebook now wants to read your mind as well. The social media giant recently announced a breakthrough in its plan to create a device that reads people’s brainwaves to allow them to type just by thinking. And Elon Musk wants to go even further. One of the Tesla boss’s other companies, Neuralink, is developing a brain implant to connect people’s minds directly to a computer. Musk admits that he takes inspiration from science fiction, and that he wants to make sure humans can ‘keep up’ with artificial intelligence. He seems to have missed the part of sci-fi that acts as a warning for the implications of technology. These mind-reading systems could affect our privacy, security, identity, equality and personal safety. Do we really want all that left to companies with philosophies such as that of Facebook’s former mantra, ‘move fast and break things’?”

[xxxi] TWiT Tech Podcast Network. What is surveillance capitalism? [selling behavioural data on human beings]. 11 January 2019. Available at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=42&v=pD3Gw8rvcJ8. Accessed 13 September 2019. Shoshana Zuboff is the author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future(https://amzn.to/2H8B207) at the New Frontier of Power. She talks with Leo Laporte about how social media is being used to influence people. Watch the full episode at https://twit.tv/tri/380. Host: Leo Laporte Guest: Shoshana Zuboff

[xxxii] Oxfam. Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world. 16 January 2017. Available at https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world. Accessed 13 September 2019. “Eight men own the same wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity, according to a new report published by Oxfam today to mark the annual meeting of political and business leaders in Davos. Oxfam’s report, ‘An economy for the 99 percent’, shows that the gap between rich and poor is far greater than had been feared. It details how big business and the super-rich are fuelling the inequality crisis by dodging taxes, driving down wages and using their power to influence politics. It calls for a fundamental change in the way we manage our economies so that they work for all people, and not just a fortunate few.”

[xxxiii] Marco Cáceres. Scientist Says 1 in 2 Children Born in 2025 Will Be Autistic – Something is Clearly Causing this Health Crisis of Historic Proportions. Available at http://humansarefree.com/2019/07/scientist-says-1-in-2-children-born-in.html. Accessed 13 September 2019. “On June 5, 2014, senior research scientist Stephanie Seneff, PhD of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory made the following statement at an event sponsored by the Groton Wellness organization in Groton, Massachusetts: ‘At today’s rate, by 2025, 1 in 2 children will be autistic’.

[xxxiv] Anna Remington. The Conversation. Why employing autistic people makes good business sense. 14 April 2015. Available at https://theconversation.com/why-employing-autistic-people-makes-good-business-sense-39948. Accessed 13 September 2019. “Microsoft has announced its intention to hire more autistic people – not as a charitable enterprise but because, as corporate vice-president Mary Ellen Smith said: ‘People with autism bring strengths that we need at Microsoft.’ Employing autistic people makes good business sense. Microsoft is not the only firm to reach this conclusion. More and more companies are beginning to seek employees from the pool of autistic talent. Specialisterneis a consultancy that recruits only autistic individuals. Originally based in Denmark it now operates in 12 countries worldwide and is currently working with Microsoft.”

[xxxv] Confessions of an Economic Hitman – John Perkins. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWuAct1BxHU. Accessed 13 September 2019. “Economic Hit Man (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign “aid” organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.

“Perkins charges that the proposed conditions for this debt forgiveness require countries to privatise their health, education, electric, water and other public services. Those countries would also have to discontinue subsidies and trade restrictions that support local business, but accept the continued subsidization of certain G8 businesses by the US and other G8 countries, and the erection of trade barriers on imports that threaten G8 industries.”

[xxxvi] Katie Rooney. TIME. Naomi Klein on ‘Disaster Capitalism’. 27 September 2007. Available at http://tsd.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/time-magazine-disaster-capitalism. “In The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein, best known for her 2000 book No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies, explores how capitalism came to dominate the world, from Chile to Russia, China to Iraq, South Africa to Canada, with the help of violent shock tactics in times of natural disaster or tragedy. Released in the U.S. September 18 and throughout Europe and Canada the week before that, the book counters the theory that unfettered capitalism and a successful democracy go hand-in-hand. TIME sat down with Klein to discuss her conclusions, the research process and what kind of impact she’s hoping her new book will have.”

[xxxvii] Computing Forever. Facebook & Google: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=92&v=Ya1eTbTUUvc. Accessed 13 September 2019.

[xxxviii] World Health Organization, United Nations Environment Programme and International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA, predecessor to ICNIRP): Environmental Health Criteria 16: Radiofrequency and Microwaves. 1981. Available at https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/39107/9241540761_eng.pdf. Accessed  13 September 2019. Excerpts: “… General population exposure from man-made sources of microwave and RF radiation now exceeds that from natural sources by many orders of magnitude. … increased levels of environmental electromagnetic radiation may constitute a problem in many countries. … … Problems of pollution range from … to direct risks to the health of individuals. … Lesions have been found in the internal organs of animals exposed for prolonged periods during which there was no significant rise in rectal temperature. Furthermore, such animals did not show any overt signs of distress. Acute exposures may cause injury to the eye.The cornea and crystalline lens are particularly susceptible to injury within the frequency range of 1-300 GHz. The cornea is at greatest risk between 10 and 300 GHz and the crystalline lens from 1 to 10 GHz. … A highly conservative approach would be to keep exposure limits close to natural background levels. However, this is not technically feasible. A reasonable risk-benefit analysis has to be considered. [Author’s translation: In order to protect industry and the military, people must die.]… National and international agreements on exposure limits, ways and means of controlling this type of environmental pollution, and concerted efforts to implement such agreements are needed.” (emphasis added)

[xxxix] George Carlo, Ph.D, M.S., J.D. “Letter To AT&T Chairman C. Michael Armstrong from Wireless Technology Research (WTR) Chairman Dr. George L. Carlo.” Aegis Corporationonline, publisher. http://www.goaegis.com/articles/gcarlo_100799.html. This letter claims the occurrence of brain cancer and certain types of tumors among cellular phone users is twice that of non-users. Dr. Carlo is requesting AT&T’s assistance to distribute this information to consumers so that they can make an “informed judgment about how much of this unknown risk they wish to assume in their use of wireless phones.” A signed copy of this letter was also sent to a panel of experts convened by the British Parliament to evaluate the science and health concerns regarding wireless communications.

Tom Wheeler suppressed the Wireless Technology Research report. He became Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2013 and ushered in 5G with great fanfare in 2016, in full knowledge of its catastrophic consequences. See Peter G. Tocci. Wireless Technology: Ultra Convenient. Endlessly Entertaining. Criminally Instigated. Terminally Pathological. 9 February 2019. Available at https://www.activistpost.com/2019/02/wireless-technology-ultra-convenient-endlessly-entertaining-criminally-instigated-terminally-pathological.html. Accessed 13 September 2019.

[xl] No Place To Hide – Newsletter of the Cellular Phone Taskforce Inc. February 2001. Influence of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation at non-thermal intensities on the human body (a review of work by Russian and Ukrainian researchers)

https://magdahavas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RFR-Russian-Ukrainian-1.pdf.

[xli] Igor Ogorodnev. I am terrified of ‘children’s crusader’ Greta Thunberg – and you should be too. 13 March 2019. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/453730-greta-thunberg-environmental-activist-crusader-saint/.

[xlii] Greenpeace pioneer: “Climate change neither dangerous nor man-made.” 13 August 2019. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPQD5iejbnA. According to Moore, climate change is a completely natural phenomenon. The current modern warm period began 300 years ago, when the Little Ice Age came to an end. “Nothing to be afraid of,” stresses Moore. But the climate alarmists have lived off frightening people. Most scientists who speak of a crisis would be earning their living from government contracts. Watch the entre broadcast to find out why Moore is an important voice to listen to in the current climate hysteria.

[xliii] Eli Beer. Jerusalem Post. Children are dying because parents are on their phones. 3 August 2019. https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Children-are-dying-because-parents-are-on-their-phones-597552. Last year, the German Lifeguarding Association published findings that drew a direct link between children dying in the water and parents cellphone usage at the time of death.

[xliv] Tim Henderson. Stateline. Too Many Pedestrians Injured by Looking at Their Phones. 11 December 2014. Available at https://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/too-many-pedestrians-injured-by-looking-at-their-phones.html. Accessed 13 September 2019. “They walk in front of cars, and into tree limbs and street signs. They fall off curbs and bridges into wet cement and creek beds. They are distracted walkers who, while calling or texting on mobile phones, have suffered cuts and bruises, sustained serious head injuries or even been killed.”

[xlv] Review: Biological and pathological effects … op. cit.

[xlvi] Ray Broomhall. Cell phone magnetic fields breach WHO’s 0.3μT safety limit at 6,200 μT – dangerous to children. September 2019. Available at https://emrlegaleducation.com/latest-updates/. Download slide show: https://emrlegaleducation.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Cell-phone-magnetic-fields-breach-WHOs-0.3uT-safety-limit-at-6200uT.pptx.

An important slide show that clearly shows that cell phones are massively dangerous to children.

[xlvii] European Parliament. April 2019. 5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia. Available at www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/631060/IPOL_IDA(2019)631060_EN.pdf. “The notion of a ‘race’ is part of the campaign but it is becoming clear that the technology will take much longer than earlier generations to perfect. China, for instance, sees 5G as at least a ten-year programme to become fully working and completely rolled out nationally. This is because the technologies involved with 5G are much more complex. One aspect, for example, that is not well understood today is the unpredictable propagation patterns that could result in unacceptable levels of human exposure to electromagnetic radiation.”

[xlvii] Blue Cross Blue Shield. The Health of America. The Health of Millennials. 24 April 2019.  Available athttps://www.bcbs.com/the-health-of-america/reports/the-health-of-millennials. Accessed 13 September 2019.

[xlviii] Télévision Suisse Romande. Être connecté peut nuire gravement à la santé – Reportage suisse remarquable (Being connected can seriously harm your health – remarkable Swiss reporting). 31 May 2017. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnnUbWRGJz8. Translation: “These images from Norwegian television show the power of industry in the establishment of standards.

“The footage was shot at a meeting of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), an organization of world telecommunications experts. When their members specializing in electromagnetic safety revealthe names of their employers, here’s what we learn:

[Audio: (C Keito?), Motorola; (Mike Welby?), US Air Force; (?) US Army; Motorola; Alcatel-Lucent; US Air Force; Nokia; France Telecom; Ericsson; US Air Force]

“In fact, they are industry representatives. IEEE has issued recommendations on exposure values related to mobile telephony, which have been adopted without much modification by Europe and Switzerland.

“The standards are defined not for health protection, saying there are no effects, there are no risks. They simply say, “Above these values one is certain that there is a risk of biological effects in the short term”. And actually that message has been distorted a bit by saying that below those values, nothing happens.”

[l] Brett Molina. USA Today. Blue light from phones, tablets could accelerate blindness and hurt vision, study finds. 13 August 2018. Available at https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/nation-now/2018/08/13/blue-light-phones-tablets-could-accelerate-blindness-study/974837002/. Accessed 13 September 2019.

[li] Josh Loeb.London councils remove almost 50,000 trees in five years: ‘Our canopy is vanishing’. 2 May 2017. Available at https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2017/05/our-canopy-is-vanishing-london-councils-remove-almost-50-000-trees-in-five-years/. Accessed 13 September 2019. Sandra Laville. The Guardian. Millions of trees at risk in secretive Network Rail felling programme: Plan to stop leaves and branches falling on lines has already led to thousands of trees being chopped down. 29 April 2018. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/29/millions-of-trees-at-risk-in-secretive-network-rail-felling-programme. Accessed 13 September 2019.

[lii] University of Surrey.5G Whitepaper: Meeting the Challenge of “Universal” Coverage, Reach and Reliability in the Coming 5G Era. Available at https://www.surrey.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-03/white-paper-rural-5G-vision.pdf. Accessed 13 September 2019. “Having adjacent trees and or building at comparable heights to the mast can reduce coverage by as much as 70% in that direction, which is not in the interests of the operator, the local planning authorities and more importantly the mobile phone user. This is the source of many of today’s mobile coverage issues for consumers in many rural locations.”

[liii] Dana Dovey. Newsweek. Radiation From Cellphones, Wi-Fi Is Hurting the Birds and the Bees; 5G May Make It Worse. 19 May 2018. Available at https://www.newsweek.com/migratory-birds-bee-navigation-5g-technology-electromagnetic-radiation-934830. Accessed 13 September 2019.

[liv] ‘Hyperalarming’ study shows massive insect loss. From the Washington Post, 15 October 2018. Available at https://smombiegate.org/hyperalarming-study-shows-massive-insect-loss/. Accessed 13 September 2019. “Insects around the world are in a crisis, according to a small but growing number of long-term studies showing dramatic declines in invertebrate populations. A new reportsuggests that the problem is more widespread than scientists realized. Huge numbers of bugs have been lost in a pristine national forest in Puerto Rico, the study found, and the forest’s insect-eating animals have gone missing, too.

“In 2014, an international team of biologists estimated that, in the past 35 years, the abundance of invertebrates such as beetles and bees had decreased by 45 percent. In places where long-term insect data are available, mainly in Europe, insect numbers are plummeting. A study last year showed a 76 percentdecrease in flying insectsin the past few decades in German nature preserves.

“The latest report, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that this startling loss of insect abundance extends to the Americas. The study’s authors implicate climate change in the loss of tropical invertebrates….SNIP”

Note from reader: “When I checked on the location of the “pristine national forest” in Puerto Rico, mentioned in the article, I found that it is located approximately 50 miles from Cayey Puerto Rico, the home to the WSR-88 Doppler Radar which is one of the most powerful and advanced weather surveillance doppler radars in the world, transmitting at 750,000 watts. Cayey is a mountain municipality in central Puerto Rico with the radar facility located on the central mountain. Whether or not this has anything to do with the decline in insects of the national forest is an interesting question. Perhaps not so pristine after all…..”

[lv] Arthur Firstenberg. 5G, Birds, Bees, and Humanity. 12 May 2019. Available at . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpdJ_t5XMvw.

[lvi] Professor Emeritus Martin Pall. Letter to California Legislators. 7 August 2017. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Pall-Letter-to-CalLegis-FINAL-8-7-17.pdf. Accessed 13 September 2019. “None of our wireless communication devices are ever tested biologically for safety – not cell phone towers, not cell phones, not Wi-Fi, not cordless phones, not smart meters and certainly not 5G phones, or radar units in cars – before they are put out to irradiate an unsuspecting public.”

[lvii] Irradiated: A comprehensive compilation and analysis of the literature on radiofrequency fields and the negative biological impacts of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (particularly radiofrequency fields) on biological organisms (416 pages). Available at https://wirelessaction.wordpress.com/irradiated/. Accessed 14 September 2019.  

“Our genetic legacy, our children, should be listed as an endangered species

The most obscene aspect of this ever-present technology is the unrestrained proliferation of Wi-Fi in schools (the use of Wi-Fi is not even necessary; schools can be wired with telecommunication cables, as has been used for decades). If after exposure at school, children go home to another wireless environment, then they are exposed day and night. Children are more harmed by RF than adults; in essence we are destroying the future potential of our collective gene pool.”

[lviii] France. Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail (ANSES) Effets sur la santé humaine et sur l’environnement (faune et flore) des diodes électroluminescentes (LED) (Effects of light emitting diodes on human health and the environment (flora and fauna)). April 2019. Available at https://www.anses.fr/fr/system/files/AP2014SA0253Ra-Anx.pdf. Review of report, at https://www.sante-sur-le-net.com/lumiere-bleue-led-nefaste-sante-environnement/: “A negative impact on health and the environment – Recent studies on LED technology have shown that the blue light emitted is potentially harmful to health at at least two levels:

• Direct retinal toxicity, which may lead to a decrease in visual acuity, even with brief exposure
• Increased risk of AMD (Age-Related Macular Degeneration) with chronic exposure
• A risk of glare especially with LED headlights, which can be sources of accidents especially in the elderly
• An impact on the biological clock and sleep, when people expose themselves to the blue light of LEDs at the end of the day.

Other health effects of LED lights may result from the high variability in light intensity. This variability can lead to headaches or eyestrain, especially in children and adolescents.

But health would not be the only victim of LEDs, which could also impact the environment and biodiversity. Scientific studies show an increase in mortality and a reduction in animal and plant biodiversity in lighted environments at night.

In response to these findings, ANSES issued in its last report several recommendations aimed at limiting the population’s exposure to LED light rich in blue. Its main recommendations are as follows:

• Give as much preference as possible to domestic lighting of the “hot white” typ
• Limit the exposure of the population, and in particular children and adolescents, to the blue light of night and evening screens
• Speed up the regulation of LED technology.

In addition, ANSES warns the general public about the effectiveness of protection against blue light. Treated lenses, goggles or specific screens would have variable effectiveness and their ability to maintain biological rhythm is not proven to date. Performance criteria could be developed to help the public better select these means of protection.

From an environmental point of view, cutting off or reducing public lighting at night is the main measure that can reduce the effect of LED lights on biodiversity. Some French cities have already adopted the measure and others are planning to do so soon.

Presented as a technological advance and a more energy-efficient solution, LED lights seem to present a heavy health and environmental toll! A toll that puts into question the prospects for their continued use …”

[lix] Arthur Firstenberg. LiFi will be Worse than WiFi. Email to author. “The harm is done NOT primarily by the carrier frequency but by the modulation. Not only the modulation frequency but the modulation wave form, the rise and fall time, the pulse duration, the repetition rate, and all of the other informational properties. Changing the carrier wave to a much shorter frequency, i.e. from microwaves to light, does not change the informational characteristics. The major difference is that our bodies reject microwaves because they are foreign to us, but our bodies preferentially absorb light because it is a necessary nutrient. Therefore the harm will be much worse.”

“We Wrestle Not Against Flesh and Blood, but Against Powers, Against the Rulers of the Darkness of this World, Against Spiritual Wickedness in High Places.” (Epistle to the Ephesians 6:12, New Testament)

***

“Hegemony” is a sanitized word “vomited” up by colonial media “news” reports.

The word pretends to describe the myriad ways in which a country or countries criminally destroy prey countries to assert their dominance, their control, and their privileged access over stolen resources.

Imperialists collectively “punish” prey countries with fake captagon-fuelled “revolutions”, economic warfare, terrorism, the destruction of country-sustaining infrastructure, assassinations of leading scientists, the destruction of historical artifacts and myriad other ways.

Consent is fabricated in such a way that domestic populations in the imperial countries themselves are led to believe that they will somehow benefit, but they too are being plundered and looted.

Imperial warfare is also class warfare. The plundered wealth rushes upwards to the oligarch classes that create the wars.

Multitudes globally pay the price in death and disease and starvation and dispossession. There’s nothing humanitarian about any of this.

The interview below with Syrian Scientist and antiwar activist Dr. Ayssar Midani lays bare the converging lies that grease the wheels of imperial wars of aggression.

*

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. Ayssar Midani is a prominent Syrian scientist and anti-war activist based in France. She is the chairperson of NOSTIA, a network and community of expatriate Syrian Scientists, Technologists and Innovators.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net.

Featured image is from the author

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark 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. 

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

On September 11, the Senate  heard from Trump’s nominee to be the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Aurelia Skipwith, a former employee of agrochemical corporation Monsanto. 

“Skipwith has a history of working with big-time special interests like Monsanto. Outside of her days at the agrochemical corporation, her resume is surprisingly scant for someone that would be charged with managing America’s fish and wildlife. But like so many other Trump political appointees, Skipwith has already rubbed elbows with oil and gas interests and is poised to continue to curry favors for special interests at the expense of our public lands, fish and wildlife if she is confirmed,” said Jayson O’Neill, Deputy Director of the Western Values Project. 

While Skipwith was working for Monsanto, the corporation lobbied the department of the Interior, Congress, and other federal agencies on the Endangered Species Act. In 2012, Skipwith even won an award from the agrochemical corporation for her work.

After Skipwith joined FWS as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Fish, Wildlife and Park, FWS decided to rescind a ban on farms within national wildlife refuges using bee-killing pesticides – a decision highly favorable to Monsanto. This wasn’t the only departmental action that would ostensibly benefit agrochemical corporations. Secretary Bernhardt is under investigation by Interior’s Inspector General for his role in suppressing a scientific assessment on the impacts of pesticides on endangered and threatened species.

According to her publically released calendars, Skipwith has been deeply involved in the administration’s rollback of habitat protections for the imperiled sage grouse and spoke at the oil and gas association Independent Petroleum Association of America’s (IPAA) regulators’ forum. The IPAA is a former client of Secretary Bernhardt’s whose political director was caught on tape laughing about the connections and access they have within the Trump administration.

In July 2017, Skipwith sent memos to the National Park Service and FWS requesting they review rules that prevented hunters from killing bears and wolves using extreme techniques, like  “baiting the animals with greasy doughnuts, ambushing mothers with pups in dens and shooting animals from boats while the bears are swimming.”

Skipwith’s qualifications for the nomination have been called into question, given that her resume offers no previous experience working within FWS, aside from her work as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks over the last two years within the Trump administration. She was originally nominated under the tenure of former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke – who ran in the same circles as Skipwith’s then-fiance. Recently, 27 former FWS employees united in opposition to her nomination, critiquing her background and experience.

Her nomination was celebrated by both scandal-ridden Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who resigned in disgrace in late-2018, as well as current conflict-ridden Interior Secretary David Bernhardt. Her original nomination died at the end of the previous Congress, but she was renominated for the same position on July 17, 2019.

*

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

On August 29, the United Arab Emirates carried out a series of airstrikes on forces loyal to the Saudi-backed government of Yemen. The strikes reportedly killed or wounded over 300 people. The UAE said that the targets were some “terrorist militias”. However, the Saudi-backed government claimed that the UAE targeted its troops in Aden and Zinjibar supporting forces of the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council. This incident became the first time when the UAE provided STC units with a direct military support in their clashes with Saudi-backed forces.

An intense fighting between UAE- and Saudi-backed forces were ongoing across southern Yemen, especially in the city of Aden, almost entire August. In the first half of September, the intensity of clashes decreased. Nonetheless, the conflict within the Saudi-UAE-led coalition remains unresolved.

Essentially, the UAE and forces it backs are shifting focus from fighting against the Houthis, to fighting against the Saudi-backed government, further widening the rift. Taking into account that STC units are the most military capable part of coalition-backed troops, this undermines the already low chances of the coalition to achieve a military victory over the Houthis.

.

Watch the video here.

Interests and vision of the UAE and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East have been in conflict for a long time. Nonetheless, this tendency became especially obvious in 2019. The decline of influence of the House of Saud in the region and inside Saudi Arabia itself led to logical attempts of other regional players to gain a leading position in the Arabian Peninsula. The main challenger is the UAE and the House of Maktoum.

Contradictions between Saudi Arabia and the UAE turned into an open military confrontation between their proxies in Yemen. Since August 29, Saudi Arabia has provided no symmetric answer to the UAE military action against its proxies. It seems that the Saudi leadership has no will or distinct political vision of how it should react in this situation. Additionally, the Saudi military is bogged in a bloody conflict in Yemen and struggles to defend its own borders from Houthi attacks.

The UAE already gained an upper hand in the standoff with Saudi Arabia in the economic field. This motivates it for further actions to expand its influence in the region.

*

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

Support South Front in its endeavors.

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

Iran has trumped Trump by routing its oil tanker along the northern shore of the Mediterranean, pausing at ports in Greece and Turkey, then anchoring off Syria’s Tartus. The current occupant of the White House, Donald Trump, persuaded London to detain the tanker, originally named Grace 1, as it sailed through the Strait of Gibraltar, a British overseas territory. On July 4, armed royal marines were dispatched to apprehend the ship, upsetting the crew with this unnecessary show of force. Britain argued it had seized the ship because it intended to violate EU sanctions, barring Iranian oil deliveries to sanctions-ridden Syria. Commentators argued that Iran is not a member of the EU and cannot be expected to abide by bloc sanctions against itself.

Although Trump urged Britain to hold the vessel indefinitely, it was released by Gibraltar’s high court on August 15. Britain said Iran had agreed to the condition that it would not dock at any country under EU sanctions. The ship was renamed Adrian Darya 1 and began its slow journey eastwards, monitored by US and British ships and satellites. The Trump administration issued a warrant for the tanker’s arrest and threatened to impose sanctions on any country offering assistance or any potential buyer of the cargo. Last week, a desperate US official offered the Indian captain of the ship millions of dollars to sail to a port where the US could detain it. The captain switched off the transponders that identify the ship’s location and satellite photos subsequently showed it be off the coast of Syria.

Once safely in Tartus, where the Russians have a naval facility, Iran trumped Trump a second time by announcing its cargo of 2.1 million barrels of crude had been sold and delivered to an unidentified customer, presumably in heavily sanctioned Syria. Iran can be charged with “showboating” at Trump’s expense.

Israel retaliated on behalf of Trump by bombing and killing 18 pro-Iranian Iraqi militiamen fighting Daesh in southeastern Syria. This was a strike that was in no one’s interest.

The Trump administration’s response was given by Treasury official Sigal Mandelker, who said: “We will continue to put pressure on Iran and as [Trump] has said, there will be no waivers of any kind for Iran’s oil.” She also accused Iran of engaging in a “game of deception”. Her reaction was hardly surprising. She has pledged to defend “our great partner Israel” by imposing sanctions on Iran, journalist Max Blumenthan revealed in an article published online. She is the architect of the extreme sanctions regime.

There would have been no need for sanctions or Iranian deception if Trump had honoured the 2015 agreement, under which Iran dismantled 90 per cent of its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. He withdrew for several reasons. He is determined to destroy all the achievements of President Barack Obama, the Iran deal being his major foreign success. During his election campaign, Trump promised his conservative “base” of supporters that he would “tear up the deal” although most members of this constituency probably have no idea where Iran is and are not interested in the nuclear deal. He also sought to please his great friend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by not only wrecking the deal by pulling out, but also by imposing ever tougher sanctions which Mandelker has used to punish anyone who has anything to do with Iran, even US academics who attend conferences in Iran.

Although France, Germany and Britain have tried to establish a mechanism which would allow Iran to sell enough oil to purchase medicine and humanitarian supplies, this has not yet come into force due to US pressure and interference. Iranian officials argue the country needs to export between 750,000 and 1.5 million barrels of crude a day in order to save the agreement from collapse. Tehran has given Europe two months to find a way to circumvent Trump’s sanctions. Europe, which continues to support the agreement, is trapped by Trump and his exactions. Last week, France proposed a financial bailout, allowing Iran to receive $15 billion in hard currency, about half its normal revenue from a year’s oil exports. Trump has to give assent before it can be implemented.

Having scrupulously complied with the agreement until May this year, Iran has since then taken small steps to pull back from the agreement. It has increased output of enriched uranium beyond limits set by the deal, slightly raised the approved level of enrichment and is upgrading its centrifuges. Iran argues its actions are within the scope of the agreement, while the US is in violation by withdrawing from it and ramping up sanctions.

Trump has blacklisted Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and  branded the country’s army, the Revolutionary Guard Corps, a “terrorist” organisation. Through the wide use of sanctions, the Trump administration has reduced by 80 per cent Iran’s oil exports, its main source of external revenue.

After the six-nation nuclear agreement was implemented in January 2016, Iran was able to export oil, metal, gold and other items and its economy surged. Since Trump reinstated sanctions, Iran’s economy has returned to negative growth. International human rights laws should prohibit the use of sanctions that negatively impact populations of targeted countries since such sanctions constitute collective punishment, which is deemed illegal in international law.

Iran cannot be expected to submit to such punishment and will retaliate somehow whenever it can. Afraid to cross Trump and his minions, Europe promises Iran relief but fails to deliver. It is hardly surprising that Iran responded to the British detention of Grace 1, by taking charge of a British-flagged tanker, the Stena Impero, in the Strait of Hormuz. Now that its tanker is moored in Tartus, the Stena Impero is expected to be released.

*

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.

During UK–EU Brexit negotiations, Theresa May pursued a determined path of concealment and non-disclosure. Envisaged as a way to protect herself against political opposition, enhancing her bargaining power vis-à-vis the EU and deliver policy promises, the strategy failed and contributed to the end of her premiership. Ben Worthy and Marlen Heide detail how her case illustrates the powers of increasing transparency expectations and the risks of concealment over longer times or around contentious issues. It provides a useful lesson for her successor.

***

Contemporary leaders are caught between expectations and obligations of transparency and the pressure to achieve tangible outcomes in complex and hostile political environments. Being open is a moral commitment and a way of building trust and legitimacy. Yet leaders still have powerful incentives and temptations to choose a strategy of concealment to protect their power, policy plans or reputation. As such, secrecy still features as part of leaders’ strategic repertoire. How does such an approach play out in an age of transparency?

Pursuing a strategy of secrecy can be a powerful instrument protecting leaders’ room for manoeuvre or power. It can be vital for protecting early or delicate discussions, especially around contentious policy issues. Frequently, secrecy also serves to minimise blame or conceal personal or political mistakes.

Secrecy can, in certain contexts, be a necessary, if not fruitful, way of leading. Concealment, however, comes with risks and downsides, undermining the benefits it is supposed to bring. Secrecy provokes suspicion and speculation, and can raise demands for transparency or provoke leaks. Cover-ups of political mistakes can cause greater damage on a leader’s reputation in the long-term, creating stronger opposition and undermining trust. The can even prove terminal to a career, as the resignations of Eden and Nixon show. Finally, secrecy needs constant maintenance and can consume valuable time and political energy.

Table 1: Incentives for secrecy and related risks

The case of Theresa May’s premiership shows what happens when a leader chooses a strategy of concealment in an age of transparency. It illustrates that context is key, and secrecy is more difficult for high-profile controversial issues, such as Brexit, and particularly damaging if exposed when it is tied to the reputation of the leader themselves, as was the case for May.

Theresa May: Prime Minister of secrets

Theresa May had a long-standing reputation for strict information control and a secretive working style. As Home Secretary between 2010 and 2016, she had a ‘preference for working with a close team of advisers [nicknamed the Chiefs], often not bothering to share information with Number 10 or other ministers’. She avoided publicity and scrutiny when problems threatened, causing David Cameron to call her ‘the submarine’. May ‘survived as home secretary for six years partly because she held a tight grip over information flows’ and twice (in 2011 and 2016), blame avoidance and information control saved her career.

As a Prime Minister, May tied her reputation to her ability to successfully negotiate Brexit and, in turn, Brexit to secrecy. She made it clear that her approach was based on strict confidentiality by saying there will be no ‘running commentary’ on the negotiations. May was warned in late 2016 that ‘silence is not a strategy’. In her case, concealment was doubly risky, since there was no substantive policy to protect.

In the short-term, May’s approach temporarily preserved her room for manoeuvre, and her power over a divided party. Many of her big decisions – triggering article 50 or calling a snap election – were taken in small, secret groups. Her avoidance of the press for anything other than set-piece interviews or speeches helped protected her reputation for competence for some time, at least until the election campaign of 2017 shined a dazzling, brutal, light on her abilities.

May’s secretive approach came under pressure domestically. For over two years, Parliament used all the tools at its disposal to force greater openness around Brexit. MPs and committees sought to open up Brexit. Between 2016 and 2018 select committees launched more than 108 inquiries into various aspects of Brexit, as well as creating a new, unusually large, DEXEU committee to scrutinise the negotiations. The ‘publicity spotlight’ at committee hearings revealed ministerial contradictions or confusion. In one day in November 2017, for example, six committees simultaneously questioned six different officials and ministers about Brexit.

One key symbolic battle concerned several government-produced studies on the impact of Brexit. Their existence first became known in the summer of 2017, triggering several requests for documentary access. After FOIs were refused, in November 2017 Labour used an obscure piece of parliamentary procedure, a Humble Address to Her Majesty, to force the government to release them. Other key pieces of information that the government clearly wished to keep secret, from other assessments to legal advice, were forced out of them or informally disclosed. Alongside the more spectacular battles was a daily drip of disclosure. Parliamentary pressure through questions, statements and government scrutiny meant, as the Chair of the Exiting the EU committee put it, ‘we learn something new about the potential impact of Brexit every day’.

At the same time, May’s divided government leaked continually. The leaks began straight away, and this BBC headline sums it up quite how bad things became: ‘Leak inquiry into leaking of letter warning about leaks’. This got worse after 2017 as May’s authority waned and Cabinet ministers openly undermined and contradicted policy. Behind the scenes, pressure from Conservative backbench MPs forced May to be more open and publish the first Brexit White paper in 2017 and another in 2018. By 2019 May appeared to have lost control of the policy, the narrative and with it her own reputation.

Boris Johnson: hiding in plain sight?

Interestingly, May’s successor, Boris Johnson, has followed the same path, with hidden plans for Brexit, made with a closed networks of advisers. He too has said he will deliver Brexit, but what the real plans are – or if there is plan – remains a mystery, with bluff, secrecy and lies swirling like a smokescreen.

In his leadership bid there were limited chances for questions from the press and few interviews. Once in power, Johnson appointed Dominic Cummings, who hadbeen held in contempt of Parliament over his refusal to give evidence. There were early warnings that leaking would mean instant dismissal (though that was, of course, leaked). Most controversially there has been the lengthy prorogation of parliament, which means that Johnson has had a mere five days of scrutiny and avoided the now regular liaison committee appearance, which was scheduled for today, 11 September. Rumours abound of Johnson’s government not only avoiding scrutiny itself, but seeking to scrutinise and gather data on us.

The counter-pressure for forced openness has been even swifter for Johnson than May. Again, like May, Johnson now faces pressure to publish government assessments, this time around ‘Operation Yellowhammer’, its analysis of the impact of a no-deal Brexit (already leaks have undermined Johnson’s own claims).In the final moments before Parliament was prorogued, a humble address again struck, seeking messages, including texts as WhatsApp messages, around prorogation, sending a signal of the determination of opponents to break open the government’s plans. The motion covered:

All correspondence and other communications (whether formal or informal, in both written and electronic form, including but not limited to messaging services including WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Facebook messenger, private email accounts both encrypted and unencrypted, text messaging and iMessage and the use of both official and personal mobile phones.

The all-embracing nature was due to fears – based on leaks from anonymous public officials to Dominic Grieve MP – that decisions were being made outside of formal records and decision-making process (something Michael Gove has previous for). Even if the motion fails to turn up much information – and the government seems unwilling to provide any – it will create pressure for leaks and scrutiny from elsewhere. At the same time, the case in the Scottish courts may prove a crucial first step in undermining his power. It first revealed Downing Street documents showing Johnson’s planning back in August, including his insult that Cameron was a ‘girly swot’ (initially redacted, see image), and today the Court of Session has concluded the main purpose of prorogation was to hinder scrutiny, and so unlawful.

We’ll see when the UK Supreme Court considers the matter next week the full extent of the damage to Johnson’s reputation, and the extent to which such secrecy helps or hinders his power, his policy and his reputation. Hiding anything over a long period of time in a high polarised and partisan environment is almost impossible. May’s attempts to keep the Brexit negotiations secret amid such strong transparency pressure, and with a divided, leak-prone government, always appeared highly unlikely, if not futile. Secrecy triggered a negative spiral against a greater counter-pressure for transparency, exposing May’s policy. Using secrecy to protect a reputation means that any exposure has consequences for a leader’s credibility: May’s premiership came under even greater scrutiny, eventually crashing her reputation. For May, in the end, secrecy failed to deliver power, protection or tangible results. Will it for Boris Johnson?

This post has been updated to include a reference to the ruling of the Scottish Court of Session on prorogation on 11 September.

This post represents the views of the authors and not those of Democratic Audit. It draws on their article, ‘Secrecy and Leadership: The Case of Theresa May’s Brexit Negotiations’, recently published in Public Integrity, 1-13.

*

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.

Ben Worthy is Senior Lecturer in Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London. He is the author of The Politics of Freedom of Information: How and why governments pass laws that threaten their power.

Marlen Heide is a Ph.D. student at the Faculty of Communication Sciences, Università della Svizzera italiana at Lugano.

Featured image by 726056 from Pixabay

War in Syria rages in parts of the country. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov claims it’s over, saying:

“The war in Syria has really come to an end. The country is gradually returning to a normal, peaceful life,” adding: 

“Some hotspots of tensions remain in the territories that are not controlled by the Syrian government, such as Idlib and the eastern bank of the Euphrates.”

Northern and southern Syria are US occupied territory. Numerous Pentagon bases control about 30% of the country — used as platforms for endless war in its ninth year, resolution unattainable because dark forces running things in Washington reject the idea.

Permanent war is official US policy, raging in multiple theaters — military Keynsianism on steroids.

Ruinous military spending and endless wars rage while vital homeland needs go begging — overwhelmingly supported by both hard-right wings of the US war party, rejecting world peace and stability.

The US came to all its war theaters to stay, permanent occupation planned directly and/or through installed puppet regimes.

Turkish forces occupy northern parts of Syria, part of President Erdogan’s aim to annex the territory, especially oil-rich areas of the country.

On Thursday, Putin and Netanyahu met in Sochi, Russia’s president saying the following:

“We stressed, emphasized, the need – and here the Israelis fully agree with us (sic) – to ensure real, in practice, not only in words, respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic,” adding:

“And in this sense, we (sic) on our part highlighted the issues of assisting the Syrian authorities and the Syrians on the whole in their returning to peaceful life.”

Netanyahu told Putin he’ll act freely against what he called an Iranian threat in Syria — that doesn’t exist.

He said

“there has been a serious increase in attempts by Iran to hit Israel from Syria and to place there precision missiles to use against us” — the remark part of his pre-election fear-mongering campaign.

Haaretz slammed what it called a “nasty, racist campaign that will go down in Israel’s history” — the nation “mired deep in a political and constitutional nightmare.”

Netanyahu threatened war on Gaza, saying:

“There will be an operation, but I will not embark on it a moment before we are ready…(T)here apparently will be no choice but to topple Hamas.”

Russia’s Foreign Ministry slammed Netanyahu’s campaign pledge to annex the Jordan Valley if reelected, saying:

His vow “provoked a sharply negative reaction in the Arab world…We share the concern about such plans…whose implementation could lead to a sharp escalation of tension in the region and undermine hopes for a long-awaited peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors.”

Is Lavrov right about war in Syria ending? Current headlines dispute him, some examples:

Press TV: “Joint US-Turkish patrols in flagrant violation of Syria’s sovereignty: Damascus”

Press TV: Israel claims drone attack near Syria’s border with Iraq”

Fars News: “Thousands of Terrorists Deployed to Borders with Turkey at Al-Jolani’s Order for Battle with Syrian Army”

Fars News: “Syria in Last 24 Hours: Tahrir Al-Sham (Al Nusra) Starts Forced Recruitment of Soldiers for Battle with Syrian Army”

AMN News: “ISIS carries out new attack in northern Syria”

AMN News: “Turkey sends large military convoy to reinforce Idlib”

AMN News: “Heavy clashes breakout between Turkish-backed militants in northern Aleppo”

AMN News: “Syrian Army readies forces for upcoming Latakia offensive.”

AMN News: “Russian Air Force unleashes heavy strikes over western Idlib”

South Front: “Russian, Syrian Warplanes Rain Hell on Militant Positions in Southern Idlib”

South Front: Russian Warplanes Target Militant Positions on Syrian-Turkish Border”

South Front: “US Proxies in Al-Tanf Claim They Repelled Syrian Army Attack”

Pentagon and CIA operatives continue arming, funding, and training jihadists at US bases in Syria, deploying them to parts of the country to attack government forces and civilians.

Al-Qaeda-connected White Helmets operate with them, masquerading as civil defense workers.

On Wednesday, Russian General Alexey Bakin said jihadists “opened fire with small arms at a market in (the) Rukban (refugee camp in southeastern Syria) to disperse (starving) civilians demanding food.”

Last week, pro-Western UN human rights chief Michelle Bachelet falsely accused Russian and Syrian forces for hundreds of civilian deaths in Idlib and Hama provinces from late April to late August.

Giving short shrift to US-supported terrorists, she said: “Non-State armed groups (sic) also carried out attacks on populated government-controlled territories, and are reportedly responsible for…58 civilian deaths.”

She ignored Pentagon-led terror-bombing, responsible for mass slaughter and destruction since 2014.

Syria is Washington’s war, launched by the Obama regime, escalated by Trump hardliners.

It continues raging in parts of the country, resolution nowhere in sight.

*

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.

Israel aggressively spies on allies and adversaries alike.

Former CIA counterintelligence specialist/military intelligence officer Philip Giraldi earlier accused Israel of stealing everything it can get its hands on — notably military and industrial secrets. 

He called evidence of Israeli spying on the US “indisputable.” An earlier FBI report said the following:

“Israel has an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States,” adding:

“These collection activities are primarily directed at obtaining information on military systems and advanced computing applications that can be used in Israel’s sizable armaments industry.”

Washington’s Government Accountability Office (GAO) once said Israel “conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally.”

The Pentagon earlier accused Israel of “actively engag(ing) in military and industrial espionage in the United States.”

In 2014, an NSA document  leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden accused Israel of spying on the US, saying:

“The Israelis are extraordinarily good partners for us, but on the other (hand), they target us to learn our positions on Middle East problems.”

Despite knowledge of extensive Israeli spying in the US, the Justice Department, US intelligence community, Congress, and the executive branch maintain normal relations with the Jewish state — considered both ally and counterintelligence threat.

The Wall Street Journal earlier said Israel spied on Iran nuclear talks while ongoing — to “build a case against the emerging terms of the deal,” citing unnamed current and former US officials.

According to an unnamed senior US official, “(i)t is one thing for the US and Israel to spy on each other.”

“It is another thing for Israel to steal (its) secrets and play them back to (congressional) legislators to undermine US diplomacy.”

Yet nothing is done about it, Israel considered a valued US ally despite its unacceptable actions.

On Thursday, Politico said “mysterious (Israeli cellphone) spy devices (were found) near the White House and other sensitive locations around Washington,” citing unnamed former senior US officials, adding:

So-called “ ‘StingRays’ mimic regular cell towers to fool cellphones into giving them their locations and identity information.”

“(T)hey also can capture the contents of calls and data use…FBI and other agencies working on the case felt confident that Israeli agents had placed the devices, according to the former officials, several of whom served in top intelligence and national security posts.”

One official said it’s “pretty clear that the Israelis were responsible.”

In denial, Trump said “I don’t think the Israelis are spying on us. I really would find that hard to believe.”

Responding to the disclosure, Netanyahu falsely said “Israel doesn’t conduct espionage operations in the United States, period,” a bald-faced Big Lie.

Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz repeated Netanyahu’s false statement, adding:

“The US and Israel share a lot of intelligence information and work together to prevent threats and strengthen the security of both countries.”

Former Israeli military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin called Politico’s report “fake news spiced with anti-Semitism (sic).”

On Thursday, Politico reporter Daniel Lippman stood by his account, stressing its accuracy, dismissing Israeli denials.

US Naval Intelligence Support Center (NISC)/Navy human intelligence (HUMINT) intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard was the most high-profile Israeli spy caught red-handed in the US.

Arrested in 1985, he pled guilty in 1986, then sentenced to life imprisonment in 1987 for supplying Israel with top-secret classified information.

Senior US officials claimed his espionage was far more serious and wide-ranging than publicly reported at the time.

It reportedly included a detailed NSA manual on how the agency collects signal intelligence, countless names of individuals who cooperated with US intelligence, and much more before caught.

Granted parole in July 2015, he was released in November that year.

Nations routinely spy on each other, some more aggressively than others, notably the US and Israel.

Snowden earlier called NSA spying a “total awareness” obsession. The agency wants privacy eliminated, he said.

Its ultimate aim is the ability to monitor everyone everywhere at all times — for US political, economic, technological, and military advantage.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from American Free Press

Presidential candidate Joe Biden is now claiming about the 2003 Iraq invasion: “Yes, I did oppose the war before it began.”

Biden has been claiming:

“From the moment ‘shock and awe’ started, from that moment, I was opposed to the effort, and I was outspoken as much as anyone at all in the Congress.”

That claim was made by Biden in the second DNC debate and received virtually no scrutiny except for the piece by Mideast scholar Stephen Zunes, “Biden Is Doubling Down on Iraq War Lies.”

Biden repeated the claim recently on NPR and did receive some scrutiny. The Biden camp claimed he “misspoke” — but then reiterated the central claim, that Biden “was immediately clear in his opposition to how we got into the conflict” — an explanation the Washington Post accepted.

Now, independent journalist Michael Tracey, who interviewed Biden in New Hampshire recently, reports that Biden is now claiming that he opposed the invasion of Iraq even before it started; see his piece and video, which contains audio of Biden’s most recent remarks.

Of course, Biden voted for the war authorization bill in October 2002 and, as  Zunes has amply documented, stood by that vote after the invasion started.

Tracey also writes:

“When I reminded Biden that if he opposed the war all along, he could have joined 23 of his Senate colleagues in voting against authorizing it, he replied: ‘No, no, because they argued against authorizing the ability to get the United Nations to go back in with inspectors. We needed the Security Council to get a vote to put inspectors in to determine whether or not there was any nuclear activity going on.’”

This statement is wrong on several levels. Perhaps most obviously, in mid-September, before the congressional vote, Iraq had agreed to allow weapons inspectors back in. On Sept 16, 2002, the New York Times reported: “U.N. Inspectors Can Return Unconditionally, Iraq Says.” (This was immediately after a delegation organized by the Institute for Public Accuracy had gone to Iraq.)

Biden did initially back a bill along with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar which would have somewhat constrained Bush’s capacity to launch an invasion at his whim. But the Bush administration opposed the measure — and Biden voted for the legislation giving Bush the leeway he wanted. See Biden’s speech.

*

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.

Sam Husseini, sam at accuracy.org, @samhusseini is senior analyst with the Institute for Public Accuracy and has written extensively on U.S. policy on Iraq. See his recent piece: “Film Official Secrets Is Tip of Mammoth Iceberg.”

There was something richly amusing in the move: three judges, sitting in Scotland’s highest court of appeal, had little time for the notion that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s suspension, or proroguing, of parliament till October 14, had been lawful.  Some 78 parliamentarians had taken issue with the Conservative leader’s limitation on Parliamentary activity, designed to prevent any hiccups prior to October 31, the day Britain is slated to leave the European Union.

It did take two efforts.  The initial action in Edinburgh’s Outer House of the Court of Session was unsuccessful for the petitioners.  Conventional wisdom then was that such issues were, as a matter of high policy, political and therefore non-justiciable.  Legal standards, in other words, could not be applied to the decision.  (British judges tend to be rather reserved when it comes to treading on matters that might be seen as the staple of political judgment.)

All three First Division judges thought otherwise, taking the high road that this was exceptional.  Lord Carloway, the Lord President, accepted in principle that advice by the Prime Minister to the Queen would not normally be reviewable by courts.  Such a realm was customarily one above and beyond the judicial wigs.  That said, as a summary of the judgement records, “it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution”.  That principle was drawn, by implication, from the “principles of democracy and the rule of law.”  Feeling emboldened, Lord Carloway, on examining the documents supplied by Johnson and his team, felt that improper reasons could be discerned.

Lord Brodie similarly noted the singular nature of the circumstances. Under normal circumstances prorogation advice would not be reviewable, but if it constituted a tactic designed to frustrate Parliament, it could well be deemed unlawful.  In this case, Johnson’s move was “an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities.”  It could be inferred on the evidence that “the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no deal Brexit without further Parliamentary inference.”  Bold stuff, indeed, and hard to fault.

The third judge, Lord Drummond Young, was bolder still.  No need to be nimble footed here: the entire scope of such powers, relevant to prorogation or otherwise, could be legally tested.  The onus was on the UK government to show a valid reason for the prorogation “having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny or executive action.”  The clues of evident impropriety in Johnson’s action lay in the length of the suspension and the general circumstances suggesting a prevention of scrutiny.  There could be no other inference that the move showed a wish “to restrict Parliament.”

The full bench, accordingly, made an order “declaring that the prime minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and thus null and of no effect.”  Few more damning statements have ever issued against a prime minister of the realm. 

In an effort to remove some egg on the faces of government officials, a spokesman for Number 10 claimed to be disappointed by the decision, insisting that Johnson needed “to bring forward a strong domestic legislative agenda.  Proroguing Parliament is the legal and necessary way of delivering this.”  This was a somewhat milder version from those offered by other sources close to the Prime Minister, claiming political bias on the Scottish bench.  “We note that last week the High Court in London did not rule that prorogation was unlawful.  The legal activists choose the Scottish courts for a reason.”  The cheek of it all. 

As for certain conservative outlets, accepting the judgment of the Court of Session was, well, unacceptable.  The Supreme Court, it was hoped by the likes of Richard Ekins, would clean up the mess made by their northern brethren with clear heads.  The Scottish decision had been “a startling – and misconceived – judgment.”

 Which brings us to the second front opened up by petitioners in England itself.  A High Court challenge, with an appeal now expected to be heard in the Supreme Court next week, initially failed to yield any movement.  But Johnson had little reason, or time, to gloat.  The government is now reverting to a stalling game, refusing to act on the Scottish decision till the English equivalent is handed down.  Not all business, however, will be suspended: the work of select committees, for instance, will continue.  The government also finds itself in the trenches, facing a Parliament intent on extending the Brexit date in order to achieve a deal.   

The publication of the full, previously leaked doomsday document, the Yellowhammer contingency plan, anticipating measures if a no deal Brexit takes place, has also done its bit to pockmark Johnson’s efforts to maintain a steady ship.  The prime minister, said Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn accusingly, “is prepared to punish those who can least afford it.”

 The government’s hope is that the Supreme Court case will move at its usual snail’s pace, thereby making any point ventured by Johnson’s detractors a moot point.  Richard Dickman of Pinsent Masons has observed that such appeals “take months sometimes years, but the court can move quickly in urgent cases like this one.”  The occasion promises to be quite a judicial party: 11 of the 12 law lords will be sitting. 

Testing the judicial weather, Dickman suggested that there might “be a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ decision from the court with a more detailed judgment to follow.”  Another chapter in the annals of British law and parliamentary farce is being written.  In the meantime, the sentiment of the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, reverberates through Europe. “We do not have reasons to be optimistic.”

*

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

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

The 5G danger can’t be overstated.

5G (5th Generation) is now being actively rolled out in many cities around the world. Simultaneously, as awareness over its horrific health and privacy impacts is rising, many places are issuing moratoriums on it or banning it, such as the entire nation of Belgium, the city of Vaud (Switzerland) and San Francisco (USA).

Radiofrequency radiation (RF or RFR) and electromagnetic fields (EMF) are being increasingly recognized as new types of pollution – environmental pollution. Here are 13 reasons exposing the 5G danger, which could turn into an unmitigated health and privacy catastrophe if enough people don’t rise up to stop it.

Read the complete article 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.

The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change has released a report, Designating Hate: New Policy Responses to Stop Hate Crime, which recommends radical initiatives to tackle “hate” groups, even if they have not committed any kind of violent activity.

The problem, as the think-tank defines it, is “the dangerous nature of hateful groups, including on the far right like Britain First and Generation Identity. But current laws are unable to stop groups that spread hate and division, but do not advocate violence”. The think-tank defines what it sees as one of the main problems with hate crime the following way:

“A steady growth in hate crime has been driven by surges around major events. Often this begins online. Around the 2017 terror attacks in the UK, hate incidents online increased by almost 1,000 per cent, from 4,000 to over 37,500 daily. In the 48-hour period after an event, hate begins to flow offline”.

Specifically, the report mentioned as problematic the rise online in “hate incidents” after three Islamic terrorist attacks in the UK in 2017 — the Westminster car-ramming and stabbing attack in March by Khalid Masood, who murdered pedestrians and a police officer; the Manchester arena bombing in May, at the end of an Ariana Grande concert, in which Salman Abedi murdered 22 people — the youngest only 8 years old — and injured more than 200 people; and the London Bridge ramming attack in June, in which Rachid Redouane, Khuram Butt and Youssef Zaghba drove a van into pedestrians on London Bridge and then proceeded to stab people in nearby Borough Market. Eight people were murdered in that attack.

Disturbingly, the main concern of Blair’s think-tank appears to be the online verbal “hatred” displayed by citizens in response to terrorist attacks – not the actual physical expression of hatred shown in the mass murders of innocent people by terrorists. Terrorist attacks, it would appear, are now supposedly normal, unavoidable incidents that have become part and parcel of UK life.

The report claims:

“Divisive groups – especially increasingly mainstreamed far-right groups – spread hatred with relative impunity because responses to nonviolent extremism remain uncoordinated; hate incidents spike around major events, leaving communities exposed; and perpetrators of religious hate are rarely prosecuted due to gaps in legislation”.

The problem, according to the report, is that “current laws are unable to stop groups that spread hate and division, but do not advocate violence”.

One of the think-tank’s suggested solutions to this problem is to:

“Create a new law to designate ‘hate groups’. This new tier of hate group designation would be the first of its kind in Europe and would help tackle nonviolent extremist groups that demonise specific groups on the basis of their race, religious, gender, nationality or sexuality … Powers to designate would, like proscription powers, fall under the Home Office’s remit and require ministerial sign off”.

The report defines a hate group as:

“Spreading intolerance and antipathy towards people of a different race, religion, gender or nationality, specifically because of these characteristics; Aligning with extremist ideologies… though not inciting violence; Committing hate crimes or inspiring others to do so via hate speech; Disproportionately blaming specific groups (based on religion, race, gender or nationality) for broader societal issues”.

It would be up to the government to define what is understood by “spreading intolerance”, or “blaming specific groups for broader societal issues”.

Being designated a “hate group”, it is underlined in the report, “would sit alongside proscription but not be linked to violence or terrorism, while related offences would be civil not criminal”.

Unlike proscribed groups that are banned for criminal actions, such as violence or terrorism, the designation of “hate group” would mainly be prosecuting thought-crimes.

The groups that Blair’s think-tank mentions as main examples of those to be designated hate groups are Britain First and Generation Identity. Both are political; Britain First is also an aspiring political party with parliamentary ambitions. If the report’s suggestions were to be adopted into law, these movements, if designated as “hate groups” would not be allowed “to use media outlets or speak at universities”. They would also not be allowed “to engage, work with or for public institutions”.

However, the report tries to assure us, “hate designation would be time-limited and automatically reviewed, conditioned on visible reform of the group”.

Although the report would still allow designated “hate groups” to “meet, support or campaign”, such a law would mean that the political speech of designated groups would be rendered null and void. The European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence on the convention from the European Court of Human Rights puts a special premium on political speech, which enjoys particular protection: it is so fundamental to the basic workings of a democratic society. In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has stated[1] that the convention

“…protects not only the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected”.

Even more important is that, according to the European Court of Human Rights’ case law,

“…the extent of protection depends on the context and the aim of the criticism. In matters of public controversy or public interest, during political debate, in electoral campaigns… strong words and harsh criticism may be expected and will be tolerated to a greater degree by the Court”. [emphasis added]

The European Court of Human Rights may therefore find aspects of the proposed law problematic precisely because of concerns with free speech and basic democratic values.

Democratic values, however, appear to be the think-tank’s least concern. The proposed law would make the British government the arbiter of accepted speech, especially political speech. Such an extraordinary and radically authoritarian move would render freedom of speech an illusion in the UK. The Home Office would be able to accuse any group it found politically inconvenient of “spreading intolerance” or “aligning with extremist ideologies” — and designate it a “hate group”.

It would make the old Soviets proud.

*

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.

Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Note

[1] Monica Macovei: A guide to the implementation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, p 16, (Human rights handbooks, No. 2, 2004).

Featured image is from iStock

On Wednesday evening, Boris Johnson’s government was forced to release its forecast for a no-deal Brexit, codenamed “Operation Yellowhammer.” The six-page document affirms the social and economic catastrophe threatened by a no-deal Brexit and underscores the danger of authoritarian rule in the UK.

While the government insists that the scenarios outlined in Yellowhammer represent “reasonable worst case assumptions,” a widely shared version of the document from the same day uses the phrase “base scenario.”

The release of the document disproves the government’s claims, made last summer when the Times first leaked details of Yellowhammer, that the forecast was an outdated hangover from Theresa May’s time as Conservative prime minister. The document is dated 10 days after Johnson became prime minister, confirming that Yellowhammer presents the expected outcome of a no-deal Brexit.

The initial problem identified is the hold-up of freight transport at the Channel Tunnel and Britain’s ports. The flow rate of HGVs could drop to 40-60 percent of its current levels for three months following Brexit, with lorries stuck for up to two-and-a-half days, before “improving” to 50-70 percent.

Some level of continued disruption is expected to last “significantly longer.” The breakdown of supply chains will “have an impact on the supply of medicines and medical supplies,” which, due to their short shelf life, are “particularly vulnerable.” The reduced supply of veterinary medicines will “reduce our ability to prevent and control [animal] disease outbreaks, with potentially detrimental impacts for… the environment, and wider food safety/availabilities and zoonotic diseases which can directly impact human health.”

The British Medical Association has described these points as “alarming,” saying they confirm its warnings about the threat of medical supply shortages in the case of a no-deal break with the EU.

As for food supplies, a no-deal Brexit will “reduce availability and choice of products and will increase price.” The document adds, “There is a risk that panic buying will cause or exacerbate” these problems.

Helen Dickinson of the British Retail Consortium commented,

“Fresh food availability will decrease, consumer choice will decrease, and prices will rise.”

A no-deal Brexit threatens to “disrupt fuel supply in London and the South East” and “customer behaviour could lead to local shortages in other parts of the country.” In addition, “Significant electricity price increases” are expected, “with associated wider economic and political impacts.” An “increase in inflation following EU exit would significantly impact adult social care providers … and may lead to provider failure.”

In one of the most telling passages, the document concludes that these effects will hit “vulnerable,” “low income” groups hardest, leading to a “rise in public disorder and community tensions.”

All of this is to say nothing of the impact of the government’s own economic plans for post-Brexit Britain. These include substantial tax cuts for the wealthy and the corporations, the removal of many labour protections, deeper social spending cuts, and the setting up of “free ports” to enable the hyper exploitation of large sections of the workforce. These measures add up to the wholesale destruction of living standards for a large majority of the population.

A no-deal scenario is also expected to immediately create flashpoints for international tensions. Confusion and conflict over fishing rights between UK and EU fishermen are thought “likely” to produce “violent disputes or blockading of ports.”

The document describes the government’s promise not to establish a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland as “unsustainable due to significant economic, legal and biosecurity risks and no effective unilateral mitigations to address this will be available.”

A legal case is ongoing against the government, challenging the legality of a no-deal Brexit on the grounds that it would violate the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 promises to protect. The argument was rejected by the Belfast High Court on Thursday, with the judge saying that the main aspects of the case “were inherently and unmistakably political,” but will be appealed. Raymond McCord, a campaigner for victims of the Northern Ireland Troubles who brought the case, says he plans to take it to the Supreme Court.

The situation outlined in Operation Yellowhammer is one in which democratic forms of rule cannot be maintained. While the media has noted the document’s reference to the “significant amounts of police resources” required to deal with protests, next to nothing has been said about the wider plans for repression known to be in motion.

It is understood that 50,000 regular and reserve troops will be made ready “in case of civil unrest, to assist at Britain’s airports and to ensure fuel and medical supplies.” They will be backed up by 10,000 riot police, ready to be deployed in 24 hours, and 1,000 extra police from Britain sent to reinforce the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Discussions have been held amongst senior civil servants about the use of powers normally reserved “to deal with national emergencies such as acts of war and terrorism,” including the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, introduced by the Labour government of Tony Blair. These powers include, according to the Sunday Times, “Curfews, bans on travel, confiscation of property and, most drastic, the deployment of the armed forces to quell rioting.” Ministers “can also amend any act of parliament, except the Human Rights Act, for a maximum of 21 days.”

One paragraph in the document, numbered 15, has been redacted. Only members of the Privy Council—who swear an oath to keep matters discussed in the Council secret—will be allowed to read the text.

The government claims to have censored the paragraph “on the grounds of commercial sensitivity.” The Times leak in August revealed that this paragraph dealt with threats to the UK fuel industry and the political ramifications. It read: “Facing EU tariffs makes petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability but UK Government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0 percent inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to significant financial losses and announcement of two refinery closures (and transition to import terminals) and direct job losses (about 2,000).

“Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions directly supplied by the refineries.”

Given that this information is already in the public sphere, it is very likely that the government is trying to hide an updated, far worse, assessment. Significantly, the censored paragraph is the only point in the document to reference the threat of strikes.

The government has admitted the likelihood of “protests and counter-protests,” presumably relating to Leave and Remain supporters, and even “protests and direct action with road blockages” in Northern Ireland over border issues and their economic consequences. But it cannot acknowledge the prospect of industrial action, which would involve far more than 2,000 refinery workers.

For the last three years, the ruling class has been able to exclude the working class from intervening independently in the Brexit crisis thanks to the role played by the trade unions and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. The number of workers involved in disputes in 2018 (39,000) was the second lowest since 1893. The lowest number since 1893 was in 2017, which saw just 33,000 workers involved in industrial action.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party and union bureaucrats have sought to tie the workers to one or the other of the equally reactionary factions—pro-EU or pro-Brexit—of the ruling elite.

The development of major strikes in the course or aftermath of Brexit threatens to bring the working class back into the political equation, where it can begin to assert its own interests. It is against this potential movement that the immense forces of repression built up through Operation Yellowhammer will be deployed.

*

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

***

To read the full report. Open access paper: Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices

On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump finally fired his third national security advisor, John Bolton after eighteen long and grueling months. John happens to be the thirty-fifth member of Trump’s revolving door administration to get fired or resign, since he took office in 2016. Bolton gives a different version of events but regardless of whether he was fired or resigned, Bolton is not in a powerful position anymore (and hopefully nevermore), and the world is a better place for it.

Now some might think is an overly optimistic way to look at things and that his replacement might be just as bad or maybe even worse, but can we think of anyone who could possibly be worse? I think that would be a stretch for even the staunchest neo-conservatives. John was unapologetic about advocating for more war, he hungered with an insatiable appetite to bomb and nuke nations that he didn’t like, he made enemies out of our adversaries and although it’s possible, it would be a difficult task to find someone that matches his outspoken and hard-lined hostile views.

Non-interventionists and anti-war advocates rightfully celebrated what might possibly be the end of the Israel-First, war hawk’s political career. While progressives rejoiced, Democrats and even some Republicans expressed disappointment and sadness about his dismissal.

After having served under three previous presidents; Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W. Bush many questioned the reasoning behind Trump hiring Bolton in the first place. A staunch advocate for intervention and increased war, Bolton’s foreign policy views differed greatly from those Trump advocated for during his presidential campaign, which helped him win the presidency. Wanting to end our involvement in wars, and not get the United states into any additional regime change wars and advocating for diplomacy and negotiations when possible just wasn’t on par with how Bolton preferred to handle foreign affairs.

Bolton vocally opposed diplomacy and dialogue attempts by Trump. Whenever attempts were made to bridge gaps between the United States and its adversaries Bolton found ways to hinder or sabotage progress.

Some have stated that on Monday the two men reached a breaking point over Afghanistan and Iran. Bolton adamantly opposed the idea of Trump meeting with the Taliban in Camp David or Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani later this month in New York.

On Wednesday, Trump, said that they had disagreed on other matters including Venezuela, saying that Bolton “was way out of line”, and had tried to sabotage denuclearization talks with North Korea by mentioning the “Libya model.” That among other reasons might be why Kim Jong Un had a strong distaste for Bolton and didn’t want him involved in any negotiations.

Regardless of what the reasons were (and there are many to choose from including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Venezuela etc.) behind why Trump fired Bolton after eighteen months, he finally pulled the plug and not a day too soon after having disagreed on many issues.

Bolton’s overnight ouster has left many wondering who will replace him, and whether that person will be Bolton 2.0 or someone more closely aligned with Trump’s foreign policy views. Regarding this, Trump told reports in the White House on Wednesday that there are five people (originally the number being heard around town was nine) who want the position “very much” and the chosen person will be announced next week.

Some have said that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (who is favored by Trump) might even straddle both positions as the nation’s chief foreign diplomat and the president’s top national security liaison much like Henry Kissinger did under former President Richard Nixon in 1973. Some are warning that this is a bad idea.

There’s a good chance that Pompeo not only supported but advocated for the ouster of Bolton. Some have said that Pompeo purposely left Bolton out of important meetings in recent weeks.

Many people inside and outside of Trump’s administration believe that Bolton’s dismissal will help ease diplomatic efforts such as peace talks with Iran and North Korea. The idea here isn’t that whoever takes on this role will have that much of an impact or real power but rather will they be able to carry out or execute the policies that Trump decides to put in place? For instance, when Trump announced last December that he wanted to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria, Bolton did not agree with that, and worked with others to sway Trump to back down on his decision.

According to an article published by Foreign Policy on Wednesday, some of the names being tossed around are Douglas MacGregor a retired Army Colonel and defense analyst, who told Tucker Carlson on Tuesday that he’d execute Trumps policies unlike Bolton who had prevented him from implementing them. Another is Stephen Biegun, a veteran Republican foreign-policy expert and Trump’s envoy to North Korea. Keith Kellogg, Vice President Mike Pence’s national security advisor who is reportedly very much liked by Trump and a retired lieutenant general.

Some other names making the rounds are Iranian-crisis envoy Brian Hook who recently sent letters to Iranian ship captains filled with bribes and threats and U.S. ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell who is known for placing strategic interests ahead of ideological principles.

Just a day after letting Bolton go, Trump is supposedly considering a French plan to extend Iran a $15 billion-dollar credit line if they agree to return to complying with the JCPOA nuclear deal, something Bolton would have surely objected to.

We wish the impressively mustached Bolton good luck (more like good riddance) in his future endeavors (and hopefully less influential roles) and hope that he will someday realize that peace is a better option than war.

If he runs out of career options in the US, Israel might be an alternative, seeing how he won the “Defender of Israel” award in 2018 at the Zionist Organization of America’s annual Brandeis Award dinner in New York.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore

In delivering his first major policy-speech since being sworn in as US Defense Secretary in July, Mark Esper said in London on September 6th that the United States’ European allies needed to be wary of developing closer ties with China.

“The more dependent a country becomes on Chinese investment and trade, the more susceptible they are to coercion and retribution when they act outside of Beijing’s wishes,” he said.

Defense Secretary Esper also criticized what he called Russia’s “annexation” of Crimea, alleged Russian violations of arms-control agreements, and said that Russian missiles deployed within range of Western Europe were “probably nuclear-tipped.” He argued that the western alliance needed to do more to counteract what he saw as Russian and Chinese attempts to “disrupt the international order,” and also said that the Trump administration was determined to maintain economic “maximum pressure” on Iran.

Speaking in Paris the following day, Esper said that it would be great if the west could get Russia “to behave like a more normal country.”

One of the reasons why it has become standard practice for US government officials to put their rapid-fire word-salad together so loaded with vapid ideological signifiers is that they are perfectly well aware of Brandolini’s law, and milk it shamelessly.

However, aside from demonstrating their absurdity, we can still analyze Defense Secretary Esper’s remarks on two distinct levels – the first level purely tactical and political, and the second level more abstractly ideological.

What precisely is the point of the US Defense Secretary reiterating the same shopping-list of US foreign-policy and security-policy objectives using the same vapid rhetoric? Or, to ask that question in another way, who precisely were the intended addressees of his remarks?

His audiences in London and Paris had heard it all before ad nauseam. So who precisely was he actually attempting to persuade?

Firstly, quite obviously, he was addressing the grey cardinals who are his de facto superiors. One of the core purposes of the first major policy-speech given by any new US Defense Secretary is to demonstrate that he’s “a team-player.” So it’s best to just double-down on the same old exhausted, vapid rhetoric as un-ironically as you possibly can. Let’s call it the “Emperor’s New Clothes” political imperative.

Secondly, Esper’s speeches in both London and Paris are deliberately worded to appeal to the most naïve segments of the population. In the Occident, pre-pubescent children are now the primary addressees of political speeches. This point partially overlaps with my previous point about Brandolini’s law. In any case, if I attempt to persuade an adult of anything, then I will likely have to construct arguments, which will in turn evoke counter-arguments. The beauty of vapid buzz-words like “normal” is that, by virtue of their pre-discursive mystical quality, they pre-empt this entire process of argumentation. The Occident’s political elites seem to have simply assumed, without any empirical evidence whatsoever, that neuro-linguistic programming is effective on pre-pubescent children. For this reason, NLP has become the standard modus of the infantilization of political discourse in the Occident.

In most religious households, parents do not teach their children theology. Theology is an activity which intellectually curious people engage in on their own initiative later, during adult life. For children, the concept of “God” has a charismatic power only if we keep it very, very simple. Attempting to assign characteristics to “God” would destroy the charismatic power of this word for the very young. For quite analogous reasons, secular liberal parents do not teach their children what “normalcy” is. The mythology must be easily graspable. The predicates must be left unsaid. In liberal anti-metaphysics, “normalcy” has become one of many conceptual substitutes for “God.”

Living in the Czech Republic for 9 years, I used to scratch my head and wonder why both Czech teenagers and young adults, both utterly indoctrinated in liberal ideology, used both the English adjective “normal” and the Czech adjective “normální” with such bewildering regularity. They had never experienced, or even cursorily thought about, any alternative way of doing anything to how it was done in their own immediate social environment. They simply had no historical or experiential basis for comparison, so they described almost EVERYTHING as “normální.”

Then again, in a country which is 77% atheist, it’s hardly surprising.

Christians, Muslims and Jews sometimes say that “God is everywhere.”

For post-communist Czech liberals, “normálnost” is everywhere.

It’s a pantheistic faith.

Like the Christian and Islamic conceptions of God, this crypto-deity named “normalcy” is implicitly postulated as transcendental, as existing outside of the process of human history, and therefore independent of historical conditions in the human world.

Didn’t the Euromaidan protestors in 2013/2014 also say that they just wanted to live in “a normal country?”

The irony which hardly requires explanation is that this vapid invocation of “normalcy” has become increasingly incessant at the very moment in history when the hegemonic geo-political power-relations which underpinned this liberal bourgeois sense of “normalcy” have disintegrated. That irony, in itself, is utterly predictable. The lady doth protest too much. Insofar as Mark Esper is a Trump administration loyalist, one point which his remarks demonstrate quite clearly is that the cultural and ideological war which is taking place within the United States today is a phony war. Both sides are simply advocating different interpretations of anti-historicist liberalism.

*

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

Padraig McGrath is a political analyst.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson faces another obstacle in the way of his path to a No Deal Brexit as it was ruled on Wednesday that his five week long suspension of parliament, condoned by the Queen herself, was ‘unlawful’. The case was brought to the Court of Session in Edinburgh by seventy MPs led by the Scottish National Party’s Joanna Cherry, who argued that the Prime Minister was attempting to prevent parliament from holding the government to account over Brexit.

The three judges unanimously agreed with this statement, ruling that Boris Johnson was motivated by the “improper purpose of stymieing Parliament”, and furthermore, that he had effectively misled the Queen by advising her to suspend Parliament. They added:

‘The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the prime minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect.”

There were unprecedented scenes on Monday night as parliament was officially prorogued until the 14th October, much to the vehemence of opposition politicians, who sat well into the night protesting the action. Labour politicians sang socialist anthem ‘The Red Flag’ as Scottish Nationalists blared out ‘Flower of Scotland’ in defiance of the ruling to shut down parliament for several weeks, at such a critical time in the Brexit negotiations. Several MPs, brandishing placards which read ‘SILENCED’ also tried to stop Speaker of the House, John Bercow, who has announced his plan to step down from his role on 31st October, from leaving the Commons.

The Scottish judges’ decision casts huge doubt on the legitimacy of the prorogation, with MP Joanna Cherry now calling for politicians to return to Westminster.  However the government stands by its decision, claiming that there is nothing unusual in requesting such a suspension, and suggesting that the real motivation was in order to hold a Queen’s speech, whereby the Johnson cabinet could outline its domestic agenda for the year ahead. Subsequently the government plans to challenge the outcome of the Scottish court in the highest court in the UK – the Supreme Court in London – next week.

The ruling also now raises questions for the Queen and how well she was advised when requested by Johnson to give permission to suspend parliament. It is now being asked whether the Palace should have pushed Downing Street further as to why such a prorogation was necessary, especially given the contentious nature of Brexit. It also puts her role as monarch under scrutiny, as if she herself has no discretion regarding such decisions, then what is her real purpose? If the Supreme Court does indeed rule in favour of the Scottish Court’s decision then it will only drag the Queen further into the Brexit discussion as she will likely be forced to rethink her position.

Calls are now being made for Boris Johnson’s resignation, by none other than former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, on the basis of Wednesday’s verdict. For a UK Prime Minister to have been accused by a court of misleading the Queen herself really is unprecedented. But then Boris Johnson it seems, is no ordinary politician. And he heads a gang of hard-core Brexiteers who in the opinion of many opposition politicians, believe they are above the law and will stop at nothing to see Britain leave the EU on October 31st. As Johnson heads towards crashing out of Europe, like a bull in a china shop, he is leaving nothing but destruction and mayhem in his path. And yet, he presses on regardless. It’s not clear whether, even given a Supreme Court decision that parliament was prorogued unlawfully, that he would pay heed to this verdict.

The Prime Minister’s honesty was questioned again on Wednesday evening as documents were released confirming the chaos which awaits the UK given a No Deal Brexit. This was in response to a law rushed through parliament by opposition MPs on Monday evening, before it was shut down. Previously having played down the consequences of a No Deal scenario, government ministers will now be forced to admit that their previous statements regarding the leaked Operation Yellowhammer documents being out of date, were not true. The outlook for No Deal Britain is bleak, with the report indicating that there would be severe disruption to food and medical supplies, delays at ports and public disorder. To put it in context, any of these issues in normal circumstances would be considered a national emergency; therefore to downplay them in order to push through Brexit is being seen by many as wholly irresponsible.

The European Parliament for its part said on Thursday it is open to a Brexit extension if asked. It seems the lack of progress on this matter is wholly down to inertia on the UK side, and all the evidence suggests this is because Johnson knows a No Deal Brexit is the most likely scenario. It seems this government is simply not prepared to risk another deal being rejected by parliament, leading to further delays. But this hard-headed approach comes with its own risks. Johnson is playing with fire; having already been accused of misleading the Queen and illegally proroguing parliament. The accusations could not be more serious. The best option he has now, if he is to save what is left of his withering reputation,  is to indeed get some kind of deal with the EU that can be presented to the British people. But whether the PM will have the sense to do that is another question…

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Johanna Ross is a journalist.

President Trump is considering backing a French plan to extend a $15 billion line of credit to Iran. 

.

.

.

.

Trump says he hates the Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran. But he’s toying with a French proposal to get the Iranians to comply with it: a $15 billion line of credit to Tehran. https://t.co/VBWtg05MJL

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) September 12, 2019

Needless to say, this is a 180 degree turn away from his previous stance. Last July, he tweeted a threat specifically aimed at Iranian President Rouhani. 

To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 23, 2018

More recently, reality managed to sink in. 

If Trump follows the advice of Bolton and the neocons, it would be a sure bet he’d lose the 2020 election. A disastrous war against Iran would also crash a world economy that runs on oil and is already teetering on the edge. Americans suffering under the consequences would find somebody to blame, and that somebody would be Trump. 

No way in hell will Trump’s ego allow this to happen. 

The president showed arch-neocon, John Bolton, the door this week, but despite this welcome and positive move his administration remains chock full of neocons. Most disturbingly, his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, is a dedicated anti-Iran and pro-Zionist fanatic. 

Following word of the plan, neocons went bonkers. 

Treasury secretary Mnuchin wants to do what?  https://t.co/FqAHR9zsYa

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) September 12, 2019

Meanwhile, the Israelis were told, contrary to Trump’s wish to dial-down the hostilities, that the sanctions would remain in place and not to worry. 

#BREAKING Israeli Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon said a visiting senior US treasury official told him that sanctions against Iran would remain in full force pic.twitter.com/ACgUXZTuPz

— AFP news agency (@AFP) September 12, 2019

Unfortunately, President Trump’s apparent willingness to step back from the neocon plan to set the Middle East on fire for the sake of tiny Israel is not set in stone. 

He’s not known as the King of Flip-flop for nothing. 

*

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

Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore

On September 11, the US-backed Revolutionary Commando Army claimed that it had repelled a Syrian Arab Army (SAA) attack in the 55km zone surrounding the US military garrison in al-Tanf. The militant group said that SAA units advanced using a Red Cross visit to civilians in the area.

A Syrian military source, stationed around the 55km zone, denied these claims. The source told SouthFront that no clashes happened in the area. There are about 300 Revolutionary Commando Army militants stationed in al-Tanf. They receive training, weapons and supplies from the US-led coalition despite multiple scandals surrounding this cooperation. Earlier in 2019, the group’s spokesperson, Mohamad Mostafa al-Jarrah, was caught raping a 10-year old girl from the nearby refugee camp.

A prominent Hayat Tahrir al-Sham commander, Abu Abd al-Ashda, left the militant group accusing its current leadership of massive corruption, and failing to defend militants’ territories in northern Hama during the recent SAA advance. According to him, millions of dollars that HTS had for rearmament simply disappeared.

Watch the video here.

Meanwhile, another key Hayat Tahrir al-Sham commander, Abu Abdul Mohsen al-Jazrawi, was assassinated in southeastern Idlib. The incident happened near the town of Saraqib on September 10. Al-Jazrawi, a Saudi citizen, was reportedly a close aide of the terrorist group leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani.

In the last few months, several prominent foreign terrorists were assassinated in Greater Idlib. The perpetrators of most of these attacks remain unknown.

On September 11, Syrian and Russian warplanes bombed positions of terrorists near the towns of Kafar Takharim and Darkush. The airstrikes were likely a response to the recently increased number of violations by militants in southern Idlib.

*

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

Support South Front in its endeavors.

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

Russian media reported that the “multilateral strategic stability” proposal by some of the country’s leading experts to actively prevent a military confrontation between nuclear powers runs counter to Moscow’s current foreign policy, though its possible promulgation would represent a victory by the “Progressive” faction of its “deep state” over the “Traditionalists” and potentially return Russia to its originally envisioned “balancing” role in South Asian affairs.

The “Multilateral Strategic Stability” Model

“Deep State” Drama

By all indications, it appears as though the “Progressive” faction of the Russian permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) is lobbying hard to counteract the revived influence of their “Traditionalist” rivals after the latter succeeded in returning their country’s foreign policy back to its historic roots last week following through the informal alliance that was sealed with India during Modi’s participation in the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok as President Putin’s guest of honor. The author wrote two years ago about how “Russia’s Foreign Policy Progressives Have Trumped The Traditionalists” after Moscow began to actively pursue its 21st-century grand strategic vision of becoming the supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia, which later led to “Russia’s ‘Deep State’ Divisions Over South Asia Spilling Over Into The Public” in the aftermath of Russia “Returning To South Asia” through its proposal to host Indo-Pak peace talks earlier this year. Those plans were nearly scuttled after India’s “Israeli”-like unilateral moves in Kashmir last month compelled Russia to extend its full support to New Delhi and seemed to spell the endof the “Progressive’s” brief reign.

The “deep state” struggle for influence isn’t over, though, at least if the latest MSS proposal is anything to go by. Its possible promulgation would represent a marked departure from Russia’s “Traditionalist” position of staying out of bilateral disputes between nuclear powers such as India and Pakistan and instead encourage a more active effort to mediate or “balance” between them in pursuit of peace and the avoidance a military confrontation that could spark “a global nuclear war”. That’s not at all what India would want to see happen after it invested billions of dollars in military-technical and energy deals with Russia in the hopes of “buying off” Moscow and preventing the “Progressives’” return to power there. Nevertheless, the MSS proposal is extremely pragmatic and will likely be received very well by Russian diplomats, even if their positive reaction to it isn’t made public given how sensitive of a foreign policy shift it would be, especially regarding Russian-Indian relations if ever enters into practice. One possible indication that this could be the case comes from former Ambassador and current Vice President of the Russian Council on Foreign Affairs Gleb Ivashentsev.

Mr. Ivashentsev told Nezavisimaya Gazeta earlier in the week (as reported by TASS in the context of their daily press review) that “Russia cannot act as an intermediary (in Kashmir)…however, we must promote a rapprochement between the two countries”, which was an extremely bold statement to make given his country’s official position on the matter. That strongly hints that there’s serious interest in the Russian “deep state” to “recalibrate” their recent foreign policy “adjustment” in full-fledged partisan favor of India in order to make it more “balanced”, which would by default work out to the “Progressives’” advantage. Such a change wouldn’t be just for the strategic sake of it either, but could possibly be driven by Iran’s reported plans to build a CPEC-parallel pipeline (E-CPEC+) to China, a game-changing megaproject that Russia could participate in if it allows its offshore reserves in Iran to be transported through this pipeline and/or uses its world-class technical expertise to construct it. Any move in that direction could help Russia retain “balance” in its new relations with India but also just as importantly promote peace in South Asia too.

The MSS speaks about the need to actively “prevent any military confrontation between [nuclear powers] – both deliberate and unintended – since any standoff could spark ‘a global nuclear war’”, and while Russia isn’t able to mediate between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, it could “balance” out its regional investments in the former through its prospective leading participation in the latter’s E-CPEC+. The more economically connected that Russia becomes with the global pivot state of Pakistan (including through the RuPak rail proposal via Central Asia & Afghanistan that could become the main component of N-CPEC+), the less likely it is that India will seriously consider behaving aggressively against Islamabad out of concern that its informal ally’s investments might be impacted as “collateral damage”. The greater the tangible stake that Russia has in Pakistan, the more involved it would naturally become in promoting peace between this nuclear power and India in accordance with the strategic precept guiding the MSS proposal. Without any “skin in the game” in Pakistan, Russia’s efforts to prevent a military clash in the region would be unconvincing and ultimately futile.

Overcoming The Kashmiri Obstacle

India is powerless to prevent Russia from investing in a purely apolitical project such as E-CPEC+ if its partner is sincerely interested in doing so and desires the resultant aforementioned strategic gains that this would entail, but it might try to wage a low-intensity infowar out of desperation to pressure it against doing so, though going too far with this could risk undermining the hard-fought trust recently built between the two by amounting to blatant interference in its affairs. The most likely narrative approach that could be relied upon in this scenario is to emphasize how the Russian Ambassador to India explicitly said that his country recognizes India’s recent moves in Kashmir to be an “internal matter” and that “our views are exactly the same as India’s”, which implies full endorsement of New Delhi’s maximalist claims towards the Kashmir Conflict. That said, such an interpretation is merely an assumption, since Russia has the narrative leeway to assert that it set a “balanced” precedent and also therefore regards Gilgit-Baltistan (through which E-CPEC+ would traverse) as Pakistani territory, thus settling any Indian concerns over the legality of this move.

So long as Russia has the political will to defy Indian pressure (however direct or indirect it may be), it can return to its original plans of “balancing” South Asian affairs instead of privileging India over the rest of the region. The odds of this happening would become even more likely if the “Progressives” succeed with their plan to get the Foreign Ministry to promulgate the MSS proposal as its official policy, as this would then become the structural framework through which their active “balancing” efforts as practiced by the “energy diplomacy” of participating in E-CPEC+ would become institutionally justified. It might still take a while for the “Progressives’” vision, which may have actually been “ahead of its time” when it first began being practiced a few years ago, to catch on with the rest of Russia’s “deep state” and convince them of the useful flexibility of their MSS model as compared to the extant rigid one being defended by the “Traditionalists”, but the very fact that it’s being so prominently reported on by Russia’s publicly financed international media strongly suggests that there’s some degree of behind-the-scenes support for at least floating the idea in the public domain at this time.

Concluding Thoughts

The author previously wrote about how Russia is in the midst of two systemic transitions in the political (Post-Putin 2024, PP24) and economic (“Great Society”/”National Development Projects”) spheres, but now one can say that it’s also experiencing a similar systemic transition in the diplomatic one as well seeing as how the MSS is the natural evolution of Russian foreign policy in the emerging Multipolar World Order, especially if it intends to indefinitely remain the leader of the fledgling new Non-Aligned Movement (Neo-NAM) that it wants to lead throughout this century (whether by itself or jointly with India). Although the diplomatic transition was recently suspended in the South Asian sense out of financial considerations stemming from the planned multibillion-dollar deals that Russia later clinched with India in exchange for its partisan support of New Delhi’s actions in Kashmir, most of those agreements have been finalized after last week’s Eastern Economic Forum so India can no longer use them as “blackmail” leverage for pressuring Russia not to invest in E-CPEC+. Simply put, India already moved so close to Russia that it can’t disengage, thus leaving it no choice but to accept Moscow’s will.

*

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 Eurasia Future.

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.

“War and militarism are class issues.”

Black Alliance for Peace national organizer and Black Agenda Report editor Ajamu Baraka delivered the following remarks to the International Trade Union Forum in Solidarity with Workers and People to Break the Economic Sanctions and in Rejection of Imperialist Intervention, held on September 7 through 9, in Damascus, Syria.

***

Thank you, and I bring you greetings from the struggling working-class peoples of the United States, but particularly from the anti-imperialist and revolutionary Black working class and our still imprisoned comrades from the Black Liberation Movement, many of whom have been imprisoned for over 40 years representing the longest held political prisoners on the planet!

We say “All power to the people, All power to the people! When we say all power to the people, we recognize this not as an abstract slogan but a call to action, a statement of values and an organizing principle.

My Name is Ajamu Baraka, and I am here in my capacities as a member of the leadership bodies of the U.S. Peace Council, The United National Anti-war Coalition and especially the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP), a multi-tendency, Black Internationalist, anti-imperialist, working class oriented formation that is an integral part of the historic struggle for Black and working class liberation in the United States.

As a Black working-class oriented alliance residing in the center of empire and committed to peace and abolishing war, repression and imperialism, we are quite clear about how we see the world and our responsibilities.

We say that there can be no working-class justice, no working-class rights in a world where powerful elite social forces are prepared and are using extreme violencein the form of political and economic destabilization and war.

We are clear that war is a class issue.That it is always the rural and urban working classes that are required to fight the wars against other working classes and oppressed peoples and nations.

That is why we in BAP say clearly and without equivocation “Not one drop of blood from the poor and working-class to defend the capitalist dictatorship in the U.S. and oppressor classes and peoples’ world-wide.”

“There can be no working-class justice, no working-class rights in a world where powerful elite social forces are prepared and are using extreme violence.”

Let me share very briefly how the interests of the rulers’ clash with that of the working class in the U.S.

In the U.S.  Neoliberalism, state austerity and theft of public resources has had a devastating impact on workers.

It has been estimated that the U.S. state has spent 6 trillion dollars on U.S. wars over the last 18 years. The military budget for next two years will amount to over 730 billion a year!  The state has already committed 1.7 trillion over next ten years to upgrade U.S. nuclear arsenal.

What impact has that had on workers in the U.S. who make up majority of the population?

The UN’s special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights points out that : the US is one of the world’s wealthiest countries. It spends more on national defense than China, Russia, The United Kingdom, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia and India combined.

But the report documents the social, economic consequences for workers related to the choice made by U.S. authorities to shift public expenditures away from the human rights of the vast majority of the population – workers — to the military. The report documents that:

• US infant mortality rates in 2013 were the highest in the developed world.
• Americans can expect to live shorter and sicker lives, compared to people living in any other rich democracy, and the “health gap” between the US and its peer countries continues to grow.
• US inequality levels are far higher than those in most European countries.
• In terms of access to water and sanitation, the US ranks 36th in the world.
• The youth poverty rate in the United States is the highest across the OECD with one quarter of youth living in poverty compared to less than 14% across the OECD.

The theft of public resources for the military and militarism domestically and abroad represent a one-sided class war waged on the working class in the U.S. The 6 trillion dollars spent on U.S. wars since 2003 are resources that could have been directed to address the increasing desperate plight of workers and poor people in the U.S.

“The U.S. spends more on national defense than China, Russia, The United Kingdom, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia and India combined.”

Today, as a result of the neoliberal policies supported by both parties over last forty years and the diversion of the people’s resources into war and militarism:

• The average worker in the U.S. is making, adjusted for inflation, less than in 1973, i.e., some 46 years ago.
• 140 million are either poor or have low-income with 80% living paycheck to paycheck
• 34 million workers are still without health insurance (Austerity and militarism both kill, AB).
• 40 million live in “official poverty;” and more in unofficial poverty as measured by alternative supplemental poverty (SPM).
• More than half of those over 55 years-old have no retirement funds other than Social Security, which means that these seniors retire straight into poverty.

War and militarism are class issuesthat impact workers in various ways depending on the national context. In Syria workers and the people have suffered enormously as result of the criminal aggressions by a collection of rogue states with no regard for human life, human rights or established morality.

It is clear:

For workers and the people of Syria, women workers in aBangladesh garmentfactory, for African workers extracting precious materials for the world market in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, teacher unions in the U.S., sanitation workers in China, and for the thousands of workers and campesinos in Central America displaced by U.S. and European capital and repressive governments, there can be no workers’ rights without peace and social justice.

This requires a recognition that reciprocal solidarity, anti-imperialism, anti-racism, gender equality and opposition to patriarchy, and respect and support for the sovereignty of nations and peoples’ must be guiding principles of worker- centered internationalism.

BAP stands in fraternal solidarity with the people and working class of Syria and the world in the desire for a world in which the people can experience peace, people(s)-centered human rights and a sustainable future. We are confident that this gathering will move us closer toward realizing this common vision.

*

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 Black Agenda Report.

Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016 candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. Baraka serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council and leadership body of the United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC). He is an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch. He was recently awarded theSerena Shirm award for uncompromised integrity in journalism.  

Global Research Editor’s Note

The 9/11 Commission’s Report Chapter 2 provides an almost visual description of the Arab hijackers. It depicts in minute detail events occurring inside the cabin of the four hijacked planes.

In the absence of surviving passengers, this “corroborating evidence”, was based on passengers’ cell and air phone conversations with their loved ones.

Focusing on the personal drama of the passengers, the Commission had built much of its narrative around the phone conversations. The Arabs are portrayed with their knives and box cutters, scheming in the name of Allah, to bring down the planes and turn them “into large guided missiles” (Report, Chapter 2).

The 9/11 Report conveys the impression that cell phone ground-to-air communication from high altitude was of reasonably good quality, and that there was no major impediment or obstruction in wireless transmission.

This carefully researched documentary confirms unequivocally that Chapter 2 of the 9/11 Commission’s Report was fabricated.

The official 9/11 Narrative is a Big Lie. Given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell phone call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8000 feet.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 13, 2019

VIDEO

We sent the War to Syria’s shores.

We sent the terrorists, the mass destruction, the mass lies.

We sent the evil, the death, the barbarism.

And we are still doing it.

In the following interview with Syrian Scientist Dr. Ayshar Midani, we learn that criminal “sanctions” are Weapons of Mass Destruction.

We learn of the pre-planned, willful destruction of Syria’s water infrastructure, education infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, financial infrastructure, everything that makes a country function.

We learn how our governments and their terrorist proxies destroy children from the inside out, indoctrinating them in the takfiri ideology.

We know that Syria will win this war for democracy, for nation-state sovereignty, for religious pluralism, for civilisation, and that every inch of Syrian territory will be liberated.

The invisible wounds will take longer to heal. Syria will be forever changed in this battle against Evil that the West has imposed on Syria and Syrians. The battle will continue even when the guns are silent.

But Syria will win, and when she does, we all will win.

Dr. Midani is a Syrian anti-war activist based in France. She is the chairperson of NOSTIA, a network and community of expatriate Syrian Scientists, Technologists and Innovators.

*

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. Midani is a Syrian scientist and anti-war activist based in France. She is the chairperson of NOSTIA, a network and community of expatriate Syrian Scientists, Technologists and Innovators.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net.

Featured image is from the author

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark 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. 

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

First published on September 11, 2008

***

Note: Although the points are stated briefly, I give in each case the pages in my most recent book—“The New Pearl Harbor Revisited”—where the issue is documented and discussed more extensively.

(1) Although the official account of 9/11 claims that Osama bin Laden ordered the attacks, the FBI does not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which he is wanted and has admitted that it “has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” (NPHR 206-11).

(2) Although the official story holds that the four airliners were hijacked by devout Muslims ready to die as martyrs to earn a heavenly reward, Mohamed Atta and the other alleged hijackers regularly drank heavily, went to strip clubs, and paid for sex (NPHR 153-55).

(3) Many people reported having received cell phone calls from loved ones or flight attendants on the airliners, during which they were told that Middle Eastern hijackers had taken over the planes. One recipient, Deena Burnett, was certain that her husband had called her several times on his cell phone because she had recognized his number on her Caller ID. But the calls to Burnett and most of the other reported calls were made when the planes were above 30,000 feet, and evidence presented by the 9/11 truth movement showed that, given the technology of the time, cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners had been impossible. By the time the FBI presented a report on phone calls from the planes at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006, it had changed its story, saying that there were only two cell phone calls from the flights, both from United 93 after it had descended to 5,000 feet (NPHR 111-17).

(4) US Solicitor General Ted Olson’s claim that his wife, Barbara Olson, phoned him twice from AA 77, reporting that hijackers had taken it over, was also contradicted by this FBI report, which says that the only call attempted by her was “unconnected” and hence lasted “0 seconds” (NPRH 60-62).

(5) Although decisive evidence that al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks was reportedly found in Mohamed Atta’s luggage—which allegedly failed to get loaded onto Flight 11 from a commuter flight that Atta took to Boston from Portland, Maine, that morning—this story was made up after the FBI’s previous story had collapsed. According to that story, the evidence had been found in a Mitsubishi that Atta had left in the Logan Airport parking lot and the trip to Portland was taken by Adnan and Ameer Bukhari. After the FBI learned that neither of the Bukharis had died on September 11, it simply declared that the trip to Portland was made by Atta and another al-Qaeda operative (NPHR 155-62).

(6) The other types of reputed evidence for Muslim hijackers—such as videos of al-Qaeda operatives at airports, passports discovered at the crash sites, and a headband discovered at the crash site of United 93—also show clear signs of having been fabricated (NPHR 170-73).

(7) In addition to the absence of evidence for hijackers on the planes, there is also evidence of their absence: If hijackers had broken into the cockpits, the pilots would have “squawked” the universal hijack code, an act that takes only a couple of seconds. But not one of the eight pilots on the four airliners did this (NPHR 175-79).

(8) Given standard operating procedures between the FAA and the military, according to which planes showing signs of an in-flight emergency are normally intercepted within about 10 minutes, the military’s failure to intercept any of the flights implies that something, such as a stand-down order, prevented standard procedures from being carried out (NPHR 1-10, 81-84).

(9) Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta reported an episode in which Vice President Cheney, while in the bunker under the White House, apparently confirmed a stand-down order at about 9:25 AM, which was prior to the strike on the Pentagon. Another man has reported hearing members of LAX Security learn that a stand-down order had come from the “highest level of the White House” (NPHR 94-96).

(10) The 9/11 Commission did not mention Mineta’s report, removed it from the Commission’s video record of its hearings, and claimed that Cheney did not enter the shelter conference room until almost 10:00, which was at least 40 minutes later than he was really there, according to Mineta and several other witnesses, including Cheney’s photographer (NPHR 91-94).

(11) The 9/11 Commission’s timeline for Cheney that morning even contradicted what Cheney himself had told Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” September 16, just five days after 9/11 (NPHR 93).

(12) Hani Hanjour, known as a terrible pilot who could not safely fly even a single-engine airplane, could not possibly have executed the amazing trajectory reportedly taken by American Flight 77 in order to hit Wedge 1 of the Pentagon (NPHR 78-80).

(13) Wedge 1 would have been the least likely part of the Pentagon to be targeted by foreign terrorists, for several reasons: It was as far as possible from the offices of Rumsfeld and the top brass, whom Muslim terrorists presumably would have wanted to kill; it was the only part of the Pentagon that had been reinforced; the reconstruction was not finished, so there were relatively few people there; and it was the only part of the Pentagon that would have presented obstacles to a plane’s flight path (NPHR 76-78).

(14) Contrary to the claim of Pentagon officials that they did not have the Pentagon evacuated because they had no way of knowing that an aircraft was approaching, a military E-4B—the Air Force’s most advanced communications, command, and control airplane—was flying over the White House at the time. Also, although there can be no doubt about the identity of the plane, which was captured on video by CNN and others, the military has denied that it belonged to them (NPHR 96-98).

(15) The Secret Service, after learning that a second World Trade Center building had been attacked—which would have meant that terrorists were going after high-value targets—and that still other planes had apparently been hijacked, allowed President Bush to remain at the school in Sarasota, Florida, for another 30 minutes. It thereby revealed its foreknowledge that Bush would not be a target: If these had really been surprise attacks, the agents, fearing that a hijacked airliner was bearing down on the school, would have hustled Bush away. On the first anniversary of 9/11, the White House started telling a new story, according to which Bush, rather than remaining in the classroom several minutes after Andrew Card whispered in his ear that a second WTC building had been hit, immediately got up and left the room. This lie was told in major newspapers and on MSNBC and ABC television (NPHR 129-31).

(16) Given the fact that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 had steel columns running from their basements to their roofs, they simply could not have come down as they did—straight down at virtually free-fall speed—unless these columns had been sliced by means of explosives. Therefore, the official theory, according to which the buildings came down because of fire plus (in the case of the Twin Towers) the impact of the planes, is scientifically impossible (NPHR 12-25).

(17) The destruction of the Twin Towers had many other features—such as the horizontal ejections of steel beams, the melting of steel, and the sulfidation and thinning of steel—that can be explained only in terms of powerful explosives. For example, the fires could not have come within 1000 degrees Fahrenheit of the temperature needed to melt steel (30-36).

(18) Members of the FDNY (Fire Department of New York) provided oral histories shortly after 9/11 in which one fourth of them testified to having witnessed explosions in the Twin Towers. Explosions in the WTC 7 as well as the towers were also reported by city officials, WTC employees, and journalists (NPHR 27-30, 45-48, 51).

(19) Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News that day: “we set up headquarters at 75 Barclay Street . . . , and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse. And it [the South Tower] did collapse before we could actually get out of the building.” However, there was no objective basis for expecting the towers to collapse; even the 9/11 Commission admitted that none of the fire chiefs expected them to come down. The FDNY oral histories show that the information that they were going to collapse came from the Office of Emergency Management—Giuliani’s own office. How could Giuliani’s people have known that the towers were going to come down, unless they knew that the buildings had been laced with explosives? (NPH 40)

(20) NIST, which produced the official reports on the Twin Towers and (recently) WTC 7, has been “fully hijacked from the scientific to the political realm,” so that its scientists are little more than “hired guns,” a former employee has reported, and the 9/11 Commission was no more independent, being run by Philip Zelikow, who was essentially a member of the Bush White House (NPHR 11, 238-51).

(21) The official story about 9/11 is now rejected by constantly growing numbers of physicists, chemists, architects, engineers, pilots, former military officers, and former intelligence officials (NPHR xi).

David Ray Griffin. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé. Olive Branch Press, September, 2008, ISBN-10: 1566567297

Established on August 22, 2011, around six months after US launched aggression on the country, the so-called “Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (COI)” is mandated to investigate war-related human rights abuses.

Instead, it produced over 20 propaganda reports and periodic updates, largely blaming Syria and its allies for crimes of war and against humanity committed against the nation and its people by the US, its imperial partners, and jihadist foot soldiers.

Blaming victims is longstanding US, NATO, Israeli policy, the Big Lie supported by establishment media, most people none the wiser about the deception.

Syria’s UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari earlier slammed the COI, saying the following:

It’s “deliberately blowing things out of proportion when displaying its findings, also fully disregarding or downplaying core issues,” adding:

“There are blood-curdling scenes that flagrantly contravene the Syrians’ dignity and human rights regarding the crimes of the armed terrorist groups…”

They “rang(e) from eating human flesh, cutting throats, mutilating bodies, beheadings on sectarian and confessional grounds, throwing bodies from rooftops to committing hundreds of suicide bombings using car bombs in populated areas, recruiting children, abducting and slaughtering clergymen, assassinating scholars in mosques, issuing instigative fatwas on ‘sexual jihad,’ killing children on the charges of infidelity, robbing factories and transporting them to Turkey.”

For over eight years, COI reports gave these atrocities scant coverage, focusing attention on vilifying Assad, wrongfully blaming his forces and allies for high crimes and other human rights abuses committed by the US, its imperial allies, and terrorist proxies.

COI reports are based on interviews with anti-Assad sources in neighboring countries, “photographs, video recordings, satellite imagery, forensic and medical reports” from nations and NGO’s hostile to Damascus, along with so-called “academic analyses” and other UN misinformation.

On Wednesday, the COI issued its latest report on Syria. Covering the first six months of 2019, it followed the pattern of earlier ones, largely blaming Syria and allied forces for US-led imperial crimes on the country and its people.

While acknowledging al-Nusra attacks on government forces and civilians in northern Syria, the COI failed to explain that its fighters are armed, funded and directed by the Pentagon, the CIA, and US imperial allies, including Israel.

“(P)ro-government forces” were falsely accused of “destroying infrastructure essential to the survival of the civilian population, including hospitals, markets, educational facilities and agricultural resources, and forcing almost half a million civilians to flee” from Idlib province and surrounding areas.

At the same time, the COI admitted that “large-scale operations by the US-led international coalition and (Pentagon supported) Syrian Democratic Forces caus(ed) widespread destruction of towns and villages in” Deir Ezzor province and elsewhere.

Around 70,000 Syrian refugees are located in the Al Hol camp, enduring “deplorable and inhumane conditions,” said the COI, omitting what Russian National Defense Management Center General Mikhail Mizintsev explained earlier, saying:

“All fundamental norms of international law are violated in (camps) controlled by the US. The situation at…Rukban and Al-Hol (is) critical.”

“By artificially creating inhuman conditions at the refugee camps on the illegally occupied territories in Syria, the US is creating a basis for the return of terror organizations with the goal of maintaining instability in the country and the region.”

Head of Russia’s reconciliation center in Syria General Viktor Kupchishin added the following;

Conditions in refugee camps controlled by the US are responsible for “10 (to) 20 people dy(ing) each day” because of lack of food, medical care, and overall inhumane conditions.

The COI report falsely said

“(i)n areas controlled by the government, civilians, including recent returnees, were arbitrarily arrested by the state or abducted by pro-government militias” — a tactic used by US-supported jihadists, not Damascus.

At the same time, it admitted that “the US-led international coalition…left essential infrastructure obliterated, civilians killed, maimed, and uprooted, and communities in ‘near complete destruction,’ ” — a rare acknowledgment of devastation by the Pentagon and allied forces.

Citing an incident in Hajin, Syria, part of the al-Jazeera Storm campaign in Deir Ezzor province, the COI said attacks by coalition forces may have “amount(ed) to a war crime in cases in which such attacks are conducted recklessly.”

There’s no ambiguity about US-led high crimes of war and against humanity throughout years of naked aggression in Syria.

Examples are endless, including CW incidents staged by US-supported jihadists, falsely blamed on government forces, destruction of vital infrastructure by Pentagon-led terror-bombing, and notably the rape and destruction of Raqqa in 2017.

Most of the city was turned to rubble, countless thousands of civilians massacred, a thriving metropolis transformed into a wasteland — on the phony pretext of combatting ISIS the US created and supports.

None of the above was included in COI reports — nor did they explain that there’s nothing civil about endless US aggression in Syria.

Wherever the US shows up, mass slaughter, vast destruction, and human misery follow.

WikiLeaks earlier released an email from Hillary Clinton when serving as Obama regime secretary of state, saying the following:

“The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability (sic) is to help the people of Syria overthrow…Bashar Assad,” adding:

“Negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program will not solve Israel’s security dilemma (sic). Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program (sic).”

No such program exists, not then, earlier, or now. Israel’s only security threats are invented. No real ones exist, the same true for the US and its other imperial allies.

Hillary’s mail added that Israel fears loss of its regional “nuclear monopoly,” admitting its open secret.

She failed to explain that Iran and Syria threaten no other nations. The US, NATO, and Israel threaten humanity.

*

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.

On September 1, the Argentine government led by President Mauricio Macri imposed capital controls in a bid to stem the fall in the foreign exchange reserves and the peso currency. This unexpected move was initiated soon after the authorities spent nearly $3 billion of forex reserves to repay short-term debt and to protect the value of the peso.

The announcement followed the Macri government’s unilateral decision taken on August 28 to delay repayment of short-term debt instruments (denominated in both US dollar and peso) to maintain liquidity in the financial system and to protect dwindling forex reserves. The government also unraveled its plans to seek a “voluntary reprofiling” of $50 billion of longer-term debt held by foreigners besides requesting the International Monetary Fund to restructure its debt repayment of $44 billion received under the Fund-supported bailout program.

The Policy U-turn

Hardly anyone anticipated that the Macri government would make a U-turn and embrace capital controls. Such was his commitment to market-friendly and pro-investor policies that Mr. Macri dismantled all capital controls introduced by the previous government in one go within hours of his inauguration in December 2015.

Just a few weeks back, he ruled out the imposition of capital controls when the opposition parties called for these measures to halt a slump in the forex reserves and the peso. Leave aside critics; even his supporters were not expecting a sudden policy reversal from President Macri – a firm believer of free markets and a vocal critic of capital controls and other interventionist policies of his predecessor, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

Now the Macri government has undertaken a course correction, but will the gambit pay off? It is too early to make any reasonable assessment of the efficacy of capital controls introduced in Argentina just two days ago, but initial reports[1] suggest that these measures did help in arresting the free fall of the peso.

The Political Shock

Since April 2018, Argentina has been facing severe macroeconomic instability, but the recent slump in the peso and financial markets started with the August 11 primary elections when Mr. Macri suffered a resounding defeat by the left-leaning opposition candidate Alberto Fernández, thereby further dimming the chances of his re-election. The presidential election will take place on October 27, 2019.

The primary election results were viewed by many as a referendum on the Macri government’s deeply unpopular austerity policies. The election results sent a shockwave in the domestic financial markets as investors feared a break with the market-friendly policies pursued by the Macri government. That led to a massive sell-off in the financial markets and triggered a fresh wave of capital flight out of the country. On August 17, Argentina’s finance minister, Nicolás Dujovne, resigned while admitting that “undoubtedly we have made mistakes”[2] in his resignation letter to President Macri.

Amid financial fragility and political uncertainty, the peso plunged to record new lows against the US dollar as investors dumped Argentina’s sovereign bonds and stocks en masse. The country’s 100-year bond that was four times oversubscribed just over two years lost more than 50 percent of its value after the August 11 primary vote.  The chaos in the currency markets got further exacerbated when nervous Argentine depositors withdrew their savings from the dollar-denominated saving accounts.

In August alone, the peso dropped by more than 30 percent against the US dollar. The Macri government was left with no option but to impose capital controls to stem the peso’s slide and to protect forex reserves. According to data compiled by Capital Economics, Argentina’s foreign exchange reserves are currently at $58 bn, down by 25 percent from a peak of $77 bn in mid-April 2019.[3]

What is even more worrying is the low net forex reserves (now estimated at $19 bn) that cover only 25 percent of the country’s total external financing need. Such low net reserves not only increase external vulnerabilities but also preempt the possibility of undertaking large intervention in the forex markets to stabilize the peso.

The Controls

What are capital controls? In simple terms, capital controls are regulations that restrict or prohibit the movement of capital into or out of a country.

The controls imposed by the Macri government are only aimed at restricting capital outflows. No controls have been introduced to restrict capital inflows. The authorities have enforced controls for a short duration (120 days) and will remain in effect until December 31, 2019. Some of these measures are summarized below:

• Residents are restricted to buy foreign exchange of no more than $10,000 a month. While no restrictions are imposed on residents to withdraw foreign exchange in cash from their bank accounts.
• Non-residents can only buy foreign exchange of $1000 a month, and they are not allowed to make bank transfers abroad.
• New deadlines have been imposed for exporters to repatriate foreign currency earned from sales abroad. Exporters will have to repatriate foreign exchange within five working days of payment or 180 days after the loading permit.
• Companies, banks, and financial institutions will need prior authorization from the central bank to purchase foreign exchange or to distribute dividends abroad.

Putting the Cart Before the Horse

From a broader policy perspective, it was a wrong move by President Macri to remove all capital controls in one go when he took office in December 2015. To a greater degree, capital controls would have provided his government breathing space to reduce inflation and address longer-term structural problems facing the economy. The removal of capital controls made the Argentine economy extremely vulnerable to sudden stops in capital flows.

Ideally, the government should have introduced capital controls in April 2018 when sudden capital flight out of peso-denominated assets began following the rise in U.S. interest rates and a surge in the US dollar. At that time, the rapid depreciation of the peso increased Argentina’s external vulnerabilities due to its heavy reliance on borrowings in foreign currency. That forced the Macri government to seek financial support from the IMF.

The Social and Economic Costs

Since early 2018, the rapid depreciation of the peso and rising public debt (nearly 75 percent is denominated in foreign currencies) have added to the country’s financial vulnerabilities. The market confidence and domestic demand are on the decline. At 60 percent (the highest in the world), benchmark interest rates have crippled domestic investment.

The Argentine economy is now suffering from a deep recession that is worsening social conditions. The recession has negatively impacted tax revenues, which implies that adhering to the program’s ambitious fiscal targets would necessitate more spending cuts. The inflation rate is currently at more than 50 percent and has drastically reduced private consumption, especially of poor households. Unemployment and poverty rates have risen considerably since mid-2018. According to a report by the Catholic University of Argentina’s Social Debt Observatory, almost a third of Argentines were living below the poverty line at the end of 2018.[4] Facing an imminent electoral defeat in October, Mr. Macri announced ad hoc relief measures including a three-month freeze on fuel prices and income tax cuts on August 14.

Is a Quick Recovery Possible?

Given the precarious state of the Argentine economy, it will be far-fetched to expect a quick economic recovery ahead of the presidential election in late October with the help of capital controls.

Sorry, Mr. Macri, capital controls are not a magic wand to turnaround a messed up economy in less than 60 days.

There is no denying that capital controls are useful policy tools, but these measures alone cannot restore financial stability. To be more effective, capital controls need to be complemented by other policy and regulatory measures such as counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policies, tightening of financial regulations, and keeping public debt under control. Many of these measures may not be compatible with the policy recommendations of the ongoing IMF-supported program in Argentina.

Also, one needs to keep in mind that capital controls will be enforced in Argentina only for a limited period of 120 days which may not be sufficient for restoring macroeconomic stability.

What about the IMF?

At the time of writing, there is no official word from the IMF on the capital controls introduced by the government. No one can dispute that the IMF enthusiastically supported the Macri government’s pro-market reforms ‒ including the dismantling of capital controls and a floating exchange rate regime. When the country faced financial fragility last year, the IMF quickly approved a loan package of $57 bn – the biggest loan package in the IMF’s history – with the strong backing of the United States.

The IMF’s engagement with Argentina raises a critical question about the rationale of significantly frontloading disbursements under the program. Out of total $57 bn, $44 bn has been already disbursed to Argentina, and the next tranche of $5.4 bn is due in late September. As per the agreement, close to 90 percent of the total financial support is to be disbursed to Argentina before the 2019 presidential election. Isn’t a case of IMF supporting Macri’s re-election?

At present, the Argentine economy is in a much deeper recession than it was before the implementation of the IMF-supported program. It not only indicates that frontloading disbursements was a severe mistake but also suggests that the support program designed to restore market confidence and sustained economic expansion is not delivering positive results. It begs the question: What is the accountability of the IMF Executive Board, Managing Director, and senior staff members who designed and approved the support program?

Rather than acknowledging the likelihood of policy failure, Mr. David Lipton, the IMF’s Acting Managing Director and Chair, strongly backed the IMF-supported program just a few weeks back. On July 12, he stated:

“These policy efforts are starting to bear fruit. Financial markets have stabilized, the fiscal and external positions are improving, and the economy is beginning a gradual recovery from last year’s recession.”[5]

One can only hope that the new Managing Director of the IMF will undertake a complete review of its lending programs as well as its broader policy framework. In particular, the IMF should revisit its 2012 Institutional View[6] that endorses capital controls as a last resort, imposed selectively on capital inflows, and on a temporary basis. As several other emerging market economies are also experiencing sudden reversals in capital flows, the IMF should adopt a more flexible approach towards capital controls and support member-countries with all the policy options needed to safeguard financial stability.

It is yet unclear what kind of renegotiations with the IMF would take place if Mr. Fernández becomes Argentina’s next president. Most Argentines blame the IMF policies for exacerbating the financial crisis of 2001, which deepened the recession and triggered social unrest and political instability.

The Importance of Capital Controls

There are valuable lessons to be learned from the current financial crisis in Argentina. First, the policymaking in a complex, uncertain, and the financially integrated world should not be driven by financial orthodoxy endorsed by the IMF, G7, financial markets, and credit rating agencies. Instead, the policymakers should adopt a pragmatic and flexible approach towards managing cross-border capital flows and, therefore, they should not hesitate to use capital controls (along with macroprudential measures) for maintaining financial and macroeconomic stability. Needless to say, financial stability is a public good that every modern economy needs.

As I discussed elsewhere[7], capital controls should be viewed as a legitimate tool of macroeconomic policy to manage the risks associated with volatile capital flows. In recent years, several countries have deployed controls on outflows as part of crisis management tools with positive outcomes. This long list of countries includes Malaysia in 1998, Iceland in 2008, Cyprus in 2013, and China in 2016.

It is high time that the stigma attached to capital controls is removed. Apart from academia and civil society groups, the IMF, World Bank, OECD, UN, and other international organizations should play an important role in removing the stigma. In a more interconnected and integrated global financial system, national measures alone may not be sufficient to address the systemic risks posed by cross-border volatile capital flows to financial stability. Hence, there is a need for regional and international cooperation for maintaining global financial stability.

Lessons for India Too

Argentina’s current crisis has highlighted the issue of currency risks associated with a large share of foreign currency-denominated public debt. As nearly 75 percent of Argentina’s public debt is denominated in foreign currency, it has risen over 30 percentage points due to depreciation of the peso over the past year.

The Argentine crisis offers important lessons for New Delhi as the Ministry of Finance is planning to raise as much as $10 billion this fiscal year via sovereign bonds denominated in foreign currencies. In her budget speech on July 5, finance minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, stated: “India’s sovereign external debt to GDP is among the lowest globally at less than 5%. The government would start raising a part of its gross borrowing programme in external markets in external currencies. This will also have a beneficial impact on demand situation for the government securities in the domestic market.”[8]

Till now, India has never issued a foreign currency-denominated sovereign bond due to the inherent risks posed by currency volatility. In the international markets, India has issued sovereign bonds (such as masala bonds) but only in Indian rupees so that the bond investors bear the exchange rate risks.

The finance minister is sticking to the issuance of sovereign bonds in foreign currency despite the widespread criticism of this proposed move and serious apprehensions expressed by some former RBI governors about the potential risks involved in issuing such bonds.

Of course, India’s external debt situation is vastly different from Argentina but as pointed out recently by Duvvuri Subbarao, former RBI governor, “Governments start off believing that they will remain prudent, open their doors wider, and soon become so addicted to foreign money they wouldn’t stop until a crisis hits them. To believe that markets can discipline governments is a stretch. The stories of Argentina and Turkey are telling examples.”[9]

One of the main reasons why India has so far avoided financial crises like those experienced by other emerging markets in Asia and Latin America is because of not borrowing funds from international markets in foreign currencies. Much of India’s external debt is in the form of long-term borrowings from official sources (multilateral and bilateral) and that too on concessional terms.

If nominal currency depreciation and hedging costs are taken into account, foreign currency-denominated sovereign bonds may not turn out to be a cheaper option. Nor is a compelling need to raise funds from international markets in foreign currencies at this moment.

Let’s hope better sense prevails in New Delhi too.

*

This article was first published on Madhyan

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

Notes

[1] Benedict Mander, “Argentine Peso Strengthens after Capital Control Measures,” Financial Times, September 3, 2019; Reuters, “Argentine Peso, Bonds Whiplashed After Capital Controls Imposed,” September 2, 2019.

[2] The text of the resignation letter in Spanish is available at https://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/sin-dudas-hemos-cometido-errores-escribio-nicolas-nid2278599.

[3] Edward Glossop, A Closer Look at Argentina’s FX Reserves, Capital Economics, August 28, 2019.

[4] 31.3% of population living below poverty line, says UCA report, Buenos Aires Times, March 25, 2019.

[5] Quoted in “IMF Executive Board Completes Fourth Review Under Argentina’s Stand-By Arrangement, Approves US$5.4 Billion Disbursement,” Press Release No. 19/268, IMF, July 12, 2019.

[6] IMF, The Liberalization and Management of Capital Flows – An Institutional View, November 14, 2012.

[7] Kavaljit Singh, What Are Capital Controls?, Policy Brief # 1, Madhyam, January 2, 2019; Kavaljit Singh, Recent Experiences with Capital Controls, Policy Brief # 4, Madhyam, May 2, 2019.

[8] The full text of the budget speech is available at https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/doc/Budget_Speech.pdf.

[9] Duvvuri Subbarao, “The name is Dollar Bond,” Indian Express, August 3, 2019.

Featured image is from 123rf.com

In a new peer-reviewed paper, the GMO Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stands accused of giving “low-quality scientific advice” in its favourable opinion on the cultivation in the European Union of Monsanto/Bayer’s GM Bt insecticidal maize variety MON810.

The maize is the only GMO approved for cultivation in the EU. Based on EFSA’s opinion, the European Commission has decided to renew the authorisation for cultivation, in spite of the fact that 19 Member States have banned it from their territories and the European Parliament has demanded that the Commission withdraw its decision.

EFSA issued an opinion in 2009 stating that MON810 was as safe as non-GM maize regarding potential effects on human and animal health and posed a “very low” risk of adverse effects on non-target organisms and the environment.

But those conclusions are challenged in the new paper, published in Environmental Sciences Europe by the scientist Veronika Chvátalová of Masaryk University in the Czech Republic.

Chvátalová looked at EFSA’s risk assessment of MON810, focusing on two non-target organisms, honeybees and earthworms.

Chvátalová found that

“EFSA omits relevant available studies, selectively cites information, misquotes studies, fails to acknowledge uncertainties, fails to call for further research where needed, and fails to critically interpret studies and their findings”.

GMWatch observes that while such failures could hypothetically be the result of simple incompetence, in the case of EFSA’s opinion on MON810, they all tend in one direction: to claim, in the face of evidence to the contrary, that MON810 is safe. This suggests that EFSA’s performance is not driven just by incompetence but by an intent to mislead the public and take industry’s side on the safety of this GMO.

In one example from EFSA’s honeybees risk assessment, Chvátalová found that the authority selectively used scientific information in a biased way. It only mentioned parameters that were not affected by exposure to the GM insecticidal protein in MON810, while it omitted one that was negatively affected.

In the risk assessment for earthworms, Chvátalová found that EFSA used double standards, only applying criticism to a study that reported an adverse effect and not to other studies that reported no adverse effects. EFSA also adopted the opinion of a review in which the study’s method was criticised, even though the critique was irrelevant. This use of double standards, according to Chvátalová, “does not inspire confidence in the scientific rigour of the EFSA”.

Chvátalová found that contrary to EFSA’s reassuring conclusion on MON810,

“the body of referenced evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions on risk” and that the authority’s environmental risk assessment was “incomplete”. She concluded, “Overall, the findings indicate that the reliability of scientific information and particularly its use by the EFSA GMO Panel produces low-quality scientific advice, which is inconsistent with the Authority Mission Statement.”

Chvátalová also took aim at EFSA’s record on conflicts of interest:

“The GMO Panel that was responsible for issuing the favourable report on GM maize MON810 has been criticised for more than half of its members having a conflict of interests.”

Double standards

Chvátalová is not the first scientist to accuse EFSA of operating unscientific double standards in the context of studies on GMOs. In 2012 Dr Angelika Hilbeck and Dr Hartmut Meyer accused EFSA of double standards when it rejected the study led by Prof GE Séralini, which found adverse effects in rats fed a GM maize and very low levels of Roundup herbicide, while uncritically accepting at face value Monsanto’s own studies on the same maize, which concluded that it was safe.

Yet when EFSA’s own criteria for judging Séralini’s study were applied equally to Monsanto’s studies, all the studies were found to satisfy or fail to satisfy EFSA’s criteria to a comparable extent. Drs Hilbeck and Meyer concluded,

“The rejection of only one of the papers is, thus, not scientifically justified.”

MON810: A history

MON810 maize was first permitted to be grown in the EU in 1998 for a 10-year period. In 2007 Monsanto applied for renewal of the cultivation authorisation, but a qualified majority of Member States could not agree to grant the renewal. The row dragged on until 2016, when the European Commission unilaterally issued a decision renewing the authorisation of the cultivation of MON810 maize.

However, later the same year, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on the Commission to withdraw its decision. A group of NGOs agreed.

Chvátalová states in her paper that her research led her to support the Parliament’s and NGOs’ demand:

“These results would support the call on the EC [Commission] to withdraw its draft implementing decision to renew the authorisation of MON810 cultivation voiced by the European Parliament and NGOs.”

Nineteen EU Member States have made use of the EU’s “opt-out” rule to pre-emptively ban the cultivation of MON810 maize on their territories. Spain is the only country that continues to grow it on any significant scale, with a small area in Portugal.

***

A critical evaluation of EFSA’s environmental risk assessment of genetically modified maize MON810 for honeybees and earthworms
by Veronika Chvátalová
Environmental Sciences Europevolume 31, Article number: 52 (2019)
(open access)

Abstract

Background

In the European Union (EU), genetically modified (GM) crops are permitted for cultivation only after a thorough risk assessment and a decision by the European Commission (EC). The central scientific body assessing food-related risks is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). It aims to provide high-quality scientific advice for EU decision-makers. However, both the way EFSA performs risk assessment and the independence of its panel members have been subjected to consistent criticism. In this paper, I examine part of the environmental risk assessment in the Scientific Opinion issued by the EFSA GMO Panel, specifically, the impacts of GM maize MON810 on honeybees and earthworms. The evaluated EFSA document forms the scientific basis of the pending EC Draft implementing decision to renew the authorisation for the lawful cultivation of MON810. I assess the reliability of scientific information cited in the Opinion, the use of this information by EFSA, and the safety conclusions drawn in a form of an extended peer review.

Results

My research indicates that the scientific studies cited in the EFSA Opinion in the sections concerning the possible impacts of GM maize on honeybees and earthworms stem predominantly from reliable sources in terms of authorship, financial support, and status of the study. However, the reliability of the studies varies significantly concerning the ecological relevance of the experiments. Moreover, the body of referenced evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions on risk. Relevantly, several types of shortcomings in the use of scientific information in the risk assessment were identified as prevalent, namely: EFSA omits relevant available studies, selectively cites information, misquotes studies, fails to acknowledge uncertainties, fails to call for further research where needed, and fails to critically interpret studies and their findings.

Conclusions

Overall, the findings indicate that the reliability of scientific information and particularly its use by the EFSA GMO Panel produces low-quality scientific advice, which is inconsistent with the Authority Mission Statement. My research would support the call by the European Parliament and NGOs on the EC to withdraw its Draft implementing decision intended to renew the authorisation of MON810 cultivation.

*

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 GMWatch

After years of improvements in drilling techniques and impressive “efficiency gains,” there is now evidence that the U.S. shale industry is reaching the end of the road on well productivity.

A report earlier this month from Raymond James & Associates finds that the U.S. shale industry may struggling to achieve further productivity gains. If these improvements begin to fizzle out, it could result in “an inflection point in future global oil supply/demand balances,” the investment bank said.

Well productivity is “tracking WAY below our model,” analysts Marshall Adkins and John Freeman wrote in the report. They note that U.S. oil production is up less than 100,000 bpd over the first seven months of 2019, compared to the 600,000-bpd increase over the same period in 2018.

The analysts note that over the past eight years, Raymond James has been one of the most aggressive forecasters for U.S. shale growth, and even then, actual output tended to exceed their forecasts. But this year U.S. shale growth is significantly below their prediction.

The reason is that productivity improvements have suddenly come to an end. Since 2010, initial production rates for the first 30 days of production (IP-30) improved by 30 percent annually on average, according to Raymond James. That was largely the result of the “bigger hammer” approach, the bank said. In other words, drillers threw more of everything at the problem – more money, longer laterals, more sand, and more frac stages. Earlier this decade, IP-30 rates were growing by roughly 40 percent per year. But that slowed to 11 percent in 2017 and 15 percent last year.

However, in the first seven months of 2019, IP-30 rates are up only 2 percent, compared to the 10 percent prediction from Raymond James. Part of the reason is that there is simply a limit to “more, longer and bigger,” the analysts said.

“We believe that this represents clear evidence that U.S. well productivity gains are beginning to reach maximum limits and may even roll over in the coming years as the industry struggles to offset well interference issues and rock quality deterioration.”

Even 2018 figures may have been a “one-off” increase as the oil majors – Chevron and ExxonMobil – escalated activity.

But perhaps the first 30 days is too short of a timeframe to analyze well productivity. So, the investment bank looked at 90 days of production (IP-90). On that metric, the industry is faring even worse, showing an outright decline of 2 percent in the first half of the year compared to the first six months of 2018.

“Recent Permian IP-90 well productivity trends are especially dire,” the analysts wrote. “While U.S. IP-90s declined 2%, Permian IP-90s declined 10% relative to 2018.”

Because the Permian is the largest source of shale production and the most important source of growth, whatever happens there will determinate the trajectory for U.S. production figures on the whole.

Raymond James said that a slight uptick in productivity on an IP-30 basis but a decline on an IP-90 basis suggests that well interference is taking a toll. In other words, shale well performance is suffering as time goes on because wells have been spaced too close together. “Put another way, the average decline curve is becoming steeper than we thought because the wells are starting to cannibalize each other,” the analysts wrote.

Problems with “parent-child” well interference have become more of a concern over the past year or so, which refers to the first well drilled within a given block (the parent well), and subsequent wells drilled (the child wells). As Raymond James notes, not only do they cannibalize each other, but the longer the parent is online, the more the block sees a drop in pressure.

But here’s the thing – a lot of companies have drilled parent wells on various tracts, incentivized to do so because their leases can expire if they don’t demonstrate activity. They held off on the child wells, focusing on drilling parents. Then, at a later point, they go back and drill child wells to squeeze more oil from their acreage. The problem is that so much of the output growth over the last few years came from parent wells. Going forward, the growth will need to increasingly come from the less productive child wells.

But as Raymond James notes, the longer they wait, the less productive the child wells become, because the area loses more and more pressure over time.

In specific terms, the average child well is 30 percent less productive than the parent. But a child well drilled six months after the parent may only see a 10 percent degradation in productivity, while a two-year delay might result in more substantial 40 percent reduction in productivity.

On the other hand, the “cube development” approach, which entails intense development all at the same time, also has problems. Cube development consists of multiple wells, often rising to more than a dozen, are drilled pretty much simultaneously to avoid well interference and pressure decline. Also, in theory, costs are lower because it takes less time, while shared infrastructure reduces costs as well.

But well interference still occurs, and a growing number of companies have reported disappointing results, suggesting that there are limits to density. In a high-profile admission just a few weeks ago, Concho Resources said its 23-well “Dominator” project proved disappointing. The company said it would space out its projects more. Raymond James says there is some middle ground on well-density that companies still need to figure out, but because the industry has boasted about ever-increasing well-density, the pullback is translating into stagnating productivity.

Ultimately, the investment bank says that because of weaker-than-expected productivity, U.S. oil production may only grow by around 350,000 bpd in 2020, versus the market consensus of around 1.5 million barrels per day. In a scenario in which productivity actually falls to zero, production would remain flat for the next few years.

Because “the single most important driver of the oil market over the next decade will be trends in U.S. well productivities,” Raymond James analysts wrote, this is “VERY bullish for oil prices next year.”

“Given that the oil market seems to be pricing in virtually unlimited U.S. oil supply growth at $50/bbl over the next five years, the implications…are very, very important to upside oil price surprises over the coming years.”

*

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.

Nick Cunningham is an independent journalist, covering oil and gas, energy and environmental policy, and international politics. He is based in Portland, Oregon. 

Featured image is from OilPrice.com