The Courage Foundation convened a panel of concerned individuals from the fields of disarmament, international law, journalism, military operations, medicine and intelligence in Brussels on October 15th. The panel met with a member of the investigation team from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the international chemical watchdog. On this basis the panel issued the following statement:

Based on the whistleblower’s extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports, we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018.  We became convinced by the testimony that key information about chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor a preordained conclusion.

We have learned of disquieting efforts to exclude some inspectors from the investigation whilst thwarting their attempts to raise legitimate concerns, highlight irregular practices or even to express their differing observations and assessments —a right explicitly conferred on inspectors in the Chemical Weapons Convention, evidently with the intention of ensuring the independence and authoritativeness of inspection reports.

However belatedly, we therefore call on the OPCW to permit all inspectors who took part in the Douma investigation to come forward and report their differing observations in an appropriate forum of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, in fulfillment of the spirit of the Convention. They should be allowed to do this without fear of reprisal or even censure.

The panel advances these criticisms with the expectation that the OPCW will revisit its investigation of the Douma incident, with the purpose of clarifying what actually happened. This would help to restore the credibility of the OPCW and work towards demonstrating its legally mandated commitment to transparency, impartiality and independence. It is of utmost importance to restore trust in the verification procedures relied upon to implement the prohibitions of the CWC.

Panel members:

José Bustani, Ambassador of Brazil, first Director General of the OPCW and former Ambassador to the United Kingdom and France,

Richard Falk, Professor of International Law, Emeritus, Princeton University; Visiting Professor, Istinye University, Istanbul

Kristinn Hrafnsson, editor-in-chief, Wikileaks

John Holmes, Maj Gen (retd), DSO OBE MC

Dr. Helmut Lohrer, MD, Board member of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and International Councilor of its German Affiliate

Prof. Dr. Guenter Meyer, Centre for Research on the Arab World (CERAW) at the University of Mainz

Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence (retd); member, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (www.samadamsaward.ch)

Read the OPCW statement 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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘Unacceptable Practices’ in the OPCW’s Investigation of the Alleged Chemical Attack in Douma, Syria on April 7th 2018
  • Tags: , ,

Burn, Neoliberalism, Burn

October 25th, 2019 by Pepe Escobar

Neoliberalism is – literally – burning. And from Ecuador to Chile, South America, once again, is showing the way. Against the vicious, one-size-fits-all IMF austerity prescription, which deploys weapons of mass economic destruction to smash national sovereignty and foster social inequality, South America finally seems poised to reclaim the power to forge its own history.

Three presidential elections are in play. Bolivia’s seem to have been settled this past Sunday – even as the usual suspects are yelling “Fraud!” Argentina and Uruguay are on next Sunday.

Blowback against what David Harvey has splendidly conceptualized as accumulation by dispossession is, and will continue to be, a bitch. It will eventually reach Brazil – which as it stands continues to be torn to pieces by Pinochetist ghosts. Brazil, eventually, after immense pain, will rise up again. After all, the excluded and humiliated all across South America are finally discovering they carry a Joker inside themselves.

Chile privatizes everything

The question posed by the Chilean street is stark: “What’s worse, to evade taxes or to invade the subway?” It’s all a matter of doing the class struggle math. Chile’s GDP grew 1,1% last year while the profits of the largest corporations grew ten times more. It’s not hard to find from where the huge gap was extracted. The Chilean street stresses how water, electricity, gas, health, medicine, transportation, education, the salar (salt flats) in Atacama, even the glaciers were privatized.

That’s classic accumulation by dispossession, as the cost of living has become unbearable for the overwhelming majority of 19 million Chileans, whose average monthly income does not exceed $500.

Paul Walder, director of the Politika portal and an analyst for the Latin-American Center of Strategic Analysis (CLAE) notes how less than a week after the end of protests in Ecuador – which forced neoliberal vulture Lenin Moreno to ditch a gas price hike – Chile entered a very similar cycle of protests.

Image result for President Sebastian Pinera

Walder correctly defines Chile’s President Sebastian Pinera (image on the right) as the turkey in a long-running banquet that involves the whole Chilean political class. No wonder the mad as hell Chilean street now makes no difference between the government, the political parties and the police. Pinera, predictably, criminalized all social movements; sent the army to the streets for unmitigated repression; and installed a curfew.

Pinera is Chile’s 7th wealthiest billionaire, with assets valued at $2.7 billion, spread out in airlines, supermarkets, TV, credit cards and football. He’s a sort of turbo-charged Moreno, a neoliberal Pinochetist. Pinera’s brother, Jose, was actually a minister under Pinochet, and the man who implemented Chile’s privatized welfare system – a key source of social disintegration and despair. And it’s all interlinked: current Brazilian Finance Minister Paulo Guedes, a Chicago boy, lived and worked in Chile at the time, and now wants to repeat the absolutely disastrous experiment in Brazil.

The bottom line is that the economic “model” that Guedes wants to impose in Brazil has totally collapsed in Chile.

Chile’s top resource is copper. Copper mines, historically, were owned by the US, but then were nationalized by President Salvador Allende in 1971; thus war criminal Henry Kissinger’s plan to eliminate Allende, which culminated in the original 9/11, in 1973.

Pinochet’s dictatorship later re-privatized the mines. The largest of them all, Escondida, in the Atacama desert – which accounts for 9% of the world’s copper – belongs to Anglo-Australian giant Bhp Billiton. The biggest copper buyer in world markets is China. At least two-thirds of income generated by Chilean copper goes not to the Chilean people, but to foreign multinationals.

The Argentine debacle

Before Chile, Ecuador was semi-paralyzed: inactive schools, no urban transport, food shortages, rampant speculation, serious disturbances on oil exports. Under fire by the mobilization of 25,000 indigenous peoples in the streets, President Lenin Moreno cowardly left a power void in Quito, transferring the seat of government to Guayaquil. Indigenous peoples took over the governance in many important cities and towns. The National Assembly was AWOL for almost two weeks, without the will to even try to solve the political crisis.

By announcing a state of emergency and a curfew, Moreno laid out a red carpet for the Armed Forces – and Pinera duly repeated the procedure in Chile. The difference is that in Ecuador Moreno bet on Divide and Rule between the indigenous peoples’ movements and the rest of the population. Pinera resorts to outright brute force.

Apart from applying the same old tactics of raising prices to obtain further IMF funds, Ecuador also displayed a classic articulation between a neoliberal government, big business and the proverbial US ambassador, in this case Michael Fitzpatrick, a former Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere matters in charge of the Andean region, Brazil and the Southern Cone up to 2018.

The clearest case of total neoliberal failure in South America is Argentina. Less than two months ago in Buenos Aires, I saw the vicious social effects of the peso in free fall, inflation at 54%, a de facto food emergency and the impoverishment of even solid sectors of the middle class. Mauricio Macri’s government literally burned most of the $58 billion IMF loan – there’s still $5 billion to arrive. Macri is set to lose the presidential elections: Argentines will have to foot his humongous bill.

Macri’s economic model could not but be Pinera’s – actually Pinochet’s, where public services are run as a business. A key connection between Macri and Pinera is the ultra-neoliberal Freedom Foundation sponsored by Mario Vargas Llosa, who at least boasts the redeeming quality of having been a decent novelist a long time ago.

Macri, a millionaire, disciple of Ayn Rand and incapable of displaying empathy towards anyone, is essentially a cipher, pre-fabricated by his Ecuadorian guru Jaime Duran Barba as a robotic product of data mining, social networks and focus groups. A hilarious take on his insecurities may be found in La Cabeza de Macri: Como Piensa, Vive y Manda el Primer Presidente de la No Politica, by Franco Lindner.

Among myriad shenanigans, Macri is indirectly linked to fabulous money laundering machine HSBC. The president of HSBC in Argentina was Gabriel Martino. In 2015, four thousand Argentine accounts worth $3.5 billion were discovered at HSBC in Switzerland. This spectacular capital flight was engineered by the bank. Yet Martino was essentially saved by Macri, and became one of his top advisers.

Beware the IMF vulture ventures

All eyes now should be on Bolivia. As of this writing, President Evo Morales won Sunday’s presidential elections in the first round – obtaining, by a slim margin, the necessary 10% spread for a candidate to win if he does not obtain the 50% plus one of the votes. Morales essentially got it right at the end, when votes from rural zones and from abroad were fully counted, and the opposition had already started to hit the streets to apply pressure. Not surprisingly, the OAS – servile to US interests – has proclaimed a “lack of trust in the electoral process”.

Evo Morales represents a project of sustainable, inclusive development, and crucially, autonomous from international finance. No wonder the whole Washington Consensus apparatus hates his guts. Economy Minister Luis Arce Catacora cut to the chase: “When Evo Morales won his first election in 2005, 65% of the population was low income, now 62% of the population has access to a medium income.”

The opposition, without any project except wild privatizations, and no concern whatsoever for social policies, is left to yell “Fraud!”, but this could take a very nasty turn in the next few days. In the tony suburbs of southern La Paz, class hate against Evo Morales is the favorite sport: the President is referred to as “indio”, a “tyrant” and “ignorant”. Cholos of the Altiplano are routinely defined by white landowning elites in the plains as an “evil race”.

None of that changes the fact that Bolivia is now the most dynamic economy in Latin America, as stressed by top Argentine analyst Atilio Boron.

The campaign to discredit Morales, which is bound to become even more vicious, is part of imperial 5G war, which, Boron writes, totally obliterates “the chronic poverty that the absolute majority of the population suffered for centuries”, a state that always “maintained the population under total lack of institutional protection” and the “pillaging of natural wealth and the common good”.

Of course the specter of IMF vulture ventures won’t vanish in South America like a charm. Even as the usual suspects, via World Bank reports, now seem “concerned” about poverty; Scandinavians offer the Nobel Prize on Economics to three academics studying poverty; and Thomas Piketty, in Capital and Ideology, tries to disassemble the hegemonic justification for accumulation of wealth.

What still remains absolutely off limits for the guardians of the current world-system is to really investigate hardcore neoliberalism as the root cause of wealth hyper-concentration and social inequality. It’s not enough to offer Band-Aids anymore. The streets of South America are alight. Blowback is now in full effect.

*

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.

Pepe Escobar is an independent geopolitical analyst, writer and journalist.

All images in this article are from Wikimedia Commons

While Australian journalists bonded and broke break in condemning national security legislation that some of them had previously supported, one figure was barely mentioned.  Julian Assange was making his first public appearance since April for a case management hearing at the Westminster Magistrates Court.

Those in attendance were disturbed.  Craig Murray professed to being shaken.

“Every decision was railroaded through over scarcely heard arguments and objections of Assange’s legal team, by a magistrate who barely pretended to be listening.”

His condition had deteriorated: receding hair, premature ageing, lost weight.  Some cognitive impairment seemed to have set in: incoherent trains of thought, a trouble to articulate and recall events.

By the end of the session, we were left with a few points of consideration.  The first, as ever, remains that British justice is, at best, a ceremonial cloak that continues to operate in the shadows of power.  Observe formalities, but do away with the substantive matters.  

The second is an unfolding international dimension that links private security firms, the US intelligence services, and Ecuador in what can only be described as a political effort to eliminate a one of the most recognisable figures of publishing in recent memory.  He must be done away with, mentally and physically eroded as person and being.  Spiritually, he must be snuffed out.

With odds firmly against him, Assange’s defence team were keen to impress district magistrate Vanessa Baraitser on two grounds: that they be granted a preliminary hearing on the issue of whether the extradition might fall foul of the US-UK Extradition Treaty of 2003; and that they be granted a postponement of the February 24, 2020 full extradition hearing.  

The latter point was based on two grounds: Assange’s acute legal isolation in Belmarsh prison and emerging evidence arising from a Spanish investigation currently underway into a surveillance operation on Assange when resident in the Ecuadorean embassy in London. The material gathered there might prove critical to the defence, not least of all its evident illegality. 

When Assange was asked by the magistrate whether he had understood what had transpired, he gave the sort of reply that one would justifiably expect from a bruised, ailing political prisoner. 

“I don’t understand how this is equitable.  This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case and I can’t access my writings.  It’s very difficult where I am to do anything but these people have unlimited resources… They are saying journalists and whistleblowers are enemies of the people.  They have unfair advantages dealing with documents.  They [know] the interior of my life with my psychologist.  They steal my children’s DNA.  This is not equitable what is happening here.”

Magistrate Baraitser was not exactly feeling generous, though she did relent in granting a two months extension to Assange’s defence team, ostensibly to give them time to consult evidence emerging from Spanish investigative proceedings.   

The Spanish angle on this is critical, concerning, in the words of the WikiLeaks press release, “clandestine operations against Assange, his lawyers and doctors and Assange’s family, including at the Ecuadorean embassy.”  These centre on the conduct of David Morales, owner of UC Global SL, a Spanish security company charged with protecting the Ecuadorean embassy in London when Assange was its famous tenant.   

Morales is being investigated by the Audiencia Nacional, Spain’s High Court, for allegedly ordering the surveillance of Assange’s conversations in the embassy, including those with his lawyers, and passing on material to US intelligence services.  Morales, keen on being as comprehensive as possible in this endeavour, specifically requested his team to list “the Russian and American citizens” visiting Assange, material of which was sent to a File Transfer Protocol server in the company’s mother ship location in Jerez de la Frontera.  The storage material there comprises data from phones, details on professions, and matters of nationality.  Rather damnably, employees who worked for Morales’ company have revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency had access to the server.  

The case being presented against Morales is a true cocktail of breaches: privacy violations, the violation of lawyer-client privilege, bribery, misappropriation, money laundering, and the criminal possession of weapons. 

Morales was arrested in Jerez de la Frontera on September 17, but as the investigation is under seal, relevant material had not surfaced till this month. That said, the rather seedy resume of UC Global SL was already common knowledge, with an investigation by El País revealing the existence of a surveillance apparatus created by the company with the specific purpose of targeting Assange.

While Baraitser permitted the defence extra time to incorporate material arising from these revelations, she refused to postpone the date set for the full extradition hearing, scheduled for February 24, 2020.  The matter will, however, be revisited during the December 19 case management hearing. 

What the magistrate did not discuss was the evident intransigence of British authorities who have frustrated efforts by the investigating Spanish Judge José de la Mata to question Assange.  On September 25, the judge sent a European Investigation Order (EIO) requesting a videoconference with Assange, who would be a witness in the case against UC Global SL.  The EIO process, which came into force in Spain in 2018, is designed to ease the laborious processes behind the customary transfer of evidentiary material from one EU state to another.  But the United Kingdom Central Authority (UKCA) has decided to stonewall the application, claiming that “these types of interview are only done by the police” in the UK.  Nor was the request by De la Mata clear, either in grounds or on the assertion of jurisdiction.   

Baffled, De la Mata has pressed the issue in determined fashion, citing previous examples of international cooperation treaties, and noting that restrictions on videoconferencing only apply to the accused, not a witness.  “We also provided a clear context for our case, describing all the events and crimes under investigation.”  On jurisdiction, the matter was also clear: the suspect was Spanish, the victim (Assange) had filed a complaint and the crimes in question (unlawful disclosure of secrets and bribery) were also crimes in the UK.  Quod erat demonstrandum.   

The district magistrate also cold shouldered hearing preliminary arguments as to whether the extradition request was barred by the 2003 US-UK Extradition Treaty.  Lawyers representing Assange noted in their court submission that the Extradition Treaty “was at the time contentious, reducing the number of safeguards that might prevent extradition, in particular safeguards from the UK to the US.”  Despite much weakening on the subject of citizen protections, one section in the treaty remains unaltered.  Article 4(1), retained in the 2007 ratified version, makes the point that, “Extradition shall not be granted if the offence for which extradition is requested is a political offence.”

The US prosecution is positively larded with political implications.  Each of the 18 charges against Assange has, at its core, an allegation of intent, namely to obtain or disclose US state secrets in such a way as to damage the security of the United States.  Given that state of affairs, the defence sought to advance three grounds: that the court had jurisdiction to determine the issue of whether the charges were political in nature; that the court rule that the offences were such, pursuant to Article 4 of the Extradition Treaty, and “for that reason alone, extradition should be refused in the case.”   The magistrate was not so obliging, either in listening to the grounds or giving reasons for her refusal. 

Back in Assange’s home country, the editors of News Corp, Fairfax, the ABC, SBS and The Guardian, held hands in their damning campaign dubbed “The Right to Know”.  Death to cultures of secrecy, they proclaimed.  Onwards transparency warriors.  But as with much in journalism, it is slanted, specific and skewed, ignorant of some of the most far reaching changes in the industry in the last decade.  Assange remains indigestible to their sensitive palettes.  Should he be extradited and convicted, their campaign will come to naught, a mere sliver of after-the-fact protest.   

Perhaps fittingly, Australia has produced two notorious figures associated with journalism.  They lie at two extremes of the information spectrum: Rupert Murdoch (yes, the same man behind News Corp), who continues to traffic in tits-and-bum titillation and demagoguery, influencing elections through such organs of demerit as The Sun; and Assange, who prefers revealing official secrets through WikiLeaks and, his accusers sneer, influencing elections.

At least some Australian politicians have taken the very public step of not only supporting Assange, but suggesting he return to Australia.  It took some time, but this cross-party group have realised that behind the Imperium’s quest to punish the human face of WikiLeaks is a political purpose marked by the ugly, ghastly visage of the national security state.

*

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

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

Featured image is from 21st Century Wire

Apocalypse Now? “War is Profitable”

October 24th, 2019 by Philip A Farruggio

Every high school and college student, and all their parents and grandparents should watch Francis Ford Cappola’s Apocalypse Now Redux. This is the 2001 re-cut and extended version of his 1979 classic of the same name. Set in Vietnam at the height of that war (in reality a ‘civil war’) it tells of a Special Forces assassin sent up river to the area where a renegade US Colonel is operating. His mission, as his superiors instruct him, is to ‘Terminate the Colonel’s command with extreme prejudice!’ Isn’t military lingo marvelous?

We can go on for literally hours discussing the myriad of meanings contained within this film. To this writer there are an abundance of parallels as to what transpired then, in the late 1960s, and now. The Vietnam debacle and our Iraq/Afghanistan debacles blend easily… too easily. Yet, that is not the reason for this column. It is the closing episode of the film, when the Marlon Brando character, Col. Kurtz, finally appears, that gave closure to the entire intent of the story. That being the sad truth of what this Military Industrial Empire is all about. When Col. Kurtz reprimands Captain Willard, the assassin, as being ‘An errand boy, for grocery clerks, to collect a bill’ he puts the whole damn Vietnam disgrace into proper perspective. Much like LBJ and Nixon regarding our presence in Vietnam, Bush Sr. and Clinton regarding Iraq war 1, Bush Jr as to Iraq war 2 and Afghanistan, Obama regarding those two countries plus Libya & Syria, and now Trump regarding Afghanistan and Syria, they were and are All Grocery Clerks!

Who are the errand boys (and girls)? Look no further than both the fruit salad wearing generals, dressed like 1940s movie theater ushers, and of course our fine Fourth Estate or as Paul Craig Roberts named them: Presstitudes. These are the lackeys who do the bidding of the movers and shakers that control this empire. Many of the fruit salad wearing generals become either ‘Security experts’ or television news talk contributors or even authors, earning a shitload of money after they retire. As to the presstitutes, well, many of them are earning seven figures (AKA millions) to continue to echo the company line. They care not about how such a small amount (meaning THEM) of Amerikans are making mega bucks while the majority of the working stiffs who watch, listen or read them make peanuts. Who cares… This is a free market we live in!

During the Vietnam (so called) War, whenever a Huey (helicopter) was shot down, Bell Helicopter replaced it for Uncle Sam to the tune of $ 1,000.000. I don’t know what that would translate into 2019 dollars, but I do know that ONE Apache Helicopter, during our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007, was at a cost to taxpayers of $ 20,000.000. That amount could finance the hiring of 40 firefighters, police officers or school teachers at $ 50,000 a year. Folks, put aside all the rhetoric the Grocery Clerks and Errand boys spit up at you, and realize that War IS PROFITABLE! Sadly, the more this empire focuses our attention on phony wars and regime change , and not on the slow bankrupting of this economy…. Apocalypse Now won’t be a redux, but a reality!

*

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

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

Erdogan Wants the Bomb

October 24th, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

“Some countries have nuclear missiles, but the West insists that we cannot have them. This is unacceptable”: this statement by President Erdogan reveals that the crisis goes beyond that which began with the Turkish offensive in Syria. In Turkey, during the Cold War, the United States deployed nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union. In 1962, in the agreements with the USSR for the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy promised to remove these weapons from Turkey, but this was not done.

After the end of the Cold War, about 50 U.S. B61 nuclear bombs (the same as those deployed in Italy at Aviano and Ghedi), directed mainly against Russia, remained in Turkey, at the Incirlik air base. In this way, both the United States and Turkey are in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Within the framework of NATO, Turkish pilots are trained (like the Italian pilots of the Ghedi base) to attack with B61 nuclear bombs under U.S. command. Soon, the B61s will be replaced by the Pentagon also in Turkey (as will be done in Italy and other European countries) with the new B61-12 nuclear bombs, also directed mainly against Russia.

In the meantime, however, following the Turkish purchase of Russian anti-aircraft missiles S-400, the United States removed Turkey from the program of the F-35, which is the main carrier of the B61-12. Turkey was supposed to have purchased 100 F-35 aircraft, of which it was a co-producer.

“The F-35 — declared a White House spokesperson — cannot coexist with the S-400 anti-aircraft system, which can be used to learn the capabilities of the fighter.” (White House.gov, July 17)

That is, Russia can use what it learns through the S-400 system to strengthen the defences against the F-35. By supplying Ankara with the S-400 anti-aircraft missiles, Moscow has managed to prevent the U.S. (at least for now) from deploying 100 F-35s on Turkish territory ready to attack with the new U.S. B61-12 nuclear bombs.

At this point, it seems probable that, among the options considered in Washington, there is that of the transfer of U.S. nuclear weapons from Turkey to another country deemed more reliable. According to the authoritative Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (USA − Oct. 17), “the Aviano air base [in northeastern Italy] may be the best European option from a political point of view, but it probably does not have enough space to receive all of Incirlik’s nuclear weapons.” Space could, however, be provided, given that renovation work has already begun in Aviano to accommodate the B61-12 nuclear bombs.

Against this background there is Erdogan’s declaration that, using the threatening presence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal as his motive, Turkey intends to have its own nuclear weapons.

It’s no easy project, but doable. Turkey has advanced military technologies, supplied in particular by Italian companies, especially Leonardo. It has uranium deposits. It has experience in the field of research reactors, supplied in particular by the United States.

Turkey has started the construction of its own nuclear electronics industry, purchasing some reactors from Russia, Japan, France and China. According to some sources, Turkey could have already procured, on the “black nuclear market,” centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Erdogan’s announcement that Turkey wants to become a nuclear power, interpreted by some as a bluff to give his regime more weight in NATO, should not be underestimated.

Erdogan’s announcement uncovers what is generally hidden in the media debate: the fact that, in the turbulent situation caused by the policies of war, the possession of nuclear weapons plays an increasingly important role, prompting those who do not own them to obtain them.

*

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

This article was originally published on Il Manifesto. Translated from Italian by John Catalinotto and Pete Kimberley.

Award winning author Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from DefenseWorld.net

The Uncertain Aftermath of the Bolivian Elections

October 24th, 2019 by Pablo Solón

Bolivians went to the polls on Sunday, October 20, 2019. According to the country’s electoral system, in order to avoid a second round in presidential elections the leading candidate must secure 51 per cent of the vote, or more than 40 per cent of the vote and a lead of 10 per cent over the second place candidate.

With 83.8 per cent of the quick-count votes verified, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal’s (TSE) website indicated that Evo Morales of the Movement Toward Socialism (MS) was leading with 45.3 per cent, with Carlos Mesa of Citizen Community in second place with 38.2 per cent. It appeared as though there would be a second round. At this point, the TSE inexplicably shut down the live transmission of the quick-count tabulation of ballots after the 83 per cent of votes had been counted. Twenty-two hours later, on Monday evening, the transmission of quick-count results was restarted, with the website now indicating 95.63 per cent of votes counted. The distance between Morales, the front runner, and Mesa, the runner up, had grown significantly over the intervening period. The difference separating the two candidates was now said to be 10.12 per cent according to the quick-count, and this after Morales had announced that once the rural votes were counted he was sure there would be no need for a run-off.

Oppositional protests contesting the results kicked off Monday evening throughout the country, including the torching of several departmental offices of the electoral tribunal, just as MAS supporters simultaneously took to the streets in celebration. It will be days before the detailed count is finished, but the margin of difference in the detailed account appears to be closer, making a run-off election very likely. It would be held on December 15, 2019.

It is useful in this context to take a step back and to consider what is at stake in these elections. One important perspective on this issue is captured below in the conversation I had with former Morales government official, and now left-oppositionist, Pablo Solón in La Paz, Bolivia on August 29, 2019.

Today, Solón is the director of Fundación Solón, an institution established in 1994 by Pablo’s father, the artist Walter Solón Romero, with the intention of “fomenting creativity and the critical perspective of rebellious spirits.” With the passage of time, and the death of Walter in 1999, the artistic foundation became a centre for the interpellation and search for alternatives through art, analysis, and activism with the aim of confronting social and environmental injustices and changing the socio-economic system fundamentally.

***

Jeffery R. Webber (JRW): I am in the offices of the Fundación Solón, in La Paz, Bolivia, with Pablo Solón, the director of the foundation. To start with some personal background – you were the Ambassador to the United Nations during Evo Morales’s first term. What was your role within the administration in that initial period, and how would you characterize the government of Morales during his first term in office?

Pablo Solón (PS): My relation to indigenous and peasant movements stretches back to the decade of the 1990s. Originally, we conceived of the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) as a political instrument of social organizations. The objective was not to construct a political party in the traditional sense, but rather for the social movements, and in particular the peasant and indigenous movements, to have a political arm with which to intervene in elections, but with the social movement always retaining decision-making power, not the party.

In that period, I met Evo Morales. In 2000 the “Water War” against the privatization of water in the city of Cochabamba occurred, and later the “Gas War” and the struggle against the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Here in Bolivia we built a very strong movement that we called the Bolivian Movement of Struggle Against the FTAA, which was coordinated through the Fundación Solón.

In this context, as a result of the Electoral Court refusing to grant legal status to the political wing of the social movements under their initial preferred name, the Political Instrument for Sovereignty of the Peoples, the leaders of the political arm opted to appropriate the already legally existing but politically defunct acronym of the MAS, which had not been a party of the left, but rather an organization with origins in a split from a party with Phalangist characteristics – this is where the name “socialist” in the MAS comes from. It was thus under the banner of the MAS that the political instrument of the social movements intervened in the 2002 national elections.

I was never a member of the party, because we never thought it was necessary. When the MAS won the elections in 2005, Evo Morales invited me to form part of the government. In 2006, I formed part of a team which was charged with advising the government on themes of international politics and I was a representative on the themes of integration and trade. In that period, Bolivia sat in the pro temporepresidency of what was called the United Nations of South America, in which I was Bolivia’s ambassador. In that role I led the negotiation of the agreement which constituted the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR).

I was also in charge of undoing the trade agreement we had with Mexico and negotiating the proposed free trade agreement with the European Union, which obviously did not come to pass because the EU simply wanted us to sign off on whatever they desired. Later, I was the Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations, from 2009 to June, 2011.

JRW: And how would you characterize the first administration of Evo Morales in general terms?

PS: The first phase of the Morales government lasted from his assumption of the presidency in 2006 to the end of 2009. It was a period of heightened polarization and confrontation in Bolivia. At the beginning it was very difficult even to travel to some regions of the country which were in opposition to the government, such as Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando, and Sucre. We were almost at the brink of civil war.

The government was able to dismantle that conspiracy through fundamentally democratic mechanisms, convening referenda and elections. Referendums in order to decide if the government would continue in office, as well as the prefects of the departments, which are now called governors. There was also a referendum to approve the new constitution, followed by national elections in 2009.

Support for the government went up in each of these democratic consultations, and for proposals arising from the Constituent Assembly process. It was a period of high polarization which in a sense had a happy ending, because Evo Morales obtained more than two thirds in congress and was re-elected as president in 2009. The resistance and the sabotage of the extremely reactionary oligarchy was defeated.

However, this first government already exhibited some negative elements which would later rise to the surface. The government of the MAS is a government of individuals who when they entered government didn’t have any experience of governing. The overwhelming majority had not played any part in previous governments. They were new to this, lacking experience in state administration and with uneven capacities and training.

One of the mistakes that the government made, for which I am also responsible, was to involve too many leaders from social movement organizations in the administration of the government. We weakened the social organizations through the incorporation of their leaders into the state apparatus.

This was a grave error. We did not consider the importance of maintaining the independence of social organizations from the state. The error was to fail to recognize that within the state we were going to suffer through a process of transformation and that, therefore, there had to be a kind of capable counter-power – not only to exercise control over those of us who were in government, but also to transfer more areas of decision-making and action from the state toward this counter-power of social organizations.

We did precisely the opposite. We built an ever more important cult of personality around the figure of Evo Morales. This allowed him to win the second election overwhelmingly, but it laid the basis for the disaster that would come later.

Once two thirds of congress had been secured, a dynamic of monopolizing all of the institutions of the state began. From the position of the central government, judicial power was monopolized, as was the Comptroller’s Office, and the Human Rights Ombudsman. It was a totally incorrect perspective to see this as the strengthening rather than the weakening of the process of change. The independence and authority between powers of the state ended up being abolished, and there was no counter-power from civil society. Everything fell under control of the power of the executive, and a government extremely personalized around the figure of Evo Morales. After the election of 2009 there was a change of direction in the orientation of the government.

In 2008, Evo Morales put forward 10 commandments which were seen as necessary to save the planet, in which he opposed biofuels, mega-hydroelectric projects, and genetically modified crops. Once he had obtained an absolute majority he did not deepen the original program that we had, but instead sought out pacts with sectors of the opposition, based on serious concessions, and in particular with the agribusiness sector of the eastern lowlands, which had sabotaged his government during the first term. These concessions included everything from allowing genetically modified organisms to promoting biofuels, promoting the export of meat, and not following through on the regulation of the social-economic functions of medium-sized landholdings and business-scale landholdings, which allowed large landowners to preserve their ownership of land.

The sectors that were against the government in the first term began to vote together with the government on almost all the laws having to do with agribusiness. For example, the law on ethanol was approved unanimously in congress, as much by the opposition as by the MAS officialdom. The laws that incentivize the burning of forests (Laws 337, 741, 303, 1171, and others) were approved with the support of the opposition, which expressed the interests of the agribusiness elite of the departments of Santa Cruz and Beni.

JRW: What was the motive, or state rationality, of the pact with the agribusiness elite? Because, in a sense, they had just been defeated in political terms by 2009, so why negotiate, and why on their terms?

PA: The prevailing logic in the government was no longer to advance toward agro-ecology, but rather to guarantee governability and their next re-election. From this perspective it was better to have these sectors on our side, so that they didn’t generate conflicts and instead supported us. In order for this to work you have to give them some of the things they ask for, but they repeatedly ask for more, and, in the end, the government ended up implementing the agribusiness program. How did the “process of change” benefit from this arrangement? There have been three terms of this government and there is a possibility for a fourth one. If one listens to the agribusiness sectors in meat, soy, sugar, and so on, they are very content. They have gained with this government what they were unable to gain previously, including under neoliberal governments.

JRW: So is this the fraction of capital with the most power in the government today?

PS: The government made an alliance with this sector, which provides them with certain benefits, in exchange for continuity in power. They are not two equal partners. This agribusiness sector, ultimately, does not want Evo. It is profoundly oligarchic and racist, but it has been doing good business under this first indigenous government. So, its logic is: we do good business, they are in power. And we continue going forward.

Therefore, in the midst of all of the forest fires occurring in Bolivia at the moment, both actors, the government and the agribusiness oligarchy, have announced with jubilation the first shipment of meat to China. No other government could have done this in the midst of the tragedy of the fires. There are various studies demonstrating the large-scale impact of ranching on forest fires and deforestation. However, the government has prioritized this alliance, thinking that it’s the best way to increase the probability of re-election.

JRW: When and why did you leave your position in the government?

PS: I resigned from being ambassador in New York because my mother was ill. I told Evo Morales that I had to take care of my mother, that one who does not take care of one’s mother cannot care for Mother Earth. But I always maintained a close relationship with him. Although I was no longer in government I went to see him when necessary, without any problems. But we began to part ways, first over genetically modified crops, in 2011; and secondly, the rupture came over the matter of the TIPNIS, the construction of a highway through indigenous territory and a national park. The drop of water that overflowed the glass was the repression over the TIPNIS project in Chaparina on September 25, 2011. At that moment, publicly, I sent a letter to Evo Morales telling him that this was intolerable. Since then, we have never spoken again.

JRW: We are now in a pre-electoral period and you have noted publicly that there are no parties which have a perspective on the environment appropriate to the scale of the ecological crisis. Can you explain the key features of the various party programs and provide a cartography of the electoral contest and the options, in electoral terms, facing Bolivians at the moment?

PS: The opposition to Evo Morales is an opposition focused more on democratic themes than on economic ones. Morales made a mockery of the 2016 constitutional referendum which said no to his re-election. Evo, through the control that he exercises over the constitutional tribunal, illegally modified the constitution with a totally absurd argument that the right of indefinite re-election is a human right.

So we have an opposition that concentrates on these democratic aspects, but in terms of agro-industry, and the agribusiness sector, they do not offer any alternative, with some even advocating the much further strengthening of the existing orientation of the government in this respect. I don’t see any of the political parties wanting a change in the course of action in relation to big agribusiness. Almost all of the party programs give very little importance to the question of nature, they don’t mention the subject of the rights of Mother Earth. The governing party is the only one that mentions them, but as they themselves admit it is only something to promote in international forums, they don’t offer any measures to make it a reality in Bolivia.

The opposition has not made this issue an axis of contention. Citizen Community, the party of ex-president Carlos Mesa, has some important policies in relation to the environment, for example, regarding the generation and distribution of electricity, but when it comes to the eastern lowlands the party prefers not to touch the problem of agribusiness. None of the parties have expressed opposition to mega-hydroelectric projects, much less opposition to Rositas, which is the mega-hydroelectric project that they want to build in Santa Cruz.

JRW: OK, this is your sense of the party terrain. You mentioned earlier that a critical error of the first term of Morales’s rule was the integration of social movement leaders into the state. Turning to the area of social movements, then, what is your take on their power and significance in the current conjuncture?

PS: It’s very poor. We all wanted the government to win a second term in 2009, and to win decisively to put an end to the resistance of the oligarchy. But very shortly after obtaining two thirds in congress the ideology that came to prevail within government circles, of which vice president Álvaro García Linera is the purest expression, said: we don’t accept independent thinkers, there can be no independent thinkers. Here everyone must agree with what Evo Morales and Álvaro García Linera say.

So what they have done is weaken social organizations, transforming them into simple echoes of the government’s line, without a critical or positive position of their own. The social movements are in a much worse state than they were prior to the Water War of 2000. They have less capacity for autonomy, for projecting demands, for self-determination.

Those which have confronted the government have been divided, criminalized, and in some cases incarcerated. Fear has been generalized. Within the government there are many people who disagree with the official line, but they are not going to say this publicly because they will lose their jobs. Anyone who wants to keep their job has to accept the line coming from above. It’s a type of totalitarianism which is distinct from the military dictatorships. There are some cases in which the mechanisms are more perverse, and in others more subtle, designed to keep quiet those who have a different position.

JRW: In the present conjuncture, what is the position of the most important business confederations, such as CAINCO, the Chamber of Industry and Commerce in Santa Cruz? Are they openly supporting some parties more than others? What are the desires of domestic and international capital in these elections?

PS: They are not going to say anything publicly. What they hope is to be able to continue their business no matter who wins. If Evo wins, they’ll continue alongside Evo. If the opposition wins they will go along with it. At the moment they are not involved in any public campaign in favour of one or another candidate, but simply thinking of their pockets.

JRW: But apart from their apparent neutrality, you don’t think they are financing specific parties, that they have a preferred outcome?

PS: Well, they haven’t said anything publicly, so one cannot say with any evidence.

JRW: There is no publicly available financing of particular campaigns?

PS: Public? No. Behind the scenes, all of the parties must be receiving something. For example, Bolivia Says No, the party of Óscar Ortiz, surely has the financial support of agribusiness. Bolivia Says No is the party which most closely represents their interests. Bolivia Says No’s platform is to export the Santa Cruz model to the rest of the country. They want to introduce a new export plan for the Amazon.

The Santa Cruz oligarchy has learned that, first, it has to protect its business interests, and so it is not going to confront the government, especially when they are receiving such benefits. They are not going to campaign openly against the government. Under the table, they might be financing here or there, but they know that Bolivia Says No has no chance of winning these elections. So why would they do it publicly?

JRW: The global crisis of 2008 began to have a serious impact on many parts of South America beginning in 2012, more or less, depending on the country. But Bolivia was something of an exception, insofar as it exhibited higher levels of growth and macroeconomic stability. It’s obvious that the Morales government never loses an opportunity to announce this fact. How do you explain Bolivian economic growth, in contrast, say, to the open crises in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, and elsewhere? Is it going to last, or has the crisis simply not yet arrived in Bolivia?

PS: Here as elsewhere – Brazil, Venezuela – we lived through a boom, in spite of the crisis of 2008, because of the price of commodities, and in particular the oil price continued climbing until 2014. The crisis began that year when the price of oil began to fall.

Until 2014, Bolivia and various other countries in the region, were in ascent thanks to an export model rooted in certain products that enjoyed a high price on the international market. The crisis began in Bolivia when the price of oil fell to almost $40 per barrel, having reached a high of $100 per barrel, and the price of oil impacted upon the price of Bolivian natural gas sales to Argentina and Brazil.

The government was able to accumulate enormous foreign reserves during the boom period. Foreign reserves reached $15-billion. Before the Morales government, Bolivia’s foreign reserves never surpassed $1 or $2-billion.

In order to avoid the repercussions of the crisis, the government began to spend its foreign reserves, and began to take on debt. Today the external debt is around 25 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), and growing. The government also sells national treasury bonds on Wall Street, which is another form of indebtedness. In this way the crisis has been alleviated. The government has controlled the crisis in anticipation of the October elections.

After the elections, whichever party wins there will be an economic austerity package. It is almost impossible to maintain an exchange rate of 6.96 Bolivianos to the dollar, when one looks at the fall of currencies in Argentina and Brazil. The fall has already begun, but it has been tempered momentarily by strong public investment. Unfortunately, these investments by the state have not been in viable productive sectors. There has been a lot of investment in infrastructure. Investments directed toward productive sectors have been very poorly chosen, for example, the sugar mill in San Buenaventura or the urea plant. That is, these investments haven’t generated a new productive economic matrix capable of generating resources in the short term.

The current economy no longer depends primarily on the export of natural gas, as was the case until 2014. Today mining mineral exports are first, and in third place is agribusiness. But the international situation is terrible due to the crash in soy prices. The government maintains this sector with subsidies, but they cannot do so forever. After the elections, we are going to see an increase in gas, diesel, and electric light tariffs.

JRW: Do you think Morales is going to win in the first round? Is there any possibility that he won’t win the election?

PS: I don’t know, because Bolivia is a very volatile country. A month ago, everything suggested that Evo would win in the first round, but today I don’t know. The impact of the ecological disaster of the forest fires will have an effect on his chances. Whether he will recover or not in the coming days and weeks, we don’t know. In any case, no one is going to win in the first round. There’s going to be a second round. Today, I don’t think it’s possible that Evo will win in the first round. But the situation could change – Bolivia is a very dynamic country.

JRW: How do you understand the particular political situation in Bolivia within the wider region’s dynamics? For example, if we look at immediate neighbours, we see the extreme right in power in Brazil, and the possible return of (Kirchner) Fernández-Fernández in Argentina. So if the situation is volatile in Bolivia, this is also true at the regional level. What is the role of Bolivia within this regional scenario?

PS: For the government of Evo Morales the best scenario would be the return of Kirchnerism in Argentina. It would give him oxygen, and the government is supporting the campaign for Kirchnerism’s return. Were Evo to win, the government would likely prolong for a longer period the maintenance of certain subsidies than if a more neoliberal government were to be formed. But there will come a time at which you can’t prolong the subsidies even if you want to, because you haven’t created a new economic structure that would allow you to do so. If Evo wins he is going to implement a package of economic austerity, whether in a gradual or shock manner. I don’t see political options in the region which are proposing the kind of genuine change that would allow us to escape from this vicious circle, between populisms of the right and populisms of the left, which have distinct political discourses, but which in essence combine in supporting an extractivist economic model for export to the detriment of nature.

JRW: In the Brazilian case, Dilma Rousseff introduced an austerity package in 2014, after having campaigned on precisely the opposite political program. In hindsight, we can see that this was a turning point in the process which eventually resulted in Jair Bolsonaro gaining the presidency. So it would seem there are political dangers which accompany the implementation of austerity by progressive governments. If you are correct that in the Bolivian case should Evo win he will introduce austerity measures, what forms will the likely political complexities that follow assume in the immediate aftermath?

PS: If Evo wins, the right will radicalize and if Evo doesn’t win, in five years we will have a similar situation to that in Argentina today. Because if Evo doesn’t win, it will be Carlos Mesa of the opposition who will have to apply the hard measures. As soon as Mesa begins to apply such measures it will be incendiary for the population and supporters of the MAS, and Evo will be seen as a saviour. Essentially, however, there are no structural differences in the programs, whoever wins, in relation to key sectors such as agribusiness.

JRW: What is the strategy, then, for people such as yourself, who are trying to maintain a leftist position independent from that of the government? What to do in the present moment? Should the emphasis be on re-building a movement from below over the medium- to long-term?

PS: I don’t think there is any other alternative. Between the two existing electoral poles there is no alternative. We have to build and rebuild something different, and learn from our mistakes. Because we had very strong movements until 2006, until we arrived in government. So we have to be very self-critical concerning the errors we committed so that the new movements don’t repeat them.

At this point, the dichotomy between the left and right is not essential. We are not talking about building another big boss politician (caudillo) with which to confront Evo Morales or another neoliberal party. We are talking about rebuilding the social fabric of social movements and of new actors so that they can begin to self-govern and self-organize. That kind of movement, today, is very incipient in Bolivia.

Fourteen years ago it wasn’t the case. There was a very mobilized, autonomous, and self-governing movement. To recompose that will be difficult. The worst aspect is that this disarticulation of social movements, of the social subject, was not done by a government of the right, but by a government of the left. The social subject was able to survive despite the repression and brutality of the dictatorships and the policies of neoliberal governments. At certain moments it was severely damaged. But under this government, our own government, a government that we brought to office, a terrible phenomenon has been produced: the Aymara and Quechua indigenous community, which resisted colonization for 500 years, is today very weak because an indigenous government is promoting a very consumerist, developmentalist perspective of western modernity. As a result, Aymara and Quechua communities, and their alternative vision of Living Well (Vivir Bien), is weaker today than before the arrival of this government. It should have been exactly the opposite scenario.

JRW: Changing themes, let’s concentrate for a moment on the catastrophe of the fires in Chiquitania, the tropical savannas of the department of Santa Cruz. In general terms, what is the scale and depth of this ecological crisis, and what does it entail?

PS: Well, in quantitative terms we are talking about a burnt area of 1.8 million hectares [JRW note: now 5.3 million hectares]. The Minister of Defence said yesterday: “But it wasn’t all forest, only 500,000 hectares was forest.” Even with the figure of 500,000 hectares of burnt forest, it’s a catastrophe.

In 2016, a year of high deforestation, almost 300,000 hectares were deforested. Now we are surpassing 500,000 deforested hectares. According to a report on the hotspots generated by NASA satellites, a third of the fires are in protected areas of Bolivia. That’s incredible! Ten per cent of these fires are in untouched, primary forests.

It’s terrible from the perspective of the forests, greenhouse gas emissions, animal life, and ecosystems. These are life systems that are being destroyed. This is going to have impacts on water and rain not only in those zones but in other regions as well. We are accelerating the sixth extinction of life on earth.

JRW: What kind of economic transition, then, is needed in Bolivia?

PS: What the government should have done is what we had originally proposed. When we arrived in government we said we are not going to support agribusiness, we were going to support communitarian agro-ecology which would preserve nature, fundamentally directed toward the local market. But the government, prioritizing re-election, preferred to make agreements with agribusiness and this is the result.

Other options are possible. For example, if one wants to export meat one can do it, but in smaller quantities and within limits – meat produced in an ecological manner, without destroying forests, meat with a high price, directed toward consumer markets that are willing to pay more to preserve forests. In order to do this, it is necessary to totally reorient agricultural activities so that they can exist alongside the forest, rather than being developed at the cost of the forest. Promoting exports of chestnuts, of asaí fruit, in short a series of other products that are in the forests and which can be cultivated without destroying the forests.

From the point of view of lithium, Bolivia also has an opportunity if we develop it in an appropriate manner; likewise, in the case of solar energy, especially given that we are one of the countries with the highest levels of solar radiation.

This would imply a break with the developmentalist model.

*

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.

Jeffery R. Webber is a Senior Lecturer in International Political Economy at Goldsmiths, University of London. In January 2020, he will take up a new position as Associate Professor in the Department of Politics at York University, Toronto. Webber sits on the editorial board of Historical Materialism. His latest book is The Last Day of Oppression, and the First Day of the Same: The Politics and Economics of the New Latin American Left. He is presently working on his next book, Latin American Crucible: Politics and Power in the New Era, which is under contract with Verso.

Pablo Solón is director of Fundación Solón. He is the former Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations and lead negotiator for Bolivia at the December 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen.

Donald Trump: An American Tragedy for the U.S. and the Entire World

October 24th, 2019 by Prof Rodrigue Tremblay

“If this [U.S.] government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know.“ Frank Church (1924-1984), American lawyer and U.S. Senator, chairman of the Church Senate Committee, (in an interview with TV program ‘Meet The Press’, Aug. 17, 1975) 

“I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, and we stole.It was like —we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”Mike Pompeo (1963- ), former CIA director and presently Secretary of State in the Trump administration, (in April 2019, while speaking at Texas A&M University.) 

“I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the ‘Bikers for Trump’ —I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough —until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.“  – Donald Trump (1946- ), 45th American president and American hotel and casino owner, (statement made during an exclusive interview, in the Oval Office, with Breitbart News, published on Wed., March 13, 2019) 

.

The election of New York far right businessman Donald Trump, in November 2016, has turned out to be a tragedy for the United States and also for the world, as more blunders, disasters and catastrophes unfold under his inexperienced, impetuous and incompetent stewardship.

Politically, never in its entire history has the United States ever had a president who openly rejects the basic principles of the U.S. Constitutioni.e. the separation of powers and the idea of co-equal branches of government, and who rejects the core principle of democracy that no one is above the law. This is a dangerous precedent, which is bound to open a Pandora’s Box of ominous things to come. Ever since Mr. Trump’s inauguration on Friday, January 20, 2017, he has talked and behaved as if he has persuaded himself that he is above the law.

Then, there was that long series of chaotic, impulsive, improvised and incoherent policies, as never before seen in modern times. This has been the case not only in economicspublic finance and trade—but also in a callously bad diplomacy, which has tarnished the reputation of the United States around the world. The same can be said about Donald Trump’s divisive social policies, which have intensified income and wealth inequalities, and which are, in fact, a throwback to the 1920’s.

Let us review a few of them:

  • Trump’s dangerous fixation with the stock market

The stock market is not the economy. As a matter of fact, most economic recessions and depressions have begun when the stock market was very high or in a bubble, and about to crash, very often due to bad economic, regulatory and monetary policies that led to unchecked speculation, financial crises and financialpanics.

That happened, for example, before the Long Depression of 1873-1879, before the Depression of 1920-21, and before the Great Depression of the 1930’s, and before other serious economic recessions, such as the recent Great Recession of 2007–2009.

This is not a trivial matter. Any fool can push the stock market to unsustainable levels. One has simply to print a lot of money or to go deeply into debt. Some Third World countries still do it, even nowadays. —But when the rest of the economy goes the other way, severe economic consequences do follow. And that will not only damage the U.S. economy but also the world economy.

  • An American problem, which turns out also to be a world problem

If the Donald Trump problem were only a domestic U.S. problem, hope would be that the political and legal systems in the U.S. would be able to manage it. However, the man not only professes to be above American laws, he also talks and acts as if there were no international law. That is why that is an international problem and not only an American problem.

Mr. Trump seems to see himself as some sort of a self-proclaimed ‘king of the world’. On any given day, he might threaten to “totally destroy” and annihilate a foreign country, as he did in reference to North Korea and Afghanistan. On another day, he would declare himself ready to “destroy the economy” of another foreign country, as he did recently regarding the Turkish economy…etc. —This is madness on a high level.

That such an individual in a position of high authority, but with so little mental capabilities and judgment, has surfaced on the international political scene, in the 21st Century, is most astonishing, and somewhat unbelievable.

What is especially scary in Trump’s case is the fact that he surrounds himself with professional sycophants, yes-men and clones of himself. The result is that there is no filter and no safeguards around him, against his impulsive and destructive moves. He thinks and acts as if he were a one-man government.

  • The economic consequences of Mr. Trump 

The private sector of the U.S. economy is one the most resilient and one of the most productive in the world. However, Mr. Trump’s chaotic approach to government and his ill-thought economic policies are bound, sooner or later, to have a very negative impact on the economy. 

Currently, the U.S. manufacturing sector is already in a recession and contracting. The public and military sectors are supported by huge and unsustainable fiscal deficits. Consumers, going deeper and deeper into debt, keep the service sector humming for the time being. All the while the foreign trade sector is in disarray, thanks to the destructive trade wars that the Trump administration has initiated.

One day, this fragile economic structure built on debt and contracting trade flows is going to collapse, and it is not going to be pretty. And if one takes into consideration the important technological changes about to take place in the coming years, as the transport industry is going to be retooled, one could fear that the next economic recession could be much worse, especially if the global economy and financial markets were to be derailed in tandem.

  • The political and social consequences of Mr. Trump 

It is pretty much admitted, by now, that Donald Trump has been an important factor of division among Americans. The antipathy between Republicans and Democrats, for instance, is as intense and more personal as it has ever been in modern times. Moreover, in its studies and surveys, the Pew Research Center has found that partisan polarization and social hostility between groups have risen over the last three years.

No need to go further. The damage Mr. Trump has done is alreadyconsiderable.

Let us only hope that bad does not get worse!

*

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.

World renowned economist Prof  Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, of the book “The New American Empire”, and the recent book, in French La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018. Please visit Dr. Tremblay’s site: http://rodriguetremblay100.blogspot.com/

Dr. Rodrigue Temblay is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Hundreds of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets and squares across Lebanon to call for the fall of the country’s political class, which they accuse of looting the country. They also demand an end to the sectarian model of governance imposed on Lebanon by France, the former colonial power. This gives the presidency to the Maronite Christian community, the premiership to the Sunnis and the post of parliamentary speaker to the Shias, and allocates other offices to figures in the 18 religious communities.

Therefore, when Lebanese call for the fall of the regime, they do not mean ouster of a president, like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and his entourage, but of the political framework of the state. This is a far more dramatic and transformatory demand than the removal of a set of entrenched politicians and will be much more difficult to achieve. Lebanese politicians have done their utmost to prevent rivals from outside the traditional elite from emerging, and the protesters still do not have a recognised leadership which could take power if a new non-sectarian system is installed.

The crowds gathered on last Friday evening, reconvened on Saturday and swelled on Sunday to celebrate the first victory of people’s power, the resignation of four ministers from the right-wing Maronite Christian Lebanese Forces. The portfolios they held are labour, administrative development, deputy prime minister and social affairs. Although their resignations have not been accepted, Prime Minister Saad Hariri sustained a hard blow.

“This is the first domino to fall,” one protester said. The threat of withdrawal by this party, headed by Samir Geagea, is a serious development. The Lebanese Forces is the third largest party in parliament and the largest in the bloc headed by Hariri, who was already in a weak position. It had taken him a year to form his current cabinet following his appointment as premier after the May 2018 parliamentary election.

Hariri sustained what may be an existential blow on Monday, when protesters rejected his package of measures intended to foster economic recovery. These include a 50-per cent cut in salaries and pensions of ministers and former ministers and legislators. Banks are expected to provide $3.5 billion to the government while no new taxes will be imposed on struggling Lebanese, 20 per cent of whom live below the poverty line. Hariri’s economic plan was not really addressed to them but to donors who pledged to provide Lebanon with $11 billion in grants and soft loans. The people were not impressed and returned to the streets in ever-greater numbers.

The demonstrations, which erupted a week ago were triggered by a Cabinet approval of a tax on calls made on messaging services, particularly WhatsApp. Although a mere $0.20 daily, this tax was, for the Lebanese, as they say, “the straw that broke the camel’s back”. Since the cabinet adopted an austerity package in July, the taxes that have been imposed target the middle class and the poor. The rich and super-rich have escaped heavy exactions on their incomes and the political elite has kept corrupt gains. Authoritative Al Nahar daily reported that $350 billion has been stashed away in Swiss banks, prompting protesters to demand the return of the money. Some call for draconian measures like those adopted by Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman: Lock up the politicians until they repatriate millions of dollars banked abroad or empty local accounts of corrupt gains.

Corruption and mismanagement have peaked in Lebanon, which has not recovered economically or rebuilt its infrastructure since the end of the 1975-1990 civil war. Due to the government’s failure to construct adequate electricity plants, Lebanese have to pay for a certain number of hours daily, supplied by the state and expensive power provided by private operators. The same is true of water. With the aim of keeping dollars in Lebanon, banks offer an 8-per cent interest rate on dollars. Higher interest is paid on Lebanese Liras. Instead of investing in industry or services, Lebanese put their money in banks and keep it there. Consequently, investment and consumption have fallen. The economy has stalled. The public debt is nearly 150 per cent of GNP. International donors have conditioned funding on implementation of economic reforms and curbing corruption. If this is to be achieved, there must be a mechanism established to monitor the dispersal of funds and provide transparency so that people know how they are spent. Otherwise, money will disappear and popular demands will not be met.

Although the government has announced the withdrawal of the WhatsApp tax, this action has not satisfied the populace, as the exaction was just one of many designed to soak the middle class and the poor. They face high rents, rising prices for food and fuel and steep school and university fees. The rich remain rich because they have the resources to meet or dodge tax demands or to leave the country. Furthermore, the populace does not trust the political elite to use funds gathered through taxation to improve the situation. Trust has gone. Bitter frustration remains. The ongoing protests are far more serious than those of 2015, when a refuse collection crisis launched mass anti-government demonstrations. These protests served as a warning to the politicians, which they ignored, at their peril. Now they face some 1.3 million angry Lebanese, one-quarter of the population, demanding total change.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Lebanon Protest Movement: Demanding Total Change of State’s Political Framework
  • Tags: ,

De um Chile desperto a um Brasil hibernando

October 24th, 2019 by Instituto Humanitas Unisinos

“Onde estão as forças progressistas e os chamados movimentos sociais? Com isso, um governo sem rumo se mantém pela inércia e um presidente incapaz pode andar passeando pelo mundo sem que nada aconteça. Como sair da anomia? Desafio para partidos e entidades opositoras”, escreve Luiz Alberto Gomez de Souza, sociólogo.

“O PT e outras forças tendem a encerrar-se na miopia redutiva de “Lula livre“, outros pensam basicamente em vencer as próximas eleições municipais. Onde propostas de dimensões e ambições ao nível de um país que está sendo sucateado, do pré-sal a privatizações a rodo?”, pergunta o sociólogo, denunciando que “na ausência de alternativas a política parece vegetar numa calmaria anestesiada”.

Eis o artigo.

Impressionante a enorme multidão no centro de Santiago neste 23 de outubro. Para os que vivemos no Chile durante a Unidade Popular, não podemos deixar de recordar o entusiasmo do primeiro de maio de 1972 na Praça Itália. Trata-se agora de um plebiscito de fato, contra uma política neoliberal que foi apresentada entre nós como exemplo pela equipe de Guedes e que naufragou também na Argentina de Macri.

Um tremendo contraste: a reforma de previdência que castiga os mais pobres foi aprovada em Brasília com o assustador silêncio e indiferença das ruas brasileiras. Onde estão as forças progressistas e os chamados movimentos sociais? Com isso, um governo sem rumo se mantém pela inércia e um presidente incapaz pode andar passeando pelo mundo sem que nada aconteça. Como sair da anomia? Desafio para partidos e entidades opositoras.

O PT e outras forças tendem a encerrar-se na miopia redutiva de “Lula livre“, outros pensam basicamente em vencer as próximas eleições municipais. Onde propostas de dimensões e ambições ao nível de um país que está sendo sucateado, do pré-sal a privatizações a rodo? Na ausência de alternativas a política parece vegetar numa calmaria anestesiada.

Na história, às vezes, basta uma fagulha concreta – do preço dos transportes à indignação por uma saúde em decomposição – para despertar forças aparentemente hibernando. Assim com os gilet jaunes na França, entre nós os caras pintadas contra Collor, ou as manifestações de junho de 2013 em São Paulo que as esquerdas não souberam avaliar

Sempre tratei de manter a esperança numa frente ampla nacional, popular e democrática. No momento atual não posso deixar de expressar uma certa perplexidade.

“A história não caminha ao ritmo de nossa impaciência”, escreveu o poeta espanhol Antonio Machado, ao partir para o exílio no final da guerra civil.

Mas é do Chile que vem o alento com Salvador Allende, em sua última e comovente alocução pelo rádio, despedindo-se de seu povo: “La historia es nuestra, la hacen los pueblos”. E antevia então o que está acontecendo agora nas ruas de Santiago: “Volverá el pueblo a las grandes alamedas”.

Porém entre nós: quando?

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on De um Chile desperto a um Brasil hibernando

Documents recently filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reveal that some $30 million realized from the seizure and sale of Iranian government assets in Canada have been transferred to American families who filed for compensation under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act 2012. Their claim for compensation began in the U.S. court system but extended to Canada when they realized Canada would follow suit. The properties appropriated and sold were the Iranian Cultural Centre in Ottawa and the Centre for Iranian Studies in Toronto. The transfer of funds to the families only came to light last week.

The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act was passed under the former Harper Conservative government. It was buried in a lengthy omnibus crime bill. Debate in Parliament was limited on the bill, but it is worth noting that the only portion which received all party support was the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, and the theft, sale and disbursement of Iranian assets based on this Act were taken under the Trudeau administration.

Under this Act Iran was deemed to be a “state sponsor” of terrorism. The plaintiffs were thus relieved even of any obligation to do anything other than assert that Iran was responsible for the terror attacks that took the lives of their loved ones.

Many countries maintain lists of organizations deemed to be “terrorist”, but there is only one other country in the world which deems countries as “state sponsors of terrorism” — the United States, which along with Israel, is known to be the biggest perpetrator of war and terror around the world. This shows how the raison d’état of Canada as an entity and its foreign policy is integrated into the United States of North American Monopolies.

Iran has denounced the seizure and sale of Iranian assets in Canada as illegal and in violation of international regulations. Iran also said it will follow up the issue based on international regulations if Canada does not annul its illegal decision and does not compensate Iran for the losses.

Iran has a strong case in this respect. Even the Canadian foreign ministry’s director for Middle East affairs Dennis Horak, recently retired, spoke against the Victims of Terror Act, saying it was a “stupid law” that prevented any diplomatic relations with Iran. Not that Canada under the Liberals wanted to normalize relations.

Even more compelling, in March of this year an International Court in Luxembourg rejected a U.S. request to compensate victims of the Twin Tower attacks by seizing assets from Iran, based on an accusation by an American court that Iran was responsible for the 9-11 attack. The Luxembourg court ruled that the U.S. Court decision was not in accordance with public international law. U.S. request fails to meet international law criteria, the court said.

The same argument applies to Canada’s Victims of Terrorism legislation and its seizure, sale and disposal of Iranian assets. Like the U.S. theft of Venezuelan assets or the UK theft of Libyan assets, Canada is establishing a reputation as a hooligan and wrecker of international law and regulations.

*

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.

Steve Rutchinski is the MLPC Candidate in University—Rosedale.

Featured image is from Tony Seed’s Weblog

Selected Articles: 5G Cell Phone Radiation is Not Safe

October 24th, 2019 by Global Research News

Online independent analysis of US-led wars, rampant corruption, corporate greed, civil rights and fraudulent monetary transactions is invariably relegated to the bottom rung of search engine results.

As a result we presently do not cover our monthly running costs which could eventually jeopardize our activities.

Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis provided by Global Research on a daily basis?

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

*     *     *

Syria

Trump and Erdogan Are Alike: Both Are ‘Thin-Skinned’ and Relied on ‘Deplorables’ to Win

By Philip Giraldi, October 24, 2019

The apparent communications problems that have arisen between USPresident Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan are basically due to Trump’s failure to understand that Erdogan is essentially his Turkish counterpart in more ways that the title of the office that they both hold. They rose to power in a similar fashion, based on an understanding that there were large numbers of disenchanted essentially conservative voters, and they continue to rule in an unorthodox fashion that combines a high level of personal sensitivity with a tolerance for corruption plus a tendency to come out with brash misstatements.

Tulsi a Russian Asset? Censored by Google and YouTube

By Stephen Lendman, October 24, 2019

Tulsi Gabbard is the only US anti-war, progressive presidential aspirant. The NYT demeans her  “unorthodox political views.” Powerful interests want her campaign prevented from gaining traction. CIA-connected Google-owned You Tube suppressed her search results. What’s going on is polar opposite how parent company Alphabet campaigned for Hillary in 2016, featuring favorable results, concealing negative ones, manipulating sentiment for her against Trump, a failed scheme as things turned out.

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

By Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, October 24, 2019

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.

The White Helmets: A Terrorist Organization Supported by the Trump Administration

By Dr. Ludwig Watzal, October 24, 2019

The White Helmets are a terrorist affiliate of ISIS and al-Nusra front and not paramedics. A British secret service agent created these pseudo paramedics terrorists with the financial support of Western countries. Great Britain, France, Germany, and the U. S financed this terror organization. They received even an OSCAR award from the terror-supporting Hollywood factory, contracted by Israel and the Pentagon. Except for the Western fawning and corrupt media, the White Helmets are considered a terrorist affiliate and extremely dangerous. They are not paramedics but a ragtag gang of Western financed terrorists.

Vladimir Putin, Syria’s Pacifier-in-Chief

By Pepe Escobar, October 24, 2019

The Russia-Turkey deal establishes a safe zone along the Syrian-Turkish border – something Erdogan had been gunning for since 2014. There will be joint Russia-Turkey military patrols. The Kurdish YPG (People’s Protection Units), part of the rebranded, US-aligned Syrian Democratic Forces, will need to retreat and even disband, especially in the stretch between Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ayn, and they will have to abandon their much-cherished urban areas such as Kobane and Manbij.  The Syrian Arab Army will be back in the whole northeast. And Syrian territorial integrity – a Putin imperative – will be preserved.

U.S. Anti-war Movement Should Stay Focused on Getting U.S. Out of Syria

By Sara Flounders, October 24, 2019

Oct. 20 – The author visited Syria in 2014 and 2015 in small International Action Center solidarity delegations. At that time, no road in the country was safe and one-third of the population was displaced — taking refuge inside Syria or in surrounding countries. The schools, mosques, churches and community centers in Damascus were packed with tens of thousands of desperate refugees. Everywhere, including downtown Damascus, was being shelled.

Chile, September 11, 1973: The Ingredients of a Military Coup. The Imposition of a Neoliberal Agenda

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 24, 2019

Barely a few weeks after the military takeover, the military Junta headed by General Augusto Pinochet ordered a hike in the price of bread from 11 to 40 escudos, a hefty overnight increase of 264%. This “economic shock treatment” had been designed by a group of economists called the “Chicago Boys.” “While food prices had skyrocketed, wages had been frozen.  From one day to the next, an entire country had been precipitated into abysmal poverty.

*

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: Demonstrators at the anti-5G protest in Bern on Friday. (© Keystone / Peter Klaunzer)

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: 5G Cell Phone Radiation is Not Safe

More than 40,000 wild reindeer perished since the last count in 2017, said scientists who returned from a major expedition to the Taymyr Peninsula.

The Yenisei group of reindeer has disappeared entirely while the westernmost group living along the Tareya River has dramatically shrunk in size from 44,300 animals in 2017 to only several thousands now.

A research conducted over a territory of 80,000km2 – equal to the area of the United Arab Emirates – concluded that drastic measures are needed to claw back wild reindeer populations in all of Taymyr, northern Evenkia and western Yakutia.

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Poaching, climate change and excessive hunting caused colossal population drop. Pictures: Mikhail Bondar/WWF Russia, Zapovedniki Taymyra

The Taymyr Peninsula sits on the very tip of vast Krasnoyarsk region, facing the Severnaya Zemlya archipelago – and yes this is the fastest warming place on earth.

The air temperature in Taymyr has increased by 1.2C degrees over the past decade, which is above average not only for Russia but for the planet, said Andrey Kiselyov, a leading researcher.

Changing temperature deviates reindeer from their regular migration routes.

A very small number of reindeer walked in known migration corridors across Pyasina and Tareya rivers, this year’s research showed.

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinctionqNorthern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Researchers recommend to either ban hunting for a year or to shorten next hunting season by 1.5 months to give the reindeer time to breed. Pictures: Zapovedniki Taymyra, Mikhail Bondar/WWF Russia

Previously known concentration spots were almost empty, with only smallish herds and individual reindeers registered where usually there were scores of them.

‘Only seven years ago thousands of reindeer were passing through the Lake Ayan hollow. Back then I liked to pour a cup of tea, to come out and to sit on a  tree stump and to watch them slowly wonder along a river. Reindeer were not scared of me, some walked several metres away from me’, said inspector and researcher Vasiliy Sarana from the Putorana nature reserve.

‘Now I drink tea in the house, and look through a cold window at an empty river bank. There are no reindeer passing through Ayan any more’, he added.

Sarana said that only 15 to 20 years ago the number of wild reindeer was 600,000 to one million.

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Northern reindeer that roamed Taymyr peninsula are at the brink of extinction

Urgent measures are needed to claw the population back, experts say. Pictures: Mikhail Bondar/WWF Russia, Zapovedniki Taymyra

There were years of barbaric poaching and hunting which seemingly went unnoticed – or ignored – by local and regional authorities.

Male reindeer were attacked by antler hunters in spring, who axed or sawed them off right as defenceless animals crossed rivers.

Those of reindeers who survived the painful ordeal could not fight for females.

In autumns as reindeers migrated back to winter pastures they were met with group of hunters. In winters people chased them on snow mobiles.

‘If you add hunting quotas for indigenous people and reindeers’ deaths related to climate change to this madness, the losses are catastrophic!’, Vasiliy Sarana explained.

Researchers recommend to either ban hunting for a year or to shorten next hunting season by 1.5 months to give the reindeer time to breed.

Current number of calves is worryingly low at less than 7 per cent, while it has to be a quarter of the population.

The summer 2019 research expedition was supported by WWF Russia. A team of 13 researchers from Taymyr and Central Siberian Reserves in Krasnoyarsk region and Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution in Moscow examined the traditional summer concentration spots from the air, studied reindeer migration routes and put GPS tracking collars on 2 female and 3 male reindeer from the Taymyr population.

*

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 Zapovedniki Taymyra

The apparent communications problems that have arisen between US President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan are basically due to Trump’s failure to understand that Erdogan is essentially his Turkish counterpart in more ways that the title of the office that they both hold. They rose to power in a similar fashion, based on an understanding that there were large numbers of disenchanted essentially conservative voters, and they continue to rule in an unorthodox fashion that combines a high level of personal sensitivity with a tolerance for corruption plus a tendency to come out with brash misstatements.

One does not expect Trump to actually know anything about Turkey and its history, or, for that matter, about the political trajectory of Erdogan, but the American president’s businessman’s belief that his personal relationship with other countries’ leaders is enough to run a foreign policy is nevertheless seriously flawed. Trump has described Erdogan as a “friend” based on several personal meetings and phone calls, though it is very unlikely that the canny politician Erdogan would describe the relationship in the same manner. Trump’s most recent personal letter to the Turkish leader was reportedly thrown into the waste basket without being read.

Istanbul-born Erdogan, unlike Trump, came from a poor family and first became known as a professional soccer player. Also unlike Trump, he was and is deeply religious. He became a ward politician in Istanbul and was subsequently elected Mayor of the city in 1994 as the candidate of the moderately Islamist Welfare Party. Openly espoused religious parties were at that time illegal under the secular constitution imposed by the military in 1982, so he was stripped of his position by a military tribunal, banned from political office, and imprisoned for four months for the crime of “inciting religious hatred.”

After he was released from prison, Erdogan considered how to get around the ban on religion in politics, co-founding the ostensibly moderate and secular conservative Justice and Development Party known as AKP in 2001. In 2002, AKP won a landslide victory in national elections, but as Erdogan was technically still prohibited from holding office, the AKP’s co-founder, Abdullah Gul, instead becoming Prime Minister, which then led to the Chamber of Deputies’ legislative annulling of Erdogan’s political ban. Erdogan replaced Gul as Prime Minister in 2003. Erdogan led the AKP to two more election victories in 2007 and 2011, before being elected president in 2014, winning again in 2018.

The first years of Erdogan’s prime-ministership were politically moderate as Turkey was still governed under the military imposed constitution. There were promising negotiations for Turkey to enter the European union, foreign investment was encouraged, the economy benefited from measures to free up businesses from state control, and there was considerable state money spent on infrastructure. Behind the scenes, however, Erdogan worked closely with Fethullah Gulen and his Gulen Movement, currently designated as a terrorist organization, to purge the government of secular bureaucrats and army officers using Gulen’s networking and the judicial system, most notably through several show trials of military officers that led to constitutional referenda that both weakened the military’s grip and enabled the legalization of expressions of Muslim piety.

Erdogan was damaged by a series of anti-government protests that began in 2013. His response, like that of Donald Trump, has been to become increasingly authoritarian, claiming that the opposition to him was treasonous. He banned social media, took control of the judicial system, and arrested both journalists and opposition politicians. Opponents responded by going after massive corruption in the administration that included the prime minister’s sons and his chief financial supporters. A file containing recordings of conversations between Erdogan and his son in December 2013, in which he appeared to be providing instructions on how to conceal very large amounts of money, was made public. Erdogan denied that the conversation was genuine, instead calling it an “immoral montage.”

Subsequently, a widely publicized failed military coup in 2016 was blamed on Gulen but was more likely than not allowed to develop by Erdogan himself to provide an excuse for further repression of critics. More than 150,000 civil servants have since that time been fired and replaced by Erdogan loyalists.

In 2017 Erdogan formed an alliance with the far-right National Movement Party (MHP) to promote a constitutional referendum on the form of government. In spite of fierce opposition and considerable electoral fraud, the referendum passed and the new system of government, a presidential system without a prime minister, formally came into place after the 2018 national election, which was won by Erdogan and the new AKP-MHP People’s Alliance.

A currency and debt crisis beginning in 2018 have caused a significant decline in Erdogan’s popularity and led to a loss in the 2019 local elections in which the ruling party lost control of the capital Ankara and largest city and financial hub Istanbul for the first time in 25 years. After the loss, the Turkish government ordered a re-election in Istanbul, in which AKP-MHP lost the election again by an even greater margin. The two successive losses severely damaged Erdogan politically speaking. He had once said that if we “lose Istanbul, we would lose Turkey,” with critics calling the loss the “beginning of the end” for him.

The central point is that, like Trump’s plea to Make America Great Again, Erdogan rose to power by virtue of his realization that the often deeply religious Turkish peasantry, which was increasingly moving to the country’s large cities, was a disaffected pool of voters that had not been tapped emotionally or even practically by any of the major political parties. That that was so was largely due to the fact that the country’s military imposed constitution enshrined the secularism of the nation’s founder Kemal Ataturk and appointed the army as the guarantor of the Ataturk principles. Erdogan was arrested but he subsequently skillfully avoided prosecution during his rise due to his willingness to use language and metaphors that appealed to what he perceived as the devout but largely un-politicized majority. This is not dissimilar to Trump’s appeal to the so-called “deplorables” and it explains why both leaders have core supporters who follow them with a real passion.

Other similarities between the two include a propensity to say things spontaneously that are both absurd and politically damaging, a belief that the chief executive should have no restraint exercised over his policies and positions, sons who are benefitting from their father’s position, and a lack of discretion when using the telephone.

And then there is the style issue – both men are blunt, thin skinned and assertive, unwilling to be upstaged by anyone, which suggests that they have had a tendency to talk past each other either on the phone or in person. This explains the curious misunderstanding of what the Americans and Turks pledged to do over the phone in the aftermath of the partial withdrawal of US troops from the Syrian border region several weeks ago. It also explains why there will be no quick resolution to the problems that both Ankara and Washington have created as Syria struggles to return to something approaching normalcy.

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump and Erdogan Are Alike: Both Are ‘Thin-Skinned’ and Relied on ‘Deplorables’ to Win
  • Tags: ,

Tulsi a Russian Asset? Censored by Google and YouTube

October 24th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Time and again, clear evidence proves democracy in America is pure fantasy — how it’s been from inception, notably today under its money-controlled system, most politicians bought like toothpaste.

One-party rule with two extremist right wings serves privileged interests exclusively at the expense of the general welfare.

Establishment media operate as press agents for dirty business as usual — controlling the message, suppressing alternative views, notably on geopolitical issues, as well as about political aspirants for peace and governance serving everyone equitably. See below.

When speech, press, academic freedoms, and right to dissent are considered threats to national security, free and open societies no longer exist — how things are in the US and other Western societies, totalitarianism the new normal.

Dark forces threaten what just societies hold dear. Rare truth-telling aspirants for high office are vilified and shunned.

Tulsi Gabbard is the only US anti-war, progressive presidential aspirant. The NYT demeans her  “unorthodox political views.” Powerful interests want her campaign prevented from gaining traction.

CIA-connected Google-owned You Tube suppressed her search results.

What’s going on is polar opposite how parent company Alphabet campaigned for Hillary in 2016, featuring favorable results, concealing negative ones, manipulating sentiment for her against Trump, a failed scheme as things turned out.

Last summer, Gabbard sued Google for censoring her campaign by temporarily suspending her advertising account, infringing on her constitutionally guaranteed free expression rights, her campaign saying:

“With this lawsuit, Tulsi seeks to stop Google from further intermeddling in the 2020 United States presidential election,” adding:

“In the hours following the 1st (Dem) debate, while millions of Americans searched for info about Tulsi, Google suspended her search ad account w/o explanation. It is vital to (stop) big tech companies (from manipulating) the outcome of elections.”

“Throughout this period, the campaign worked frantically to gather more information about the suspension.”

“In response, the campaign got opacity and an inconsistent series of answers from Google” — a firm with over a 90% world search engine market share, power letting it manipulate what’s seen or suppressed.

Earlier this month, Hillary surfaced again, falsely accusing Gabbard being “groom(ed) to be (a) third party candidate (as) a Russian asset.”

Gabbard responded strongly, tweeting:

“You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the (Dem) party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain,” adding:

“From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation.”

“We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know. It was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.”

“It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.”

“Hillary & her gang of rich, powerful elite are going after me to send a msg to YOU: ‘Shut up, toe the line, or be destroyed.’ But we, the people, will NOT be silenced. Join me in taking our (Dem party) back & leading a govt of, by & for the people!”

“If you’re sick of the new McCarthyism and warmongering by Hillary and her cohorts, then join our campaign. We need your support. Democrat, Republican, Independent — it doesn’t matter. We need to unite to usher in a govt which is of, by, and for the people!”

“United by love for our country and each other, we will usher in a 21st century government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I will bring to the presidency the soldier’s values of putting service before self — always putting our country’s interest first.”

“@HillaryClinton, your foreign policy was a disaster for our country and the world. It’s time for you to acknowledge the damage you have caused and step down from your throne.”

Retired anti-war/progressive Senator Mike Gravel said

“Tulsi Gabbard has more credibility in talking about peace and proper use of the military than any other candidate literally in American history.”

Separately in a weekend video message, Gabbard slammed Hillary and the “war machine,” trying to “destroy (and) discredit” her anti-war/progressive truth-telling, adding:

“They will not intimidate us. They will not silence us,” urging viewers to join her in “speaking truth to power” — loud, clear and without restraint.

On Tuesday, Gabbard doubled down against Hillary’s “disaster(ous)” pro-war/anti-peace foreign policy agenda, adding:

“It’s resulted in the deaths and injuries of so many of my brothers and sisters in uniform. It’s devastated entire countries, millions of lives lost, refugee crises, our enemy al-Qaeda/ISIS* strengthened.”

“It is long past time for you to step down from your throne so the (Dem party) can lead with a new foreign policy which will actually be in the interests of and benefit the American people and the world.”

Gabbard’s agenda is polar opposite dirty business as usual, why undemocratic Dems as well as establishment conventional and social media want her campaign undermined.

*

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 The Unz Review

In our article The Brexit Catch 22 we said that the government – “started its own fire, bought no extinguisher and now everyone is engulfed in its flames where a never-ending amount of fuel is added. It’s like being in hell. Every day is the same – more flames.” Don’t believe the press on this latest optimism of a deal being done, just because finally something got agreed. It doesn’t really mean that we are any closer to ending the nightmarish Brexit game of thrones at all – far from it.

And so it is with this week. MPs have voted for the Withdrawal bill to go forward, but that doesn’t mean they all back it – or that the saga is ending any time soon. They wanted more time to scrutinise the highly complicated agreement and related documents – all of which, rolls into hundreds of pages of legal jargon. And, of course, they have every reason not to trust Boris Johnson.

In our article, we provided the statistics that there was no consensus for anything from anyone with regard to Brexit. Not from the Tories, or parliament, House of Lords, or indeed – the general public.

But since a little more scrutiny of those documents has been undertaken in just the last 24 hours – more has emerged of the state of play. And what a state it is.

It now appears that the government, in its desperate desire to get something through, is making promises to both sides of the argument to get a majority on side to vote it through in first place.

The consequence is that some promises are then cancelled out by other promises. It depends on where you’re looking. Either the government is deliberately setting itself up to lie to one side or it is so desperate to prove that dying a ditch is not the preferred outcome – it will literally say anything.

Ian Dunt over at politics.co.uk examines the latest iteration of the Withdrawal Agreement and finds a two-dimensional course of delusional thinking:

“The deal the UK has struck with the EU strikes a bizarre kind of middle point between possible models. There will be two camps in the post-deal landscape: those who want a close relationship with the EU and those who want to cut themselves off completely and pursue a trade deal with the US. But the deal actually blocks off either of those options. Pursuing a genuinely close relationship is made legally impossible. The political declaration rules out membership of the single market or the customs union. This cannot be changed by parliament in the future. Section 13C of the legislation states that ministerial objectives for the future relationship “must be consistent with the political declaration”.

So, the government has conceded loads to the EU model on the one hand, which put into direct conflict the model the USA would put to Britain in a post-Brexit trade deal environment. Trade negotiations with the USA are all but done – except Britain can’t agree to it. This means that scrutiny of this Withdrawal Agreement by parliament is likely to cause a whole new pile of problems for Boris Johnson. Those Labour MP’s who voted it through this time – won’t be so keen when they see what that deal actually portrays as a vision for Britain’s future.

Dunt is more or less saying that Britain has effectively negotiated itself into a corner simply to prove the point that it could get a deal done.

The UK caved to the EU in each of these areas. The political declaration pledges that it and the EU “should treat one another as single entities as regards SPS measures” – these are the agricultural standards that would block US imports. It also signs up to “common principles in the fields of standardisation, technical regulations, conformity assessments, accreditation, market surveillance” – which indicates membership of European standards bodies – and geographical indications. So the government’s approach seems to close down both camp’s final goals. It would rule out a genuinely close relationship with the EU and rule out a free trade agreement with the US.”

This is what we said some time ago. Brexit is ultimately a trade deal arrangement. They take years to negotiate because both sides want what is best for themselves. Britain has had three and a half years and can’t even agree what it should look like, let alone start the process of negotiating it. For instance, the CETA trade deal between Canada and the EU took nearly eight years to seal and the American/EU deal failed because standards between the two could not be agreed.

This (Johnson’s version) Withdrawal Agreement also has a limit placed on it to do a trade deal with the EU by the end of 2020. That will not be remotely possible, especially with the wretched trench warfare tactics of the free-market jihadists in the ERG – who now egotistically call themselves the ‘Spartans’. They want an American deal at all costs – literally.

By attempting to please some for votes – the deal has closed off both side’s ideal objective. The big problem like all things Brexit is that there will be no consensus on which direction Britain eventually goes. So, only one thing is sure – it divides opinion further and provides yet more ammunition to keep the tribal warfare well and truly alive.

The end result will be much of what we have already seen. More fighting and backstabbing, more disruption, more economic haemorrhaging, more division and at the same time – angering both the EU and the Americans. Can it possibly get worse?

*

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

Featured image is from the author

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

October 24th, 2019 by Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz

The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of “fear mongering” over the advent of wireless technology’s 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.

Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.

Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.

The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.

Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in the near future.

Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”

The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.

Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).

Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.

As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?

Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.

*

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.

Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been translating and disseminating the research on wireless radiation health effects since 2009 after he and his colleagues published a review paper that found long-term cell phone users were at greater risk of brain tumors.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe
  • Tags: ,

Bernie Sanders tweeted an Associated Press article in the LA Times (10/14/19) about Ecuador’s recent protests, in which eight protesters were killed in 11 days. “Economic elites keep pushing austerity worldwide, making life unbearable for working people,” Sanders declared. Unfortunately, that AP piece was itself a good example of how elites push for austerity.

Under the headline “Ecuador Deal Cancels Austerity Plan, Ends Indigenous Protest,” the article claimed that former President Rafael Correa—in office from January 15, 2007, until May 24, 2017—left Ecuador “deeply in debt.” AP’s Michael Weissenstein and Gonzalo Solano said Ecuador’s current president, Lenin Moreno, had agreed to work with indigenous leaders to “reduce Ecuador’s unsustainable budget deficits and public debt.”

In fact, Ecuador’s government does not have a high debt load. The table below shows the Ecuadorian government’s gross debt-to-GDP ratio compared to various other countries that (like Ecuador) cannot issue their own currency. (Ecuador adopted the dollar as its currency in 2000, after its entire financial sector collapsed after decades of imposing the right-wing economic policies that the IMF “recommends” to developing countries; the other countries in the table below are part of the Eurozone.)

Ecuador Debt to GDP Ratio Compared

Source: IMF

Note that Ecuador’s debt to GDP ratio has continued to increase under Moreno, because he has implemented the policies that Ecuador’s elite always liked—and which are the exact opposite of what he promised on the campaign trail in 2017. That said, Ecuador’s public debt is not high now, and was even less so when Correa left office.

Another AP report that was published by the New York Times (10/15/19) stated that Ecuador has a $64 billion public debt and a “budget shortfall” of $10 billion.  The IMF, which is hardly inclined to underestimate these figures, says the government’s gross debt will be $53 billion in 2019 and its budget deficit $37 million. (AP appears to have included in its “shortfall” estimate all the principal and interest due on Ecuador’s foreign bonds this year—which is not how governments calculate their budget deficits. Governments almost always “roll over” their bonds—pay off principal by issuing new bonds.)

Oil prices collapsed in the last quarter of 2014 and stayed low for years. That hurt Ecuador badly because about half its export earnings had been coming from oil. Ecuador was also hit by a massive earthquake in April 2016, the most destructive in decades. A significant rise in the value of the US dollar since mid-2014 also hurt Ecuador’s competitiveness, because Ecuador (unlike countries that have their own currency) cannot devalue to help the prices of its exports stay competitive. Those external shocks did cause an increase in public debt in Correa’s last two and a half years in office.

Ecuador Debt to GDP Ratio Change

Source: IMF

But Correa did not impose austerity measures, nor did he run to the IMF (as Lenin Moreno has) for one of its infamous “structural adjustment” loans, where spending cuts, attacks on workers’ rights, central bank independence and privatization are all part of the “deal.”

By the time Correa left office, poverty was cut by about one-third, and extreme poverty by about one-half. The homicide rate was dramatically reduced. Vast and long overdue improvements had been made to Ecuador’s public infrastructure. Eight hydroelectric plants were built, and roads drastically improved throughout the country. That’s why Lenin Moreno was able to run his successful 2017 presidential campaign as a staunch Correa loyalist (FAIR.org, 2/4/18).

The AP deceptively stated that

Moreno served Correa as vice president before he became president, and the two men went through a bitter split as Moreno pushed to curb public debt amassed on Correa’s watch.

The AP here buries Moreno’s remarkable cynicism. The “bitter split” happened very shortly after the votes were counted in 2017. Within weeks of taking office, Moreno went completely over to the side of the rich and, what amounts to the same thing, the side of the private media barons who had always vilified Correa. Moreno quickly made changes to Ecuador’s public media to ensure that they followed suit. In a nationally televised interview in January 2018, both public and private media journalists reinforced Moreno’s attack lines against his former allies (Counterpunch, 1/21/18).

Armed with that media monoculture, Moreno attacked his former allies with wild allegationsthat the media spread uncritically. That was key to saddling his former allies with criminal charges and investigations. He has accused Correa of spying on him from Belgium (where Correa lives with his Belgian wife) through a hidden camera in Ecuador’s presidential palace, and alleged that Correa improved Ecuador’s roads in order to facilitate drug trafficking.

Moreno knows that no charge is too outlandish, provided it reinforces what the powerful and their media outlets want to hear. Moreno accused WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange of smearing feces on the walls of Ecuador’s embassy in London, where Assange had been granted asylum by the Correa government. One of Moreno’s ministers said she found it suspicious that journalists in Ecuador working for Russian state media covered the recent protests.

It’s important to note that oil prices (chart below) recovered significantly since Moreno took office on May 24, 2017. They have, on average, been about 25% higher under Moreno than they were in Correa’s last two years. Ecuador has not been hit by a major natural disaster since Moreno took office. So why has Moreno, who is supposedly deeply preoccupied with reducing the public debt, increased it instead?

Crude Oil Prices

Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve

He has done it by implementing policies the elite always wanted, for both ideological and self-serving reasons: giving tax cuts to the rich, giving away revenue to transnational oil and mining companies, making it illegal for the government to finance itself internally (therefore forcing it to turn to the private sector) and refusing to impose import tariffs. Incidentally, import tariffs were crucial to Ecuador avoiding austerity or a deep recession during Correa’s last two years in office.

The AP article said that:

Foreign Minister José Valencia told the Associated Press on Sunday that the Moreno administration believed Correa, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and Colombia’s far-left FARC and ELN guerrillas are working to destabilize Ecuador. He offered no proof beyond the fact that a handful of Correa loyalists and some Venezuelan nationals had been detained during the protests.

Surely the fact that a government has arrested some of its political opponents should not be taken as any kind of “proof” of foreign subversion. Among the political arrestees referred to offhandedly by AP as “a handful of Correa loyalists” is Paola Pabón, the governor of of Pichincha, the second-most populous province in Ecuador. Yofre Poma, a member of the National Assembly, was also arrested, as was the former mayor of the canton of Duran, Alexandra Arce, along with Magdalena Robles, an online journalist who supports Correa.

Another sitting National Assembly member, Gabriela Rivandeneira, and former assembly member Virgilio Hernandez took refuge in the Mexican embassy after police broke into their houses.

Unlike President Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, Moreno is not confronting a US-backed opposition that briefly seized power in one military coup and then attempted five others (FAIR.org, 5/20/19). The Western media would be overflowing with outrage over Moreno’s abuses, long before these protests, if he had not tightly embraced Washington’s agenda.

Seven right-wing governments in Latin America immediately backed Moreno’s claim that Venezuela was behind the protests in Ecuador. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on October 11 that the US

supports President Moreno and the government of Ecuador’s efforts to institutionalize democratic practices and implement needed economic reforms.  We are aware and monitoring claims of external actor involvement in these demonstrations.

By “external actor involvement,” Pompeo didn’t mean the IMF, effectively an extension of the US Treasury Department in developing countries. Moreno is jailing elected political rivals and has authorized lethal tactics precisely to impose his deal with that external actor.

*

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 Voice of America

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ecuador’s Austerity Measures, Repression Based on Media Lies
  • Tags: , ,

The White Helmets are a terrorist affiliate of ISIS and al-Nusra front and not paramedics. A British secret service agent created these pseudo paramedics terrorists with the financial support of Western countries. Great Britain, France, Germany, and the U. S financed this terror organization. They received even an OSCAR award from the terror-supporting Hollywood factory,[1] contracted by Israel and the Pentagon.[2] Except for the Western fawning and corrupt media, the White Helmets are considered a terrorist affiliate and extremely dangerous.[3] They are not paramedics but a ragtag gang of Western financed terrorists.[4]

The White Helmets only come to the “rescue” in ISIS-controlled and run territories. When there were so-called poison-gas attacks, the first on the scene were White Helmets. Just a coincidence? Were they even part of these staged poison-gas attacks by their brothers and sisters from ISIS? Studies have shown no involvement of the Syrian Armey but rather by ISIS and al-Nusra. Up till now, the White Helmets are only present in ISIS-controlled territory. There is not only evidence for the involvement of the White Helmets in staged false chemical and other attacks but also in harvesting organs of pretended rescued, as the Russian-based Foundation of the Study of Democracy presented.

The Trump administration pretense of fighting terrorism; actually, they support this terror group with 4.5 million US-Dollars. It comes to no one’s surprise. Haven’t the U.S created the Syrian terror scene in the first place? Why does Donald Trump follow Obama’s fatal footprints in Syria, instead of eradicating his disastrous legacy in this country? Instead of having shred the Iranian Nuclear Deal, Obama’s main achievement, Trump instead gave in to Israel’s extremist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s pressure and let the deal heading south.

Germany granted these White Helmets terrorist refugee-status in Germany due to the pressure of Israel. In the year 2000, the German government also succumbed to Israel’s influence when the Zionist occupation forces pulled out of Lebanon in a hush-hush operation. Germany had to accept their collaborators from the South Lebanese  Army. The then German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer was an obedient subordinate to Israel and especially to Madeleine Albright, the then U. S. Secretary of State, who showed him future prospects after leaving the office.

The Trump administration went out of its way, saying that the so-called “Syrian Civil Defense” (SCD= better-known as “White Helmets”) did “important and highly valued” work. If the Trump White House would have had a sound crap of contemporary developments, they could have never come up with the statement that these terrorists have “secured more than 115.000 people”. They have been involved in staging terror incidents and then appeared as so-called rescuers.

That the U. S. sticks to its own “baby” shouldn’t surprise anyone. The White Helmets are only a little department of a more extensive terror network that the Western imperial powers created to topple a legitimate ruler of Syria, President Bashar al-Assad. That Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Iranian government and the Lebanese Liberation Organization Hezbollah tipped to this political scam should perhaps only surprise the Americans and their European minions.

Putin and the Turkish President Erdogan, together with President al-Assad, will protect the border to Turkey to prevent the Kurdish militia from committing attacks inside Turkey. Whether this will be a successful undertaking also depends on Israel, which has been supporting the Kurdish struggle for an own state, but out of base motives, which do not serve the real independence of the Kurdish people.

*

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

Dr. Ludwig Watzal is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1]https://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/syria-crisis/1531-white-helmets-oscar.html

[2]https://www.globalresearch.ca/israels-terrorists-white-helmets-receive-award/5676631

[3]https://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-white-helmets-more-dangerous-terrorist-retired-schoolteacher-mesyaf/5676813

[4]https://21stcenturywire.com/2018/10/17/syria-exclusive-vanessa-beeley-meets-the-white-helmets-and-armed-group-leader-in-daraa-al-balad/

Vladimir Putin, Syria’s Pacifier-in-Chief

October 24th, 2019 by Pepe Escobar

The negotiations in Sochi were long – over six hours – tense and tough. Two leaders in a room with their interpreters and several senior Turkish ministers close by if advice was needed. The stakes were immense: a road map to pacify northeast Syria, finally.

The press conference afterwards was somewhat awkward – riffing on generalities. But there’s no question that in the end Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan managed the near impossible.

The Russia-Turkey deal establishes a safe zone along the Syrian-Turkish border – something Erdogan had been gunning for since 2014. There will be joint Russia-Turkey military patrols. The Kurdish YPG (People’s Protection Units), part of the rebranded, US-aligned Syrian Democratic Forces, will need to retreat and even disband, especially in the stretch between Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ayn, and they will have to abandon their much-cherished urban areas such as Kobane and Manbij.  The Syrian Arab Army will be back in the whole northeast. And Syrian territorial integrity – a Putin imperative – will be preserved.

This is a Syria-Russia-Turkey win-win-win – and, inevitably, the end of a separatist-controlled Syrian Kurdistan. Significantly, Erdogan’s spokesman Fahrettin Altun stressed Syria’s “territorial integrity” and “political unity.” That kind of rhetoric from Ankara was unheard of until quite recently.

Putin immediately called Syrian President Bashar al Assad to detail the key points of the memorandum of understanding. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov once again stressed Putin’s main goal – Syrian territorial integrity – and the very hard work ahead to form a Syrian Constitutional Committee for the legal path towards a still-elusive political settlement.

Russian military police and Syrian border guards are already arriving to monitor the imperative YPG withdrawal – all the way to a depth of 30 kilometers from the Turkish border. The joint military patrols are tentatively scheduled to start next Tuesday.

On the same day this was happening in Sochi, Assad was visiting the frontline in Idlib – a de facto war zone that the Syrian army, allied with Russian air power, will eventually clear of jihadi militias, many supported by Turkey until literally yesterday. That graphically illustrates how Damascus, slowly but surely, is recovering sovereign territory after eight and a half years of war.

Who gets the oil?

For all the cliffhangers in Sochi, there was not a peep about an absolutely key element: who’s in control of Syria’s oilfields, especially after President Trump’s now-notorious tweet stating, “the US has secured the oil.” No one knows which oil. If he meant Syrian oil, that would be against international law. Not to mention Washington has no mandate – from the UN or anyone else – to occupy Syrian territory.

The Arab street is inundated with videos of the not exactly glorious exit by US troops, leaving Syria pelted by rocks and rotten tomatoes all the way to Iraqi Kurdistan, where they were greeted by a stark reminder. “All US forces that withdrew from Syria received approval to enter the Kurdistan region [only] so that they may be transported outside Iraq. There is no permission granted for these forces to stay inside Iraq,” the Iraqi military headquarters in Baghdad said.

The Pentagon said a “residual force” may remain in the Middle Euphrates river valley, side by side with Syrian Democratic Forces militias, near a few oilfields, to make sure the oil does not fall “into the hands of ISIS/Daesh or others.” “Others” actually means the legitimate owner, Damascus. There’s no way the Syrian army will accept that, as it’s now fully engaged in a national drive to recover the country’s sources of food, agriculture and energy. Syria’s northern provinces have a wealth of water, hydropower dams, oil, gas and food.

As it stands, the US retreat is partial at best, also considering that a small garrison remains behind at al-Tanf, on the border with Jordan. Strategically, that does not make sense, because the al-Qaem border between Iran and Iraq is now open and thriving.

Map: Energy Consulting Group

The map above shows the position of US bases in early October, but that’s changing fast. The Syrian Army is already working to recover oilfields around Raqqa, but the strategic US base of Ash Shaddadi still seems to be in place. Until quite recently US troops were in control of Syria’s largest oilfield, al-Omar, in the northeast.

There have been accusations by Russian sources that mercenaries recruited by private US military companies trained jihadi militias such as the Maghawir al-Thawra (“Army of Free Tribes”) to sabotage Syrian oil and gas infrastructure and/or sell Syrian oil and gas to bribe tribal leaders and finance jihadi operations. The Pentagon denies it.

Gas pipeline

As I have argued for years, Syria to a large extent has been a key ‘Pipelineistan’ war – not only in terms of pipelines inside Syria, and the US preventing Damascus from commercializing its own natural resources, but most of all around the fate of the Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline which was agreed in a memorandum of understanding signed in 2012.

This pipeline has, over the years, always been a red line, not only for Washington but also for Doha, Riyadh and Ankara.

The situation should dramatically change when the $200 billion-worth of reconstruction in Syria finally takes off after a comprehensive peace deal is in place. It will be fascinating to watch the European Union – after NATO plotted for an “Assad must go” regime change operation for years – wooing Tehran, Baghdad and Damascus with financial offers for their gas.

NATO explicitly supported the Turkish offensive “Operation Peace Spring.” And we haven’t even seen the ultimate geoeconomic irony yet: NATO member, Turkey, purged of its neo-Ottoman dreams, merrily embracing the Gazprom-supported Iran-Iraq-Syria ‘Pipelineistan’ road map.

*

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 Asia Times.

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Oct. 20 – The author visited Syria in 2014 and 2015 in small International Action Center solidarity delegations. At that time, no road in the country was safe and one-third of the population was displaced — taking refuge inside Syria or in surrounding countries. The schools, mosques, churches and community centers in Damascus were packed with tens of thousands of desperate refugees. Everywhere, including downtown Damascus, was being shelled.

Today Syria is rebuilding after eight years of war. More than 1,550 schools have been rebuilt, and in the past month 10,000 teaching jobs were added. But U.S. war planners are still active.

When forces in U.S. ruling circles contend with and denounce each other to justify foreign intervention — as is currently happening in reaction to the announced U.S. pullback from the Kurdish area of Syria — this generates speculation, analysis and confusion in the population, including among anti-war activists. It demands a clear political response.

This confusion takes place because U.S. apologists invent pretexts for the government’s military interventions. They falsely claim it sends troops to defend democracy or to protect the human rights for some group. Rather, U.S. troops are sent to intervene only to protect and expand the strategic or economic interests of U.S. imperialism.

U.S. forces in Syria have brought nothing but misery to that country’s people, including its Kurdish population. The Pentagon was there neither to promote democracy in Syria nor to defend Kurdish self-determination.

Washington has tried to maintain its dominance in the Middle East by inflaming sectarian, national, ethnic and religious differences. In the long war against Syria, where all the people of Syria have suffered, the many statements for or against the Kurds in Syria take the focus off the real culprit — U.S. imperialism.

U.S. out!

Therefore the best response, the only legitimate response, from anti-war forces in the U.S. is to re-raise the most basic demands: U.S. out of Syria! Respect Syrian sovereignty!

This response is the only viable solution to the more than eight years of U.S.-instigated war that have ripped Syria apart, displaced one-third of the population, created millions of refugees and homeless people, and laid waste to large parts of this once relatively prosperous, developing country.

Turkey has been a member of the U.S.-commanded NATO military alliance since 1952 and is the site of many NATO and U.S. military bases, including the major air base at Incirlik. The Turkish regime has played a criminal role in the efforts to dismember Syria.

Vice President Mike Pence’s latest proposal on Oct. 17 to Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is the latest scheme to keep Syria divided. In essence, two members of the NATO military alliance agreed to partition Syria under Turkish occupation.

Their meeting in Turkey was little different from the eight years of U.N.-brokered “peace negotiations” in Paris, Geneva, Vienna or New York.

These meetings of imperialist forces and their collaborators simply repeated that a ceasefire by the armed militias attacking the Damascus government would be possible only if the elected Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, resigned. Then these pirates would decide what regime would lead Syria and what forces and militias would control various regions.

U.S. instigated war on Syria

In 2011, after seven months of U.S./NATO bombing of Libya, U.S. policy makers in the Obama administration, including Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had convinced the Turkish regime and others in the Middle East and in the European Union that they could quickly dismember Syria. The Turkish rulers opened their borders to the invading anti-Damascus forces and served as a major conduit of arms to them.

Eventually 100,000 mercenaries in competing gangs operated inside Syria against the Damascus government. They were backed by different US/NATO/Saudi/Israeli/UAE money and advisers. At the time, the corporate media were predicting that the Syrian government would collapse within six weeks.

But after eight years of massively destructive war, this complex, U.S.-orchestrated effort to dismember Syria has failed.

U.S. advisers and contractors were embedded in numerous mercenary bands, which often fought each other. One by one all were pushed back by Syria’s determined resistance and by assistance, first from Hezbollah militias in Lebanon, then from Iranian advisers, then in 2015, by decisive Russian intervention with air cover.

This assistance was both solidarity and self-interest. Each of these very different political entities identified with Syria’s plight and knew a U.S. “success” in dismembering Syria would make them a target.

Syria’s Kurdish population

Before 2011, the Kurdish population in northern Syria had a form of autonomy, with schools and services in their own language. In 2011, when the U.S.-backed destabilization effort started, Kurdish nationalists set up their own armed People’s Protection Units – YPG.

In 2014, thousands of heavily armed ISIS terrorists swept into Syria, including northern Syria, with unprecedented brutality. The U.S. war strategists used ISIS terror as a convenient and cynical pretext to escalate military operations in Syria and to re-occupy Iraq. The Pentagon began openly bombing the whole region, destroying much of the developed infrastructure in Syria. At this time the Syrian government was fighting for its very survival in Aleppo and Damascus and was in no position to do more.

Washington offered the Kurds a military alliance and U.S. protection from both U.S. bombing and ISIS forces. The armed Kurdish YPG units entered into an alliance, maybe of convenience, maybe of survival, with U.S. imperialism.

Through the war years, the Syrian government, although it had no control over the Kurdish region of northeastern Syria, continued to pay salaries to health workers, teachers and all government officials throughout the country. This was a lifeline for the civilians in the whole region, even where they were under ISIS control.

The Kurdish forces in Syria, while in an alliance with the U.S., nevertheless made it a point to avoid attacking Syrian government forces. Their focus was on defeating ISIS forces.

Now, faced with an abrupt U.S. pullback and a Turkish onslaught, the Kurds have announced that they will seek a negotiated solution with the Syrian government. This seems to be already happening. It is a realistic choice.

Throughout these years of war, many social democrats, academics and anarchists in the imperialist countries have glorified and idealized the Kurdish capital of Rojava as a place of social revolution. Some have described Rojava as the most communist, communal, feminist society in the world. Unfortunately, these forces have counterposed uncritical support for the Syrian Kurds and the Kurdish city of Rojava to support for Syrian sovereignty against imperialist intervention.

Syrian government on unity

During eight years of brutal combat, Syria’s government avoided publicly attacking the Kurds. Groups supporting Syrian sovereignty should take a similar attitude. Syrian officials have also avoided attacking Sunni forces as a religious group or any of the other groups which were swept up into this war by the imperialists’ false promises.

Syria’s position has always been that any Syrian force that lays down arms and stops fighting the Syrian government will be granted amnesty and be welcomed back into Syria. President Assad says in every public statement that Syrians have to consider how to put Syria back together after the war ends.

In sharp contrast, the Syrian government position has always been that all the uninvited foreign-funded forces — including the U.S., NATO, Turkey, ISIS, and tens of thousands of foreign mercenaries operating under many names and funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE — must leave Syria.

Syria’s population of 22 million (5 million live abroad now as refugees) includes Arab, Kurdish, Assyrian, Armenian, Turkoman and Circassian nationalities as well as Sunni, Alawi, Shia, Druze, Yazidi, and Christian religious sects. There are also 1.5 million Palestinian and Iraqi refugees.

Syrian government spokespeople, diplomats and the mainstream Syrian media always assert that Syria is a secular and multi-ethnic, multinational, multireligious country and that the identity and culture of every group must be respected.

The Syrian government has again and again expressed its determination to resolve the problems among the whole mosaic of nationalities and religious groups within Syria, free of foreign interference.

U.S. plans in disarray

Today in Syria, U.S. plans are in complete disarray. Each of its many mercenary armies is defeated. Faced with a new reality on the ground, Turkey is now open to making other deals, possibly with Russia and Iran, which could destabilize NATO. This is why Pence rushed to visit Erdogan.

The Turkish ruling class fears having armed units of Kurds in Syria, because the Turkish army is waging a war against the far larger oppressed Kurdish population in Turkey.

The Kurds are an oppressed nation in Western Asia. Some 20 million people who identify as Kurds – the overwhelming majority of the Kurdish population in the Middle East – live in Turkey, where they are 25 percent of the population. They are denied the use of their own language in schools and services.

The Workers Party of Kurdistan (PKK) is waging a guerrilla struggle against Turkish domination.

There are 1.5 to 2 million Kurds in Syria, where they make up 30 percent of the population in their northeastern region. Even this region is truly a mosaic of different peoples, not only Kurds. There are also 5 to 8 million Kurds living in Iraq and in Iran.

U.S. imperialism has often maneuvered to use for its own interests the movement of Kurds for independence against the governments in the region. And it has just as often abandoned the Kurdish movement.

U.S. wars, invasion, bombing campaigns and sanctions in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen; U.S. sanctions and threats on Iran; U.S. military bases and arms sales to the Gulf monarchies or to Egyptian dictators; and its decades of support for the Zionist occupation of Palestine have destabilized and impoverished Western Asia and North Africa.

U.S. imperialism is an enemy of all human progress.

All those interested in peace, human solidarity and national sovereignty need to refocus the discussion on Syria and more strongly demand: U.S. out!

*

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 Workers World.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bangladesh’s Neo-Colonial Bondage to India Is at Risk of Breaking

US Agitators in Asia “United” over Hong Kong Chaos

October 24th, 2019 by Joseph Thomas

Despite the chaos created across Hong Kong, the vast majority of the region’s inhabitants do not support the growing violence nor do they benefit from it in any way.

As is typical in other regions of the world the US is meddling, a lack of local support is often remedied by attempting to create links and synergies between various US meddling in different nations.

During the 2011 Arab Spring the US literally imported terrorists and weapons it used in the overthrow of the Libyan government to Syria in an attempt to oust the government there.

In Ukraine, the US and its Ukrainian allies recruited right-wing extremists from around the globe to fill the ranks of “volunteer” Neo-Nazi militias.

Now in Hong Kong, similar synergies and ties are surfacing.

US-Backed Thai Opposition Conspiring with Hong Kong Agitators 

A recent Reuters article titled, “China denounces Thai politicians for show of support to Hong Kong activists,” would report:

The Chinese embassy in Bangkok has condemned Thai politicians for showing support for Hong Kong activists involved in anti-government protests, saying it could harm the relationship between the two countries.

These “Thai politicians” belong to the US-backed opposition led by union-busting nepotist billionaire Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit and his patron, fugitive billionaire and ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra along with their collective political machine.

Reuters would report:

The [Chinese] embassy criticism, in a statement on its official Facebook page late on Thursday, came days after Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong posted a picture on social media with prominent Thai opposition politician Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.

Thanathorn and Wong met at the London-based Economist sponsored “Open Future Festival” held in Hong Kong, Reuters reported. The Open Future Festival and particularly the event held in Hong Kong focuses primarily on contesting China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong.

Reuters also noted that:

Thanathorn said he was not involved with the Hong Kong protests. He also said he respected Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, known as the Basic Law, and supported freedom of expression. 

“I have always supported people’s rights to peaceful self-expression. I wish to see the situation in Hong Kong resolve,” Thanathorn said in a Facebook post.

Thanathorn’s support for the Hong Kong opposition and their demands that the British-instituted “Basic Law” be upheld should come as no surprise.

Thanathorn himself along with is political party “Future Forward” have few well defined policies but those that are involve cancelling joint Thai-Chinese infrastructure projects including high-speed rail projects already under construction, as well as the cancellation of Thai-Chinese military arms deals and cooperation.

Thanathorn’s pro-Western stance is further reflected by the fact that his party hosts several “founding members” drawn from US government-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organisations including “Prachatai” which poses as an “independent media platform” despite being funded and directed out of Washington and being headed by a literal “fellow” of the Washington-based US National Endowment for Democracy, Chiranuch Premchaiporn.

Thanathorn’s pro-Western stance has been rewarded repeatedly through extensive and positive coverage across the Western media as well as political support offered directly by Western embassies in Bangkok. Thanathorn is often accompanied by Western diplomats when summoned by police for his various criminal charges.

Wong’s ties to the US-backed opposition in Thailand didn’t begin with meeting Thanathorn. As early as 2016 Wong attempted to travel to Bangkok to attend activities led by Netiwit Chotipatpaisal who is for all intents and purposes simply a “Thai version” of Wong.

Netiwit has admittedly visited Western embassies and works in tandem with US-funded fronts like “Thai Lawyers for Human Rights” and Thanathorn’s Future Forward Party in their collective efforts to destabilise Thailand politically, undermine the military and constitutional monarchy and roll back Thai-Chinese relations.

Netiwit has repeatedly protested in front of the Chinese Embassy in Bangkok on the anniversary of the Tiananmen unrest.

An article by above mentioned US government-funded media front Prachatai titled, “Student group gathers in front of Chinese Embassy in memory of Tiananmen massacre,” claims:

The student group, calling themselves “Humanity Without Borders”, was led by Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal and Sirin Mungcharoen, both students at Chulalongkorn University. The group placed white flowers in front of a printout of a tank, and observed a moment’s silence in memory of the dead.

While Netiwit is fond of protesting in front of the Chinese Embassy over events that transpired before he was even born, he regularly visits the embassies of the US and UK for dinner parties even as both nations currently and illegally occupy, bomb, drone and otherwise destroy multiple nations around the globe at the expense of tens of thousands of human lives.

Thanathorn, Wong and Netiwit represent the same corrosive form of synergistic foreign-sponsored opposition that has eaten its way through North Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. While they claim they are bound by their dedication to democracy and human rights, the true thread running through all of their movements and agendas is US political support and their troubling hypocrisy for accepting this support.

Thai Government Opposes Thai Opposition’s Meddling in Hong Kong 

Reuters notes that the current Thai government condemned the Thai opposition’s meddling in China’s affairs and considers the Hong Kong unrest an internal affair for Beijing alone to resolve.

In an attempt to undermine the credibility of the Thai government’s statement on Hong Kong, Reuters refers to the 2014 military coup in which the Thai military ousted what Reuters describes as an “elected government.” This is meant to paint the Thai government as a “dictatorship” and depict its recognition of and respect for China’s sovereignty as instead solidarity between it and the “authoritative regime” in Beijing.

Yet in reality the government removed from power in 2014 by the Thai military was openly run by Thaksin Shinawatra who resided abroad as a fugitive and ruled via his nepotist-appointed sister Yingluck Shinawatra. Before the Thai military intervened, the Shinawatras had robbed nearly a million rice farmers and were killing protesters in the streets, all facts repeatedly and intentionally omitted by media organisations like Reuters.

The Reuters article also tries to sidestep US involvement in Hong Kong’s unrest, depicting it instead as merely claims made by Beijing. Yet extensive documented facts and even admissions from US officials confirms the US has spent millions of dollars building up Hong Kong’s opposition and fuelling unrest there.

All About Isolating China 

It takes little effort to find the common denominator between the Thai and Hong Kong opposition and why they feel such affinity for one another. They are united by their US sponsorships and their collective agenda of undermining China’s rise upon the regional and global stage, an agenda originating in Washington itself.

Thanathorn of Thailand’s “Future Forward Party” has specific policies focused on rolling back deepening Thai-Chinese relations while Thai “student activists” like Netiwit openly and regularly protest against China in between dinner dates at the US and UK embassy.

Wong’s efforts to destabilise Hong Kong is a much more obvious and direct effort to target Beijing, its sovereignty over its own territory and its image globally.

Together this army of regional agitators openly cooperates in advancing what is essentially an extraterritorial agenda originating thousands of miles away in Washington. While these opposition figures claim they are dedicated to “democracy,” they seem to forget that democracy is a process of self-determination, not a process of having one’s agenda determined for you in a foreign capital.

While these opposition figures claim to be dedicated to “human rights,” bemoaning claimed offenses carried out by the Chinese government, they click wine glasses at embassy events together with representatives of the worst human rights offenders of the 21st century. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and current US-British support for Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen come immediately to mind.

China may be the target today but Thailand’s government must ensure that the contagion of US-fuelled unrest doesn’t backwash into Thailand itself. Figures like Thanathorn have repeatedly alluded to aspirations of creating chaos similar to that consuming Hong Kong within Thailand. His political allies led by Thaksin Shinawatra have already twice attempted to burn down Bangkok (2009 and 2010) and have killed over 100 people in politically-motivated violence and acts of terrorism from 2006 onward.

Whether we believe or not Thanathorn, Wong and Netiwit truly stand for the principles they claim to represent, one thing is absolutely certain; their counterparts in North Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe who have led Western-backed “pro-democracy struggles” have left a trail of destruction, failed states, war, economic collapse and persistent instability negatively impacting the lives of millions. There is no “success story” for Thanathorn, Wong or Netiwit to cite when advocating others to join their cause across Asia.

China regaining control over Hong Kong will be key to ensuring wider regional stability. Chinese allies like Thailand reining in domestic agitators trying to fuel or support Hong Kong’s unrest will be key to not only restoring stability inside China, but key to preventing the same unrest plaguing Hong Kong from spreading outward to nations like Thailand.

*

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

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

Featured image is from NEO

El Salvador: War and Revolution

October 24th, 2019 by Hugo Turner

One of the more horrifying chapters in the history of American imperialism took place in the tiny nation of El Salvador in the 1980’s. At least 75,000 civilians were killed in order to stop a revolution in an impoverished country. They died in massacres, were bombed with napalm, tortured, raped, assassinated and disappeared. They died to preserve a system where one in four babies died before age two from malnutrition or lack of access to medical care. In the 1983 only 6% of the population earned more than $240 a month while satisfying basic needs would have cost $344 dollars a month. A nation of peasants who lived in dire poverty even those with tiny plots of land struggled to survive by growing crops for food. 40% of the population were landless peasants starving while trying to survive as seasonal laborers. Amid so much horror and bloodshed no one even counted all the deaths from poverty and misery. This is the “Freedom” America fought to maintain during the cold war the freedom for a few to get rich off the misery of millions. In El Salvador they were called Oligarchy or  the 14 families although by the 1980’s there were between 40 or 200 rich families. They owned most of the land and ran the banks because their ancestors had stolen all the Indians lands and then founded banks in the 18th and 19th Centuries. They had created an army and police to enforce this unequal order.

The oligarchy, the army, and the Church had traditionally controlled El Salvador, but by the late 1970’s the Oligarchy and the Army had declared war on the Church and the United States was now the third part of the triad. The seeds of the horrors of the 1980’s had been planted in the early 1960’s when special forces some rotating from Vietnam arrived to teach counter-insurgency and the advantages of death squads. CIA agents under USAID cover arrived to train police intelligence units and equip them with computers to make lists of subversives.  By the 1970’s 200 people a year would be murdered union leaders, peasant organizers, teachers, protestors. Yet the masses were increasingly organized and radicalized and as fears of revolution spread the murders began to skyrocket.

The Carter Administration had a contradictory policy on El Salvador. Some in the State department wanted El Salvador to rein in the killing. However they were over ruled (or betrayed their own principles) by ruthless officials like Zbigniew Brzezinski who favored continuing to support brutal dictators to preserve capitalism. With the election of President Reagan contradiction was replaced with ever escalating full-scale support and an escalating bloodbath. Amazingly despite the flood of weapons and advisers coming from the US the revolutionaries of the FMLN managed to fight the massive killing machine to a stalemate. One day after the fall of the Berlin Wall the FMLN Guerrillas launched a massive offensive which the CIA believed was impossible capturing sections of the capital San Salvador. The new President Bush with other conquests in mind (The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Central and Eastern Europe, Panama and Iraq) finally decided to push for a negotiated settlement. The war would end with the left-wing opposition finally able to participate in politics without fear of their lives. Of course the war did not truly end but changed shape into a war on drugs a gang war as the fascist ARENA party ruled the country for 20 years. In 2009 the FMLN would win the elections. Eventually destabilized by tactics similar to what happened in Brazil (a corruption investigation aimed at discrediting the left) they lost elections earlier this year and El Salvador is now once more ruled by a US puppet President Nayib Bukele (image below). The war for Latin America continues a war of liberation from capitalism and imperialism.

Nayib Bukele - 2019 (48342383356) (cropped).jpg

The war in El Salvador had its roots in the 18th and 19th century. Of course before that there were the horrors of the Spanish conquest and the system of forced labor in the colonial era. El Salvador was part of the governate of Guatemala in this period. However in the later phase of Spanish  colonialism the Indians were allowed to live on their communal lands and were ruled through local native rulers as long as they produced their quota of tribute. After independence El Salvador’s liberals decided to change all that they wanted to create huge plantations of cash crops namely coffee and this also required a huge influx of laborers. By destroying the communal land system and privatizing the country they would be able to steal the land they needed. By dispossessing the Indians they would also force them to work for the coffee plantations since they could no longer grow their own food. In 1846 the state coffee plantations were privatized and in 1881 communal lands were abolished. They also passed laws that basically forced Indians to work for the rich landowners.

They created an army and a rural police force to control the countryside with an iron fist. French advisers helped them create a modern army. The whole state was created to enslave and dispossess the majority of it’s own people. Of course in the United States the Army had formed to carry out genocide and steal Indian land while the police had their origins in slave patrols to hunt runaway slaves. Out of the theft and enslavement of El Salvador were born the 14 families who became fantastically wealthy from the plunder. Naturally they viewed their countrymen and women as subhuman brutes who needed to be kept in line. The Indians revolted again and again with 5 major revolts during the 19th century but they were always spontaneous and localized and so easily crushed. The army and police kept the countryside under a constant state of martial law anyone who dared to resist risked murder or imprisonment and the rich landowners treated their employees like slaves.

Jumping forward to El Salvador in the 1930’s another pivotal moment in it’s history.  The last truly free election (possibly until 2009) was in 1931 and President Arturo Araujo was elected he was a mild reformer who allowed labor organizing in the city but not the countryside. The year before in 1930 the revolutionary Agustin Farabundo Marti had returned from an eventful exile. In the United States he had been active in the Anti-Imperialist league before being forced to flee by the New York Police, in Nicaragua he had fought with the revolutionary General Sandino against the US marines waging brutal war on the country that saw the first use of dive bombers. Farabundo Marti had founded the Central American Socialist party and Red Aid. Between 1930-1932 Marti and his comrades would organize the workers and peasants of El Salvador  Marti would be arrested and released a few times. Even the American military attache Major Harris felt the country was ripe for revolution. However the revolutionary forces were still in their infancy.

Hernandez Martinez.jpg

Unfortunately in a pattern that would repeat many times even mild talk of reform proved too much for the oligarchy who began to plot a coup with the military. General Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez (image on the left) seized power early  in 1932. He was nicknamed El Brujo because of his obsession with the occult and was infamous for saying

“It is a greater crime to kill an ant than a man, for when a man dies he becomes reincarnated while an ant dies forever.”

He also claimed

“It is good that children go barefoot. That way they can better receive the beneficial effuvia of the planet, the vibrations of the earth. Plants and animals don’t use shoes”

Despite his strange beliefs he was a ruthless and devious dictator modeling his country on Fascist  Spain, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. In those days El Salvador had no need of American advisers or weapons it relied on the fascist powers to train it’s army and police and to supply weapons paid for with the profit from supplying coffee to the axis. Six weeks after General Martinez coup the peasants rose in an uprising demanding higher wages. Although 100 land owners and their private guards were killed it was relatively bloodless. Although the communists welcomed the uprising and joined it they were not truly responsible. Nonetheless the fascist General Martinez launched and anti-communist red scare and a bloodbath in the countryside.

Farabundo Marti was among the 32,000 victims of what is known as the Matanza which means massacre in Spanish. Some were killed for being blond and thus apparently suspected Russians. The vast majority of the people killed as part of a genocide against the Indians. Anyone wearing Indian dress or speaking an Indian language was killed and after 1932 Indian culture was largely wiped out people were so traumatized they abandoned their distinctive clothes and no longer dared to speak to children in their native language. Farabundo Marti would go on to inspire the revolutionaries of the 1970s and 80’s. General Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez would have a death squad named after him and his Matanza would be used as a model for the dirty war of the 70’s and 80’s.

At the same time he was crushing the peasants General Martinez also had to put down an uprising in the army. They had risen up in protest of his coup and since many were poor peasant conscripts they refused to massacre peasants. General Martinez was able to crush them but although a military man he never trusted the army. Instead he relied on what would later be known as the Security Forces the Police and the National Guard. Ironically the National Guard had been meant as a reform to replace the Army role in the countryside back in 1912. It was quickly transformed into a military/police hybrid charged with terrorizing the countryside more reliable than the army because better paid. He also relied heavily on the police to arrest and kill subversives. He created  fascist paramilitary groups recruited from the rich and modeled on the black shirts the Pro Patria the National Patriotic League and the Liga Roja. During the Matanza he  created Civic Guards which acted as death squads of the rich who hunted the poor for sport. Hunting peasants for sport remained a popular pass time in El Salvador well into the 1970’s.  Those who could afford the membership fees to join the leagues received certificates that put them above the law. Martinez would rule until 1944 when his crushing of a military uprising and execution of it’s leaders who were officers enraged the public and the military the US pressured him into resigning. His successor General Menendez a reformer who promised free elections, and allowed unions to expand, but also authorized the massacre of protestors.  He lasted only 5 months before being overthrown by Martinez’s former chief of the National Police during the Matanza Colonel Osmin Aguirre y Salinas. For the next decades the oligarchs and the military maintained power through fixed elections and the occasional coup. The presidency was handed off from one military man to his hand-picked successor. The people continued to live in poverty and fear.

It was after the fall of Martinez and the end of World War 2 that US influence began to grow in El Salvador and the rest of Latin America. The “Cold War” had begun or rather as the bloody examples of Greece, Korea, Vietnam, El Salvador and many other countries demonstrate calling it World War 3 is more accurate. Through a series of bilateral and multilateral agreements the United States gained increasing control over Latin American militaries. The mutual defense pacts the US signed in Latin America became the model for NATO. As for the new American trained militaries through a long chain of coups they would eventually transform most of Latin America into fascist police states. The most infamous example being the Operation Condor countries of the 1970’s and 1980’s countries like Brazil, Chile, Parguay, and Argentina. Militaries were reorganized to focus on combatting internal subversion rather than national defense. Police were trained to hunt political subversives instead of combatting traditional crime. As we have seen El Salvador was already run along these lines so all America needed to do was provide weapons and training. There was no need to launch coups to overthrow reformers as in Guatemala, no socialist government to be destroyed as in Chile.

In 1960 the example of the Cuban revolution inspired a mass movement to overthrow the latest military installed President Colonel Jose Maria Lemus. By October 26 1960 he was forced to resign replaced briefly by a reformist junta which released political prisoners. The US now obsessed with combatting anyone in Latin America that might be sympathetic to Cuba refused to recognize the new government and a countercoup soon toppled it. Colonel Julio Adalberto Rivera seized power and stole the 1961 elections. The failure of the Bay of Pigs and the escalating war in Vietnam lead the JFK administration to an obsession with counter-insurgency that would have dire consequences for El Salvador, Latin America, and the world. There is a complex backstory discussed in Fletcher Prouty’s “The Secret Team”. In attempting to transfer responsibility for covert operations from the CIA to the military JFK was naively relying on sectors of the military that retained close ties to the CIA like counter-insurgency theorist General Maxwell Taylor or the special forces. The tentacles of the CIA were already inescapable. Whatever the motivations the results were disastrous a massive expansion of Special Forces, restructuring the entire military and National security state to fight Counter-insurgency wars and the creation of AID (replacing the ICA) and it’s branch the Office of Public Safety headed by Byron Engle.  The Office of Public Safety (OPS) would train police worldwide in torture assassination and even terrorism. Decades of mass murder, torture, terrorism, assassinations and coups would follow. Of course such tactics had been a part of US strategy since the beginning of the cold war in places like Greece where fascist death squads terrorized the populace to South Korea and South Vietnam where the military, police and death squads carried out torture and mass murder. In fact they had their roots much earlier in the Philippines at the turn of the century and the military men who carried out that bloodbath had learned their trade by carrying out genocide against American Indians. Thus what took place in the early 60’s during the JFK administration was merely a further institutionalization of this long obsession with counter insurgency warfare.

In Latin America this brutal new reality would be disguised behind the facade of the Alliance for Progress. The Alliance for Progress falsely promised to bring prosperity to Latin America through reform and economic aid to spark development. In reality it was merely a PR stunt to compete with the appeal of Castro’s Cuba. The promised prosperity never arrived. Although the US did pour hundreds of millions in economic aid it did nothing to improve the lives of ordinary people. the money ended up in the hands of corrupt politicians or American corporations. In El Salvador which received the most money as it was intended as a poster child 15 years later the people were actually worse off the wages had declined and the number of landless peasants had tripled. The hidden more effective side of the Alliance for Progress was the determination to train the military and the police to crush any potential revolutions. After JFK was assassinated any pretense of  reform or development aid was abandoned along with the whole Alliance for Progress campaign. The military and police training however would continue.

In El Salvador in the early 1960’s the already brutal police and military were trained to be even more brutal and efficient. A team of special forces advisers many fresh from tours in Vietnam arrived to train the military in the need to create Counter-Guerrilla’s a euphemism for death squads and terrorists. At this time there were no Guerrillas in El Salvador and no civil war. After the fall of General Martinez the military had abolished his fascist paramilitaries. Now the Americans had arrived to advise El Salvador on the need to recreate them. In Colombia in 1962 Special Forces under General William Yarborough also arrived to teach the virtues of death squads and his advice ended up in the public record. He advised the creation of “Civil and Military structures” to “as Necessary execute paramilitary, sabotage and or terrorist activities against known Communist proponents.” General Yarborough unleashed a bloodbath in Colombia that has continued to our own day. In El Salvador things were more secretive but the results were the same the creation of death squads. The main reason for their creation was plausible denial allowing the government to blame death squads for their own crimes. In El Salvador the police and military didn’t even bother to remove their uniforms when kidnapping and killing their victims but their crimes were blamed on shadowy death squads anyways. Plausible denial would extend all the way to Washington and the American media by the 1980’s although the people of El Salvador were not fooled. While pretending it wanted to rein in the death squads America was actually running everything behind the scenes via the CIA, MAP (Military Assistance Program) MTTs ( Military Training Teams the Special Forces advisers)  MILGP (US Military Group), and USAID.

Initially in El Salvador the counter-organization created called ORDEN was used primarily to spy on subversives and compile lists and intimidate voters into voting for PCN the militaries party of choice. It’s members were strongly indoctrinated along fascist lines. It was in the 1970’s that it began to carry out torture kidnapping and assassinations that would escalate throughout the decade. ORDEN was created by the one of the key CIA assets in El Salvador General Jose Alberto “Chele” Medrano in addition to heading ORDEN he was also the head of the brutal  National Guard. In addition to Special Forces teaching Counterinsurgency and the need for Counter-Guerrillas, Counter-Terror, and Counter-Organization the other key element in US strategy was the need to create a massive centralized intelligence apparatus linking the police, military, and ORDEN to a centralized communications apparatus and a computer network to compile lists of subversive’s that would later be used to supply death lists to military police and paramilitary death squads. The CIA and it’s front AID and it’s branch the Office of Public Safety (OPS) were used to construct this network. Although brutal and efficient the police had been using telegraphs now they would have state of the art technology to wage their war on the people of El Salvador. Operating under OPS cover the CIA created a special investigations division in every branch of the police. They were all networked together with SNI later renamed ANSESAL a sort of hybrid of the CIA and NSA based in the presidential palace. Linked with military intelligence, the police intelligence and ORDEN ANSESAL was the center of the counter-insurgency war and the brainchild of the CIA.

El Salvador’s already brutal police which massacred even common criminals were taught to be even more brutal by OPS advisers. The National Police, The Treasury Police, and the Immigration Police would all become notorious for their war crimes. The CIA also created a special investigations unit of the National Guard. Traditionally the military had preferred to let the police and National Guard handle repression. Thanks to US special forces advisers they learned that they too must take an active role which would massively increase the bodycount during the Reagan era. By 1972 the entire security apparatus was complete centralized trained and indoctrinated to carry out the dirty war. El Salvador and other Central American countries were also networked together as part of CONDECA (the Central American version of Condor) with the Americans who were based in Panama. Panama was also where the infamous School of the Americas was based training the El Salvadoran military and the rest of Latin America to carry out torture, assassination and coups.  In turn Central America was only one of the regions covered by the US Military Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) run out of Panama and later Miami, Florida.

In El Salvador by 1972 largely ignored in the rest of the world peasants were being “disappeared” kidnapped tortured and killed their mutilated corpses left out as a warning to others. In addition to the perfection of the apparatus of oppression the 1960’s saw history repeat itself as El Salvador’s oligarchs decided to start growing cotton as a cash crop along the coast those peasants who had been lucky enough to avoid losing their land to the coffee barons in the last century now lost their lands to the new Cotton plantations and the number of landless peasants skyrocketed from 12% to 40% fueling the revolutionary unrest of the 1970’s. A key safety valve to unrest in El Salvador was nearby Honduras which was comparatively much less densely populated. El Salvadoran peasants crossed the border to squat on lands or seek work. In 1969 the Honduran President decided to whip up a wave of anti-immigrant hysteria against these Salvadoran refugees leading to the “Soccer War” after Salvadoran refugees were murdered in riots and thousands were rounded up and deported. El Salvador won the war it’s invasion force was close to capturing the Honduran capital but Honduras barred any more Salvadoran immigrants from entering the country.

1972 was a key year in El Salvador the opposition had united and finally grown strong enough to win an election. The Christian democrats the socialists and even the communist tied parties were united into UNO. However Colonel Molina  stole the election provoking a failed coup in favor of UNO that was crushed. UNO presidential candidate Napoleon Duarte was severely beaten. This provoked a wave of disillusionment with any hope for changing El Salvador by democratic means. By 1973 two revolutionary Guerrilla groups had been formed the FPL and the ERP and more were to follow. The FPL modeled it’s strategy on Vietnam’s Prolonged Peoples’ War (PPW). The ERP drew inspiration from the Cuban (and later Nicaraguan) model of hoping to spark an insurrection via a major offensive. Both groups carried out small attacks on the National Guard, bombed American corporations offices and assassinated war criminals.

In the countryside liberation theology was spreading. It’s origins were steeped in irony in 1968 Pope Paul VI one of the more corrupt and fascist popes spoke in Medellin Colombia later notorious as the home of an infamous CIA supported drug cartel. His message that catholics should work towards social justice unleashed a wave of liberation theology. Since his sinister history was largely unknown he inspired a new generation of idealistic clergy to try to improve the lives of the poor by organizing them as lay believers. In El Salvador Colonel Molina had announced that he would back land reform and the El Salvadoran church became involved in organizing the peasants. Molina angered the Oligarchs who set up ANEP and other right-wing lobby groups to oppose any land reform and so Molina quickly canceled any land reform. The church’s efforts to work for land reform had suddenly become extremely dangerous.

Carlos Humberto Romero.jpg

In 1976 President Molina was replaced by President Carlos Humberto Romero (image on the right) installed by the coffee barons. General Romero had studied Counterinsurgency at the School of The Americas worked in CONDECA and had been involved in expanding the role of ORDEN under Molina and was a key link between the MILGP and the public safety advisers. Under Romero there were ten times as many assassinations  and disappearances doubled. Under Molina around 200 political murders a year took place. Under Romero the numbers would double than triple. In 1977 General Romero issued the Law of Order which made it a crime to organize or criticize the government amounting to a license to kill. Yet the increasing repression only seemed to fuel the revolution during the 1970’s. Teachers, Unions, Students peasants took to the streets in protest risking their lives. In 1975 dozens of students were massacred when the army machine-gunned protestors of a Miss Universe pageant there were 2,000 protestors. The next day 30,000 took to the streets. In the countryside the peasants were organized and demanding their rights inspired by liberation theology and radical school teachers. As the repression increased many were forced to join the guerrillas out of self-preservation once their names were on the death list the only way to stay safe was to take up arms in self-defense. Others joined to avenge their fallen family members, friends or lovers. Many more joined the popular organizations to demand an end to the killing, higher wages, land, free elections, and the right to organize without being killed.

1979 had been the bloodiest year since the Matanza and the country seemed on the verge of revolution. In nearby Nicaragua Somoza had fallen to the Sandinista revolution in July alarming the US, the Salvadoran Military, and the Oligarchy. President Carter was in the White House and had promised to clean up America’s human rights record. His actual record in El Salvador would prove different. At the State department he put former civil rights activist Patricia Derian in charge of the new human rights division she was determined to force El Salvador to reform. She was always over ruled by the State Department Inter-American affairs division under Terrence A Todman which had long worked to turn all of Latin America into a mirror of El Salvador. However even the hint that it’s human  rights record might be examined caused General Romero to renounce military aid. It was a meaningless gesture as the American military mission remained to advise and supervise the ever escalating dirty war. Israel stepped in to take the US place as the main sponsor sending planes guns tanks and 100-200 advisers that would remain in the country throughout the 1980’s. Israeli military advisers operated under the cover of an agricultural assistance program.  However the fall of Somoza inspired the US to back a reformist coup to overthrow General Romero in the hopes of staving off a revolution.

It took place on October 15 1979 and would prove disastrous. It was led by the well-intentioned Colonel Majano and a clique of young officers who wanted land reform and to try war criminals. However to succeed they allied with right-wing military figures on the CIA payroll like Colonel Jose Guillermo Garcia and Col Jamie Abdul Guttierez. The third faction was the civilian opposition that weren’t yet allied with the Guerillas. Opposed to the new regime while secretly allied to the right-wing military were and also on CIA payroll was Major Roberto D’Aubusson who would go on to found ARENA a fascist party inspired by the Nazis, Taiwanese political warfare, Guatemala’s MLN and modeled on the GOP. He was one of ORDEN founder Medrano’s proteges and would use his World Anti-Communist league membership to forge close ties with the American new right. He had trained at School of the Americas, Office of Public Safety’s International Police Academy in Washington DC,  Taiwan’s Political Warfare Academy, he received additional training from the Israeli’s and was a close ally of the “Godfather of the Death Squads” Mario Sandoval Alarcon in Guatemala.

The reformist coup was doomed from the start Colonel Garcia was appointed minister of defense, and instead of halting the repression it began to skyrocket yet again. More people would die in the first month of the coup then in the rest of 1979 combined. The Carter Administration used the coup as an excuse to restore military aid first under the cover of non-lethal aid. It sent Ambassador Robert White to work with the new junta. The civilian opposition demanded an end to the mass murder and civilian control of the military. Minister of Defense Garcia informed them the military would remain in charge on December 26 and on January 3-5 most of the civilians resigned in protest. The former agriculture minister would be brutally murdered while others decided to join the guerrillas or their political wing FDR.

Archbishop Romero had praised the civilians for resigning in protest. For most of his career he had been a conservative who played it safe leading Rome to appoint him to head El Salvador’s church. However he had become increasing radicalized by the militaries repression of the church. His friend the priest Rutilio Grande and another priest were murdered 3 weeks after Romero became Archbishop as was the first priest he had ever ordained. A month after Grande was killed the military attacked the area he had operating in massacring 50 peasants. The only newspapers in the country were right-wing supporters of the government the others had been bombed, their journalists murdered or forced into exile. Romero was the only public voice allowed to criticize the government beloved by the poor of El Salvador and increasing respected worldwide. He had written to Washington begging them not to send military aid and urging them to negotiate peace. He created a legal aid office so that family members of the killed and disappeared could demand justice. The churches legal aid office soon became the key source documenting the ongoing massacre in El Salvador. The military launched it’s own PR campaign with the slogan “be a patriot kill a priest.” because of the churches role organizing peasants and documenting war crimes. On March 4 1980 Romero would be the 11th clergyman murdered by a sniper while giving a memorial mass he became an international martyr. A  When tens of thousands gathered to mourn his death the military opened fire on the crowd with machine guns another of the countless massacres that took place in the capital of San Salvador.  Both catholic and protestant churches in the US would become deeply involved in peace and solidarity work in El Salvador.

Two months after the assassination of Archbishop Romero Colonel Majano arrested D’Aubuisson on May 7 1980 who was busy plotting a coup. D’Aubuisson had been circulating video tapes to military bases branding the government communists and now sought to seize power. When he was arrested along with his co-conspirators documents were seized proving he was behind the assassination of Archbishop Romero. However the arrest ended the career not of D’Aubuisson but of Colonel Majano who lost all real authority although publicly he remained part of the junta until December to please Ambassador Robert White. D’Aubuisson was released in a matter of weeks as the military and Defense Minister Garcia sided with him against Majano. The CIA had been busy buying off all the younger officers and the military made sure they were purged or began to participate in the massacres. For example the next month on June 26 1980 soldiers stormed the National University and killed 50 people.

Jose Napoleon Duarte.png

As Majano’s power waned Christian Democrat Napoleon Duarte (image on the left) had been brought in to provide a facade of civilian participation he had joined the junta in March 1980 and was appointed president in December 14 1980. He would cover up military war crimes and obediently obey the demands of his american advisers. He would lose the Presidency in the 1982 elections when D’Aubuisson’s ARENA party won control of the constituent assembly and Alvaro Magana became president to avoid the PR disaster of a President D’Aubuisson a man former ambassador Robert White called a pathological killer but who was backed by Senator Jesse Helms and a network of new right lobby groups with links to fascists and the CIA like the American Security Council and the Committee on the Present Danger. D’Aubuisson had hired the powerful McCann-Erickson PR firm. The CIA would flood the country with money to insure Napoleon Duarte’s 1984 election victory. The US had Duarte institute disastrous neo-liberal reforms while the military began to escalate the killing in the cities again in 1987-88. The Christian democrats were discredited as corrupt and ineffectual clearing the way for and ARENA victory in 1989 and the election of president Alfredo Cristiani with help from President George H. W. Bush’s PR man Roger Ailes. The elections were largely a PR exercise for the American media in 1982 and 1984 voting was mandatory and failure to vote could get you killed all parties to the left of the Christian democrats were banned and their leaders on death lists. Freeedom of speech and assembly were nonexistent. In 1989 ARENA won by getting rid of mandatory voting relying instead on voter suppression with the poor or internally displaced unable to register , voter intimidation with clear ballot boxes allowing ARENA poll watchers who were often death squad cadres to terrify voters into voting for them. ARENA  also had a well-funded party machine to get out the vote.

On November 4, 1980 Reagan was elected President an event greeted with joy by the oligarchs and the military who celebrated by getting drunk and firing their weapons. Reagan had criticized Carter for being too soft in Central America. Even before the election the Reagan team had promised Guatemala and El Salvador that they would be free to pursue their dirty wars with full US support. Thus his election was a green light to the military in El Salvador to further escalate the dirty war which was already bloodier then ever that year. The first American killed in El Salvador had been back in 1976 a black american Ronald J. Richardson had been arrested and disappeared. The American ambassador at the time was Ignazio Lozano jr had demanded answers. Ironically Carter would replace him with Frank Devine which was seen as a green light to El Salvador’s military to act with impunity. Carter’s reputation for softness had more to do with the rage that ensued when he failed to re-appoint George H. W. Bush to head the CIA then his actual policies like provoking the war in Afghanistan. The new CIA director Stansfield Turner purged some of the more notorious CIA operatives and they launched a PR campaign to destroy Carter in revenge. Between 1946 and 1979 El Salvador had received only 16.7 million dollars in Military aid from the US. In his final year in office Carter would send 10 million in military aid 5 million just before Reagan was inaugurated thanks to Zbiegniew Brzezinski.  Carter had also approved a huge San Lorenzo Dam loan at a time when General Romero was escalating the repression. Ambassador White embodied these contradictions he supported reform and opposed D’Aubusson and ARENA who plotted to kill him. He also opposed the Guerrillas however and in the end signed off on the last-minute military aid despite the wave of high-profile murders that were to follow Reagan’s elections .In other Carter’s concern for human rights was mostly rhetorical in practice the machinery of empire functioned the same old way.

All the same the Salvadoran military decided to use the time between Reagan’s election and inauguration to conduct a shocking wave of killings in which even american’s were targeted. On November 26 1980 they tortured and killed Enrique Alvarez 4 other FDR leaders and a sixth victim eliminating the political wing of the opposition and making any negotiated settlement impossible. Their killings received little international attention. On December 4 1980 the bodies of four american  nuns and lay workers Maura Clarke, Jean Donovan, Ita Ford and Dorothy Kazel were found. Some had been raped and all had been executed after being stopped at a roadblock on the way back from the airport. They were killed for doing charity work in an area that was believed to be sympathetic to the Guerillas. One of them was a personal friend of Ambassador White and the next day aid to El Salvador was suspended. The Carter Administration waited weeks to make a statement and even tried to charge one family thousands of dollars to bring the body of a murdered nun back.

The Reagan administration would top him when Jeane Kirkpatrick who had met with El Salvadoran business leaders promising unlimited military aid days before the murders called the nuns FMLN activists to justify the killing.  Secretary of State Al Haig called them “pistol packing nuns” and claimed they were killed running a roadblock a blatant lie as they were shot execution style at point-blank range. On January 4 1980 more Americans would die this time employees of the CIA/USAID front the AIFLD. The American Institute of Free Labor Development had trained 300,000 union members to wage an anti-communist pro corporate attempt to take over latin american unions and was used to overthrow Goulart in Brazil and Allende in Chile. However even controlled opposition was too much for the El Salvadoran fascists and 2 AIFLD advisers Michael Hammer and Mark Pearlman were gunned down while dining with the head of El Salvador’s land reform Jose Rodolfo Viera who was also killed and was the main target. Hammer was probably CIA and not just working for a CIA front. Many Salvadorans were also killed for joining the AIFLD created union UTC.  In both the AIFLD and the nun murders it was quickly revealed that the murders were ordered by high-ranking Salvadoran military officials their names public knowledge yet throughout the 80’s they would be promoted instead of punished while the Reagan administration pretended that El Salvador was making progress on their cases. As for the murder of El Salvadorans no one was ever charged the military punished drunkenness or lateness mass murder was rewarded. To give one example 90 primary school teachers were killed between January and October 1980. On January 16, 1981 Carter sent 5 million in military assistance despite the dead Americans.  On January 20 1981 Reagan was Inaugurated, On February 1 1981 Ambassador Robert White was fired replaced by Ambassador Deane Hinton who would cultivate a father son relationship with D’Aubuisson. On March 2 1981 Reagan would ask for 25 million in military assistance. Eventually Reagan would pour 6 billion dollars into funding the slaughter in El Salvador and would increase the size of El Salvador’s military from 5,000 to 50,000. Reagan hoped a quick victory in El Salvador would dispel the “Vietnam Syndrome” instead it proved a costly stalemate. In spite of all these weapons and advisers the FMLN would fight on.

During the escalating violence El Salvador’s Guerrilla factions had been united first as the DRU and then as the FMLN thanks to the efforts of Fidel Castro who personally negotiated their merger. As Reagan’s inauguration neared they launched a massive “final offensive” that they hoped might spark a revolution. They failed in that goal but it helped give the Guerrillas valuable combat experience. In 1982 they would launch a daring attack on Ilpongo airbase (later infamous for it’s role as a drugs and weapons smuggling site during Iran/Contra) they managed to severely damage most of El Salvador’s air force. Unfortunately the US simply used this as an opportunity to double the size of the El Salvadoran air force. Despite the flood of weapons for the Salvadoran military the Guerrillas would steadily gain strength in the first half of the war from 1980-1984. Other major victories would be the assault and capture of the supposedly impregnable base at El Paraiso on December 30 1983 and the destruction of the Cuscatlan bridge on January 1 1984. The FMLN controlled between a third and a fifth of the country setting up their own local  government’s in the areas they controlled. Unfortunately these victories would force the military to rely increasingly on airpower to carpet bomb the countryside and the second stalemate phase of the war would last from 1984-1989 with helicopters machine gunning villages and American bombers bombing the countryside. In addition to Air Power US advisers created new forces called PRAL small mobile units that ambushed and terrorized the FMLN in Guerrilla held territory. Since most reporters stayed in the cities this bloodbath received a lot less international attention then the wave of death squad killings in the cities during the 1st half of the war. The FMLN countered this by rebuilding their network of supporters in the cities which had been decimated.

While the Guerrillas were gaining in strength in 1980-1984 the United States was busy with it’s own strategy which involved the creation of rapid response battalions the most infamous being the Atacatl Battallion. They were used to conduct vast search and destroy sweeps meant to clear whole areas believed to be sympathetic to the Guerrillas in 1981-82 they conducted a massive sweep of the Morazan department massacring village after village and forcing the survivors to flee as refugees. This would result in the El Mozote massacre when 1000 men women and children were murdered and journalist Raymond Bonner of the New York Times managed to expose it at the cost of his career. After a brief period as an assistant to Jeane Kirkpatrick at the UN Elliot Abrams had been put in charge of Human Rights at the State Department. Under Reagan all pretense of objectivity had been abandoned and Elliot Abrams job was to cover up the crimes of allies like El Salvador while loudly exaggerating the minor offenses of enemies like Nicaragua. He and the head of the Latin American Division Thomas Enders tried to cover up the El Mozote massacre. Ambassador Dean Hinton worked with Reed Irvine of Accuracy In Media (founded to attack journalists who dared to expose the crimes of the empire) to discredit Raymond Bonner. This in turn was part of a the massive Reagan era “Public Diplomacy” program where CIA veterans worked with PR firms to sell empire to the american public through “Perception Management” in the process destroying investigative journalism. Ironically the El Mozote massacre like the Mai Lai massacre was one of hundreds. Whole areas of the country were targeted by search and destroy sweeps and an American anthropologist would witness the aftermath of the Morazan “sweep” of which El Mozote was merely one episode when he spent weeks fleeing with hundreds of refugees who were repeatedly bombed and strafed week after week as they tried to flee.

The border with Honduras became a killing field as refugees were targeted by both the Honduran and El Salvadoran military. Honduras had become a base for both the dirty wars on El Salvador and Nicaragua. Over 100 special forces advisers operated there to get around limits on the number of advisers allowed in El Salvador. Ambassador Negroponte ruled there as a sort of proconsul as Honduras began to expand it’s own death squad Battalion 316. His work covering for  death squads would later get him appointed Ambassador to Iraq during the occupation while the former head military adviser in El Salvador Colonel James Steele would arrive to set up death squads for the “Salvador Option.” Elliot Abrams would also return to power during the war in Iraq.

The war in El Salvador was planned on the model of Vietnam and would then serve as a model for Iraq. All the major elements of the Phoenix program had been replicated in El Salvador in the 1960’s and 70’s centralized cooperation between the police and military linked by a computer network that would be the model for the internet. By the 1980’s they were openly bragging about the connection and claiming Phoenix aka CORDS would be the blueprint for victory. Counterinsurgency theory was back in vogue also known in the 1980’s as IDAD Internal Defense and Development. They even brought back the architect of Vietnam’s land Reform Ray Posterman of USAID to create the El Salvadoran land reform program although predictably it was never fully implemented. The Vietnam parallels were quite open with El Salvador and it’s CIA and Special forces advisers launching Operation Phoenix. And the Phoenix Programs cover program of CORDS (Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development) was used as the model for El Salvador’s counterinsurgency strategy the NCP (National Campaign Plan) and promoted openly in the press as the key to winning the war. The strategy was clear, (send in the military to conduct bloody sweeps) Hold (Set up Civil Defense militias to keep the populace in line) Build (engage in public works for PR in practice the military preferred to embezzle the money). El Salvador would then be used as the template for the War in Iraq although this was absurd because El Salvador was only “a success” from the ruthless imperial perspective because it allowed the empire to wage a bloody war via a local proxy with minimal loss of american life because their were only a hundred US military advisers and a similar number of CIA men in the country.

In 1989 the war would enter it’s third and final phase. George H. W. Bush was the new President in the US and he had helped ARENA (the party of the death squads and oligarchs) to win the March 1989 elections. He had ignored the chance to peacefully end the war in exchange for a few minor democratic reforms demanded by the FMLN and the Democratic Convergence the new opposition party. Bush also got Congress to agree to still more military aid to El Salvador. Beginning in 1983 the countries of Central America as the Contadora group had been slowly working on a peace plan to end the wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Eventually this would evolve into the Esquipulas. The US worked to sabotage the process even trying to use the NED to defeat the Costa Rican President at election time. In 1984 Duarte had begun talks with the FMLN that never went anywhere thanks to constant US interference. Since 1984 the FMLN had been forced to pursue a defensive strategy to preserve it’s forces from Salvadoran air power and PRAL teams. However it had also been rebuilding it’s network of urban supporters who had been killed or forced to flee in the first half of the war. In 1987-1988 the El Salvadoran military had responded by reactivating the death squads who went to work in a campaign of selective terror targeting the leaders of the popular movements.

The United States and El Salvador believed they were winning the war and that the Guerrillas were incapable of launching any more major offensives. On November 8, 1989 to the shock of the CIA analysts who had declared it impossible the FMLN launched a major offensive the day after the Berlin Wall fell which aimed at capturing the cities and provoking a full-scale revolution. It was either the last great battle of World War 3 or the first battle of World War 4. Gorbachev’s treachery was destroying the Soviet Union but in Latin America the struggle for Communism and Socialism would continue. The FMLN would manage to capture part of the capital San Salvador even occupying the rich neighborhoods. Unfortunately exhausted by 10 years of bloody civil war the people failed to rise in revolution and the military was able to counter-attack forcing the FMLN to retreat. It was a military defeat but a major political victory as it destroyed the illusion that the military was on the verge of victory. The US was forced to allow peace negotiations to go forward. The infamous Atlacatl battallion had created another PR disaster by murdering 6 jesuit priests and two housekeepers causing congress to cut military aid in half although President Bush would later full restore it while the world was distracted by the Gulf War. On January 16, 1992 the El Salvadoran Government and the FMLN finally signed a peace agreement that officially ended the war. The opposition was finally granted the right to participate in politics without being tortured and executed for it.

However despite being allowed to participate the FMLN was forced to compete with a well-funded party trained in PR by corporate specialists. ARENA managed to hold onto power from 1989-2009. They privatized everything and launched a brutal anti-gang war.  This new war predictably had American roots thousands of El Salvadoran gang members had been deported in the 1990’s as part of a racist anti-immigrant wave in the 1990’s and it was probably intended to destabilize El Salvador as the LA gang unit was infamous for it’s many scandals and likely has close ties to the CIA. Just as in El Salvador US police forces have divisions with intelligence functions that liaison with the CIA Red squads, Organized Crime and Gang Units are important partners in the counterinsurgency war at home. However regardless of the motives of sending MS-13 to El Salvador ARENA was able to seize on the issue to become increasingly repressive while gang wars within the country lead El Salvador to become the murder capital of the world for a few years. Given ARENA’s close ties to Taiwan it’s links to the Iran-Contra scandal and reputation for corruption they doubtless had a hand in the drug trade they pretended to fight.

In 2009 the FMLN were finally able to win an election joining the wave of left-wing governments inspired by Venezuela’s example. The first FMLN President was Mauricio Funes. In 2014 FMLN won another election electing President Sanchez Ceren a former Guerrilla leader and member of the Andes 21 teachers union which had been a major target during the dirty war. ARENA threatened a coup after the 2014 victory. However years of struggle had made the FMLN overly cautious and they no longer sought to transform society. President Funes relied on centrist advisers and pursued neo-liberal policies. Despite this fact the FMLN did engage in an ambitious program of reform building hundreds of community clinics, doubling the minimum wage, providing free school supplies, free university education and launching a literacy campaign that taught 330,000 people to read mostly elderly women. They also negotiated a secret gang truce which the media ruined by exposing.

El Salvador’s wealthy right wingers with american advice set out to discredit the FMLN via their control of the media, the legislature and the judiciary. They launched a corruption probe to discredit the FMLN and a scare campaign about crime in the media. Although gang violence was actually declining the media gave the impression it was out of control. The FMLN angered their radical base by refusing to reaffirm their commitment to radical change. The FMLN  suffered a disastrous loss in the 2018 constituent assembly election and in 2019 one of their former centrist allies Nayib Bukele was elected President. ARENA came in second with the FMLN a distant third. Another of the pink tide countries had fallen into the imperial orbit joining Paraguay, Honduras, Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador. Bukele has cultivated close ties with Trump helping him wage war on immigrants inside El Salvador itself and joining his schemes to overthrow the governments of Venezuela and Nicaragua. He plans to privatize the water supply. The struggle for a better world continues in El Salvador, Latin America and worldwide. As I write the people are rising up in Haiti, Chile and Ecuador. Repression is again on the rise across Latin America and sadly the brutal horrors of El Salvador’s dirty war demonstrate the ruthless lengths the empire will go to crush the dreams of peoples of the world in defense of capitalism.

*

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

Sources

Michael McClintock’s The American Connection Volume one State Terror and Popular Resistance in El Salvador is a masterpiece providing a detailed history of the war into the mid 1980’s. I also highly recommend his book Instruments of State Craft for anyone interested in the US history of terrorism and counterinsurgency.

Weakness and Deceit U.S. Policy and El Salvador by Raymond Bonner provides a detailed and vivid description of the war. Bonner was recalled from El Salvador after exposing the El Mozote massacre and being attacked by the State department and Reagan’s “public diplomacy” propagandists.

The Salvadoran Crucible: The Failure of US Counterinsurgency in El Salvador, 1979-1992 by Brian D’Haeseleer offers a great overview and analysis of the war highlighting the resilience of the FMLN. He also provides a brief history of US counterinsurgency warfare and discusses the “Salvador Option” in Iraq.

The Empire’s Workshop: Latin America The United States and the Rise of the New Imperialism By Greg Grandin is alternately brilliant and criminally naive. It provides background on the economic dimension of what he refers to as the third conquest of Latin America and connects the Reagan administration war in El Salvador with the Bush administration invasion of Iraq.

This October 2017 article by award winning author Jonathan Cook focusses on the unspoken Israel-Kurdistan relationship.

“There has been co-operation, much of it secret, between Israel and the Kurds for decades. Israeli media lapped up tributes from now-retired generals who trained the Kurds from the 1960s. Those connections have not been forgotten or ended. Independence rallies featured Israeli flags, and Kurds spoke of their ambition to become a “second Israel”.”

***

Palestinians and Israelis watched last week’s referendum of Iraq’s Kurds with special interest. Israeli officials and many ordinary Palestinians were delighted – for very different reasons – to see an overwhelming vote to split away from Iraq.

Given the backlash from Baghdad and anger from Iran and Turkey, which have restive Kurdish minorities, the creation of a Kurdistan in northern Iraq may not happen soon.

Palestinian support for the Kurds is not difficult to understand. Palestinians, too, were overlooked when Britain and France carved up the Middle East into states a century ago. Like the Kurds, Palestinians have found themselves trapped in different territories, oppressed by their overlords.

Israel’s complex interests in Kurdish independence are harder to unravel.

Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the sole world leader to back Kurdish independence, and other politicians spoke of the Kurds’ “moral right” to a state. None saw how uneasily that sat with their approach to the Palestinian case.

On a superficial level, Israel would gain because the Kurds sit on plentiful oil. Unlike the Arab states and Iran, they are keen to sell to Israel.

But the reasons for Israeli support run deeper. There has been co-operation, much of it secret, between Israel and the Kurds for decades. Israeli media lapped up tributes from now-retired generals who trained the Kurds from the 1960s. Those connections have not been forgotten or ended. Independence rallies featured Israeli flags, and Kurds spoke of their ambition to become a “second Israel”.

Israel views the Kurds as a key ally in an Arab-dominated region. Now, with Islamic State’s influence receding, an independent Kurdistan could help prevent Iran filling the void. Israel wants a bulwark against Iran transferring its weapons, intelligence and know-how to Shiite allies in Syria and Lebanon.

Israel’s current interests, however, hint at a larger vision it has long harboured for the region – and one I set out at length in my book Israel and the Clash of Civilisations.

It began with Israel’s founding father, David Ben Gurion, who devised a strategy of “allying with the periphery” – building military ties to non-Arab states like Turkey, Ethiopia, India and Iran, then ruled by the shahs. The goal was to help Israel to break out of its regional isolation and contain an Arab nationalism led by Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Israeli general Ariel Sharon expanded this security doctrine in the early 1980s, calling for Israel to become an imperial power in the Middle East. Israel would ensure that it alone in the region possessed nuclear weapons, making it indispensable to the US.

Sharon was not explicit about how Israel’s empire could be realised, but an indication was provided at around the same time in the Yinon Plan, written for the World Zionist Organisation by a former Israeli foreign ministry official.

Oded Yinon proposed the implosion of the Middle East, breaking apart the region’s key states – and Israel’s main opponents – by fuelling sectarian and ethnic discord. The aim was to fracture these states, weakening them so that Israel could secure its place as sole regional power.

The inspiration for this idea lay in the occupied territories, where Israel had contained Palestinians in a series of separate enclaves. Later, Israel would terminally divide the Palestinian national movement, nurturing an Islamist extremism that coalesced into Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

In this period, Israel also tested its ideas in neighbouring southern Lebanon, which it occupied for two decades. There, its presence further stoked sectarian tensions between Christians, Druze, Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

The strategy of “Balkanising” the Middle East found favour in the US among a group of hawkish policymakers, known as neoconservatives, who came to prominence during George W Bush’s presidency.

Heavily influenced by Israel, they promoted the idea of “rolling back” key states, especially Iraq, Iran and Syria, which were opposed to Israeli-US dominance in the region. They prioritised ousting Saddam Hussein, who had fired missiles on Israel during the 1991 Gulf war.

Although often assumed to be an unfortunate side effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Washington’s oversight of the country’s bloody disintegration into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish fiefdoms looked suspiciously intentional. Now, Iraqi Kurds are close to making that break-up permanent.

Syria has gone a similar way, mired in convulsive fighting that has left its ruler impotent. And Tehran is, again, the target of efforts by Israel and its allies in the US to tear up the 2015 nuclear accord, backing Iran into a corner. Arab, Baluchi, Kurdish and Azeri minorities there may be ripe for stirring up.

Last month at the Herzliya conference, an annual jamboree for Israel’s security establishment, justice minister Ayelet Shaked called for a Kurdish state. She has stated that it would be integral to Israeli efforts to “reshape” the Middle East.

The unraveling of Britain and France’s map of the region would likely lead to chaos of the kind that a strong, nuclear-armed Israel, with backing from Washington, could richly exploit. Not least, yet more bedlam would push the Palestinian cause even further down the international community’s list of priorities.

A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Kurdish Independence Underpins Israel’s Plan to Reshape the Middle East

Timely article by Sarah Abed on the Kurdistan-Israeli relationship first posted on Global Research on July 14, 2017

In this three part series, MintPress  and Global Research contributor Sarah Abed analyzes the role that some Kurdish factions have played throughout history in helping major powers create chaos in the Middle East – from the Kurdish uprising in Iraq in the 1960s to the ongoing conflict in Syria today.

SYRIA (Analysis)– Historical accounts of the Kurds have been a subject of mystery and perplexity for years, and have been seldom discussed by major Western media outlets until recently. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the ongoing conflict in Syria, Kurds have been romanticized by mainstream media and U.S. politicians alike to justify a Western interventionist narrative in those countries. Ever since the U.S. invaded Syria, the U.S. and Israel have supported the semi-autonomous Kurdistan, with Israel purchasing $3.84 billion dollars worth of oil from them, a move that could have geopolitical and economic ramifications for both parties.

In 2015, the Financial Times reported that Israel had imported as much as 77 percent of its oil supply from Kurdistan in recent months, bringing in some 19 million barrels between the beginning of May and August 11. During that period, more than a third of all northern Iraqi exports, shipped through Turkey’s Ceyhan port, went to Israel, with transactions amounting to almost $1 billion, the report said, citing “shipping data, trading sources, and satellite tanker tracking.”

The sales are a sign of Iraqi Kurdistan’s growing assertiveness and the further fraying of ties between Erbil and Baghdad, which has long harbored fears that the Kurds’ ultimate objective is full independence from Iraq.

Kurdish fighters from the People’s Protection Units, (Y.P.G), stand guard next to American armored vehicles at the Syria-Turkey border, Apri, 2017. (Youssef Rabie Youssef/EPA)

In 1966, Iraqi defense minister Abd al-Aziz al-Uqayli blamed the Kurds of Iraq for seeking to establish “a second Israel” in the Middle East. He also claimed that “the West and the East are supporting the rebels to create [khalq] a new Israeli state in the north of the homeland as they had done in 1948 when they created Israel. Interestingly enough, history is repeating itself with their present-day relationship – the existence of which is only acknowledged in passing by either side for fear of retribution.

For much of the conflict in Syria, several Kurdish militias have become some of the U.S.-led coalition’s closest allies within the country, receiving massive amounts of arms and heavy weapon shipments, as well as training from coalition members. Kurdish militias also dominate the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the U.S.-backed group best known for leading the coalition-supported offensive targeting the Daesh (ISIS) stronghold of Raqqa.The weapons that the United States has provided Kurdish and Arab fighters in the anti-Islamic State coalition include heavy machine guns, mortars, anti-tank weapons, armored cars and engineering equipment.

In May, U.S. President Donald Trump approved arming Kurdish militiamen in Syria with heavy weaponry, including mortars and machine guns. Within one month of Trump’s approval, 348 trucks with military assistance had been passed to the group, Anadolu added. According to the news agency’s data, the Pentagon’s list of weapons to be delivered to the group includes 12,000 Kalashnikov rifles, 6,000 machine guns, 3,000 grenade launchers and around 1,000 anti-tank weapons of Russian or U.S. origin.

The United States’ shipments included 130 trucks, with 60 cars passing on June 5, and 20 vehicles on June 12, per Sputnik News.

On June 17, Sputnik News reported that the United States is still supplying the Democratic Union Party (PYD) in Syria with ammunition to fight Daesh, delivering 50 truckloads in one day alone, according to Turkish media reports. Earlier in the day, the trucks reached the city of al-Hasakah in northwest Syria.

Both historical and modern day ties between Israel and the Kurds have brought benefits to both sides. In the past, Israel has obtained intelligence, as well as support, for a few thousand Jews fleeing Ba’athist Iraq. The Kurds have received security and humanitarian aid, as well as links to the outside world, especially the United States. The first official acknowledgment that Jerusalem had provided aid to the Kurds dates back to Sept. 29, 1980, when Prime Minister Menachem Begin disclosed that Israel had supported the Kurds “during their uprising against the Iraqis in 1965 to 1975” and that the United States was aware of this fact. Begin added that Israel had sent instructors and arms, but not military units.

Ethnic Kurdish Israelis protest outside the Turkish embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel, July 8, 2010.

The Kurds are the largest group of nomadic people in the world that have remained stateless since the beginning of time. This fact has allowed Western powers to use the “stateless” plight of the Kurdish people as a tool to divide, destabilize and conquer Iraq and Syria, where colonial oil and gas interests run deep.

The U.S.-led coalition of war criminals is using elements of Syria’s Kurdish population to achieve its goal of destroying the non-belligerent, democratic country of Syria, led by its popular, democratically-elected President Bashar al-Assad. Washington seeks to create sectarianism and ethnic divides in a country that, prior to the Western-launched war, had neither.

However, Kurdologists reject this characterization because it does not fit into their account of historical events that attributes a state to them at one point in time. Their estimated population is 30 million, according to most demographic sources. They also reject the idea that they are being used as pawns.

Responding to a question about where the autonomous administration would “draw the line” on U.S. support and the support of other superpowers, the co-leader of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), Salih Muslim Muhammad, stated

“Our guarantee is our mindset. It depends on how much we educate and organize our people. If we defend our morals and ideology, then bigger powers cannot use us as pawns.”

Perhaps no other group of people in modern times has been as romanticized in the Western conscience as the Kurds. Consistently portrayed as “freedom fighters” who are eternally struggling for a land denied to them, the Kurds have been frequently utilized throughout history by other countries and empires as an arrow and have never themselves been the bow.

In today’s case, the Kurds are being used by NATO and Israel to fulfill the modern-day colonialist aim of breaking up large states like Iraq into statelets to ensure geopolitical goals. When nations are divided into smaller statelets, they are easier to conquer by foreign entities. This is a signature move that powerful imperialist nations use for the purpose of colonizing smaller and less influential nations. The Kurds have been utilized as pawns in this “divide and conquer” strategy throughout history and continue to allow themselves to be used by colonial powers.

Ultra-leftist opportunists or real revolutionaries?

In an article written in 2007, NPR senior news analyst Daniel Schorr stated that the Kurds of Iraq have a long history of being used as pawns in regional power struggles. Now, they are finding themselves in the middle of a contest between the United States and Iran for dominance in the Middle East.

In 1973, President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had the CIA instigate a Kurdish uprising in northern Iraq against Saddam Hussein. The United States walked away from the rebellion when Saddam and the Shah of Iran settled their differences, leaving the Kurds to face their own fate. Interestingly, the Kurds seem to have developed amnesia by once again choosing to cooperate with Washington, which has repeatedly used them solely for its own benefit.

In the Gulf War over the Iraqi seizure of Kuwait in 1990, President George H.W. Bush appealed to the Kurds, as well as the Shiites in the south, to rise up in rebellion against Saddam.

A Kurd kisses a picture of United States President George W. Bush during celebrations in the streets of Sulaymaniyah, northern Iraq Wednesday April 9, 2003. (AP/Kevin Frayer)

Victorious in that war, the American military permitted Saddam to retain his helicopter gunships, which he used to retaliate against the Kurds, along with Shiites, by the hundreds. American public opinion eventually forced the administration to establish northern and southern no-fly zones to protect the two populations.

Kurdish loyalty to America has cost them quite a bit, and so it is with a certain narcissism that the Bush administration presumed to tell the allegedly autonomous Kurds what kind of relations they could entertain with other countries in the region, including American rival Iran. But the Kurds appear to be finding themselves in a contest between the U.S. and Iran for dominance in the Middle East yet again.

Andrew Exum, a former top Pentagon Middle East policy official who served as an Army Ranger, stated

”… this decision — to arm a group closely associated with a foreign terrorist organization, and one that has waged a decades-long insurgency against the Turkish state — will likely reverberate through U.S. relations with Turkey for decades to come.”

The Turkish government has long insisted that the Kurdish militia is closely linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a separatist group known as the PKK. That group is listed by Turkey, the United States and Europe as a terrorist organization.

A rough estimate found in the CIA Factbook sets the Kurdish population at 14.5 million in Turkey, 6 million in Iran, about 5 to 6 million in Iraq and less than 2 million in Syria, which adds up to close to 28 million Kurds in what they refer to as “Kurdistan” and adjacent regions.

However, other sources state that there are only about 1.2 million Kurds left in Syria due to the carefully calculated and planned imposed war by NATO and its Gulf Allies. Roughly the same number migrated to Germany during the past six years.

It’s important to differentiate between Kurdish people who have assimilated in the countries they now reside in and reject the idea of establishing an illegal Kurdistan and those who are power hungry and are allowing themselves to team up with the West and Israel to assist in the destabilization of the region. Some Kurdish people in Syria, especially those that reside in areas that are not controlled by the Kurds, such as Damascus, are loyal to the Syrian government and have stated that they voted for Assad in 2014.

This free and democratic election saw Assad win 88.7 percent of the popular vote over the other two nominees. In the beginning of the war in Syria, there were Kurds fighting in the Syrian Arab Army, who received arms and salaries just like their Syrian counterparts. There are a small number that are still in the Syrian Arab Army in the southern Syria.

But in northeastern Syria, many Kurds have defected to the U.S.-led SDF where arms, salaries, and training are provided by the U.S. Syrians consider the Kurds who have remained loyal to Syria as their fellow Syrian brothers and sisters and the descriptions of Kurdish treachery in this article do not apply to them.

The loosely-knit coalition of Syrian rebel groups known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), are armed, trained and backed by the U.S. The group is currently engaged in the early stages of battle in the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, Syria.

Independence and disunity

An important thing to remember is that the ethnic marker “Kurd” refers to speakers of several different related, but distinct, languages. The two most important are Sorani in Iraq and Iran and Kurmanji in Syria, Turkey and smaller contiguous regions in Iraq and Iran. Sorani tends to use Arabic script, while Kurmanji uses Latin script, which shows how different they can be from one another.

Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) is predominantly made up of Sorani speakers, while the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), PYD and other nationalist groups in Syria and Turkey speak Kurmanji. This division naturally maps these divergent political expressions. It is not as simple as superimposing the KRG’s borders over the PYD and PKK-controlled territory.

On the other hand, Turkey does not contest Sorani speakers’ aspirations to the same extent as it does Kurmanji speakers. Encouraging the autonomy of the Iraqi Kurds should not entail the same problems for the Turco-American alliance as encouraging Syro-Turkish Kurdish nationalism would.

The quest for independence is intrinsic to Kurdish identity. However, not all Kurds envision a unified Kurdistan that would span the Kurdish regions of four different sovereign countries. Most Kurdish movements and political parties are focused on the concerns and autonomy of Kurds within their respective countries. Within each country, there are Kurds who have assimilated and whose aspirations may be limited to greater cultural freedoms and political recognition.

Kurd

Kurds throughout the Middle East have vigorously pursued their goals through a multitude of groups. While some Kurds established legitimate political parties and organizations in efforts to promote Kurdish rights and freedom, others have waged armed struggles. Some, like the Turkish PKK, have employed guerrilla tactics and terror attacks that have targeted civilians, including their fellow Kurds.

The wide array of Kurdish political parties and groups reflects the internal divisions among Kurds, which often follow tribal, linguistic and national fault lines, in addition to political disagreements and rivalries. Tensions between the two dominant Iraqi Kurdish political parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) escalated to a civil war that killed more than 2,000 Kurds in the mid-1990s.

Political disunity stretches across borders as well, with Kurdish parties and organizations forming offshoots or forging alliances in neighboring countries. Today, disagreements over prospects for Kurdish autonomy in Syria or Iraqi Kurds’ relations with the Turkish government have fostered tensions that have pitted the Iraqi KDP and its Syrian sister organization, the KDP-S, against the PKK and its Syrian offshoot, the PYD. Still, adversarial Kurdish groups have worked together when it has been expedient. The threat posed by Daesh has led the KDP-affiliated Peshmerga to fight alongside Syrian PYD forces.

Kurdish groups have, at times, bargained with not only their own governments but also neighboring ones – in some cases at the expense of their relations with their Kurdish brethren. The complex relationships among Kurdish groups and between the Kurds and the region’s governments have fluctuated, and alliances have formed and faltered as political conditions have changed. The Kurds’ disunity is cited by experts as one of the primary causes for their inability to form a state of their own.

The Kurds’ illegal, unjustified claims for autonomy

The West claims that the Kurds are one of the most moral and dignified forces in the Middle East fighting against Daesh. But if their focus is on defeating Daesh, as they claim, why are they committing genocide against Syrians in the process? Taking this into consideration, it is hard to justify the West’s persistent claim that armed Kurdish terrorist groups are trying to help Syria. The reality on the ground contradicts these empty compliments, which the West uses to save face while supporting these terrorist organizations. This false narrative was in fact used to arm the Kurds in Syria in order to create instability and division.

U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led Syria Democratic Forces raise their flag in the center of the town of Manbij after driving ISIS out of the area, in Aleppo province, Syria. (ANHA via AP)

It is strange that the Kurds would be so antagonistic towards Syrians, as the country has largely been welcoming for them. For example, reforms were made in Syria in 2012 to benefit the Kurds.

“President Assad issued a decree granting Arab Syrian citizenship to people registered as foreigners in the (governorate of Hassake),” said the SANA news agency.

The measure, which benefited about 300,000 Kurds, came a week after Assad tasked a committee with “resolving the problem of the 1962 census in the governorate of Hassake.”

In January 2015, SANA news reported that then-Syrian Prime Minister Dr. Wael al-Halqi said:

“the Kurds are a deeply-ingrained component of the Syrian society and Ayn al-Arab is part of Syria that is dear to the hearts of all Syrians.”

Al-Halqi’s affirmation came during his meeting with a Kurdish delegation which comprised Kurdish figures. He also urged all to discard violence and spread amity, reiterating that a solution to the Syrian crisis could be achieved “through national dialogue and consolidating national reconciliations,” indicating that dialogue will definitely be “under the homeland’s umbrella away from foreign dictates.”

In 2014, The Civil Democratic Gathering of Syrian Kurds said that the steadfastness of the people of Ayn al-Arab in the face of terrorists was a form of expression of the Syrian Kurds’ commitment to their affiliation to their homeland of Syria. The gathering’s Higher Council of Secretaries said that the steadfastness of Ayn al-Arab was cause for admiration and that attempts to transgress against the territorial integrity of Syria were parts of a plot to cause chaos and division and undermine the resistance axis.

These are just a few examples of the Syrian government’s attempts to unify all of those who live within the country’s borders. But even with these actions of good faith, the SDF has chosen to side with Syria’s enemies rather than work with the Syrian army.

A recent agreement – initiated and brokered by the U.S. between a Free Syrian Army (FSA) faction and the Kurdish-led SDF lays out conditions whereby U.S.-initiated negotiations would allow the FSA faction al-Muatasim Brigade to peacefully take over 11 villages in northern Syria that are controlled by the SDF. The general outlines of this unprecedented agreement were announced on May 10, stating that the U.S.-led coalition had delegated to al-Muatasim the task of being in charge of and administering the designated villages.

View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

Al-Muatasim is known to be a strong ally of the U.S., which is why it was chosen to be in charge of the designated villages. This further proves the point that the U.S., SDF and FSA are still working together. Their cooperation is part of an effort to counter the progress being made by the Syrian Arab Army and its allies.

In Part II of MPN’s Sarah Abed analysis of the Kurds’ role in helping the U.S. and Israel destabilize the Middle East, she will explore more of their ties to Israel and other countries, as well as their links to Daesh.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. Focused on exposing the lies and propaganda in mainstream media news, as it relates to domestic and foreign policy with an emphasis on the Middle East. Contributed to various radio shows, news publications and spoken at forums. For media inquiries please email [email protected].

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Kurds: Washington’s Weapon of Mass Destabilization in the Middle East

As you may have figured out by now, Hillary Clinton, warped by her own self aggrandizement of entitlement, did Tulsi Gabbard and her Presidential campaign against interventionist wars a huge incidental favor.

While the Democrats continue to splinter and spiral out of control on the eve of what promises to be a transformative national election, the Grand Inquisitor seized an opportunity to allege that Gabbard (and Jill Stein) are “Russian assets” and “Putin puppets”.  Since Tulsi is a Major in the US Army Reserves and holds the highest security clearance available, the term ‘asset,’ which is associated with being an agent of a foreign power, carries a level of national security significance.

Believing herself untouchable and immune from any genuine criticism or objective analysis after having successfully evaded prosecution from the nation’s top law enforcement agencies,  HRC went off the deep end dragging the Democratic party further into the ditch.

“She is a favorite of the Russians.  That’s assuming that Jill Stein will give it up which she might not because she is also a Russian asset.”

Clinton’s historic pronouncement came in the mistaken belief that publicly humiliating Gabbard would intimidate the Aloha Girl to silence and seek refuge on her surf board – but that is not how it has played out.

An unexpected bonus proved once again that political strategy has never been Clinton’s strong suite as her malicious comments have brought the anti war alt left with the libertarian alt right together in Gabbard’s defense.  With HRC’s injudicious taunts, the glimmer of an emerging political realignment, one that has been at odds with both the Dem and Republican establishments, has surfaced – probably not exactly what HRC intended.

In response to having received a burst of unprecedented support, Gabbard is about to assure her place on the November debate stage and continues to solidify her credibility as a critic of a corrupt bipartisan political establishment and its endless wars.

If they falsely portray me as a traitor, they can do it to anyoneDon’t be afraid.Join me in speaking truth to power to take back the Democrat Party and country from the corrupt elite.”

It is noteworthy that HRCs accusation was to the only candidate who stands in direct opposition to the Queen Bee’s history for the war machine and all of its bells and whistles.  As if to call attention to the contradiction, the entire fiasco has acknowledged what was never meant to be acknowledged:   that one little known Congresswoman from Hawaii would dare to publicly confront the omnipotent HRC with her own demons and malfeasance; thereby elevating the one candidacy that represents a threat to the military industrial complex and its globalist order.

It is no coincidence that the corporate media operates in lock step as an offensive October 12th NY Times article was immediately followed by a CNN commentary as well as other media sycophants, all tagging Gabbard as a Russian asset. Contrary to Journalism 101 on how professional media should conduct themselves, there has been no evidence, no facts, no supporting documentation as they characteristically rely on innuendo and disinformation.

At the last Dem debate and during the kerfuffle with Clinton, Tulsi has stepped up and showed herself to be a candidate the country has been waiting for.  With a powerful inner grit, she did not hesitate to take the Times and CNN publicly to task and then in response called HRC out as a warmonger and dared her to enter the 2020 fray.

There lies a deep truth within Gabbard’s response especially identifying Clinton as the “personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party.” During Clinton’s term as Secretary of State which is little more than a Glorified Global Hustler for the US military industrial complex, the Democratic Party lost its soul, morphing as nefarious neocons in pursuit of raw political and economic power that emanates from a policy of unfettered regime change and interventionist wars.

As Democrats embraced the neocons with no objection to the unrestrained violence, increased military budgets, indiscriminate selling of weapons to bomb a civilian population, then why should the party’s grassroots object to the Tuesday morning assassination list or drone attacks on civilians or creating war in four countries living in peace in 2008? As the party faithful allow themselves to dismiss all the suffering, the death and destruction wrought by US-made weapons as if Amazon and Google toys were an acceptable trade, they lost their conscience and their connection to the basic essence of humanity’s need for peace, love and compassion.

The latest example of the Party’s devotion to war is their opposition to the withdrawal of US troops from Syria as they created the phony debate that the Kurds were worth more American blood or resources.  The Dems have always been more pro-war than they have been given credit for with WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam all initiated and/or expanded under Democrat Presidents.

With no substantiation from the mindless meanderings of a seriously disoriented woman, it is now clear that Clinton’s derangement syndrome of unresolved guilt and denial led the Democratic party to its irrational embrace of Russiagate as the justification for her 2016 loss. In other words, it was Russiagate that protected HRC’s fragile self-esteem from the necessary introspection as Americans were pitted against one another,dividing the nation in a deliberate disruption of civil society in a more acrimonious manner than any time since the 1860’s.  The country has paid a bitter, unnecessary price for a divisive strategy due to Clinton’s refusal to personally accept responsibility for her own failings.

HRC’s most egregious war crimes as Secretary of State include assigning Victoria Nuland to conduct the overthrow of a democratically elected President in Ukraine in 2014 and the ensuing violence and civil war in the Donbass as well as her joyous rapture cackling at the death of Libyan President Qaddafi in 2011. The now infamous video “We came, we saw, he died” showed her to be more than just your average war criminal but a Monster who experiences an aberrant thrill at death and destruction.

Since June, TPTB have done their darnedest to deny Tulsi a spot on the debate stage rigging the qualifying requirements as best they could.  Making it near impossible for the polling firms, which rely on campaign season and their economic connection with the DNC to call the shots in a fair and equitable manner.

As the early primary states loom ahead, the last thing TPTB need is a powerful pro-peace voice resonating with the American public. The message seems clear:  talk of peace is verboten and equates with being a Russia asset and anyone with pacifist tendencies will be publicly chastised and condemned for being a tool of the Kremlin.   None of that has stopped Tulsi Gabbard.

*

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

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

Selected Articles: Russia-Turkey Deal on Syria

October 23rd, 2019 by Global Research News

Our objective at Global Research is to recruit one thousand committed “volunteers” among our more than 50,000 Newsletter subscribers to support the distribution of Global Research articles (email lists, social media, crossposts). 

Do not send us money. Under Plan A, we call upon our readers to donate 5 minutes a day to Global Research.

Global Research Volunteer Members can contact us at [email protected] for consultations and guidelines.

If, however, you are pressed for time in the course of a busy day, consider Plan B, Consider Making a Donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member

*     *     *

Video: Erdogan, Putin Reach ‘Historical Deal’ on Northern Syria

By South Front, October 23, 2019

According to the agreement, Turkey’s Operation ‘Peace Spring’ will continue in a limited area between Tell Abyad and Ras al-Ayn with a depth of 32km. Starting from 12:00 October 23, units of the Russian Military Police and the Syrian Army will be deployed along the rest of the Turkish border to the east of the Euphrates.

The Russian-Turkish Deal on Syria: Who Won and Who Lost?

By Andrew Korybko, October 23, 2019

Presidents Putin and Erdogan reached a deal on Syria that represents a decisive victory for Turkey while being a drastic climbdown for Damascus after President Assad vowed earlier that day that the Syrian Arab Army was “prepared to support any group carrying out popular resistance against the Turkish aggression” only to later “fully support” the Russian-brokered agreement to give Ankara practically all of what it wants once he was informed about the details by his counterpart in Moscow.

As Trump Aids and Abets Turkey’s War Crimes, the UN Must Act

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, October 23, 2019

While the United States and Turkey reached a “ceasefire” agreement on October 17, there are ongoing reports of violations of the deal. A U.S. official told CNN that Turkish-backed forces broke the ceasefire on its first day, saying that they were either acting beyond the scope of Turkish control or Turkey “didn’t care what they did.” Two U.S. officials said the ceasefire “is not holding.” The agreement calls for a five-day ceasefire and requires Kurdish fighters to leave an area of Syria along the Turkish border, in essence, relinquishing control of their territory. The United States would lift the threat of further sanctions on Turkey, and once a “permanent cease-fire” occurs, would remove the sanctions that Trump imposed in the wake of criticism of his abrupt withdrawal from the region.

Why Did Trump Give the Green Light to Turkish Intervention in Northern Syria? Framed by Russia?

By Nauman Sadiq, October 23, 2019

In return for the generous favor of establishing a safe zone along Turkey’s southern border to address its security concerns regarding the Kurds, Turkey would probably allow the Syrian government with the backing of Russia to occupy a few strategic areas in northwestern Idlib Governorate – particularly near the Alawite heartland Latakia, such as Khan Sheikhoun, which the Syrian government has recently liberated from al-Nusra Front, and Marat al-Numan and Jisr al-Shughour – though this hasn’t been stipulated in the agreement and was most likely informally discussed in the Erdogan-Putin meeting.

Islamic State in Asia: ‘Unintentional’ Consequences of Turkey’s Syria Operation

By Paul Antonopoulos, October 22, 2019

Turkey began on October 9 its illegal offensive in northern Syria to expel terrorist organizations, primarily the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and the Islamic State according to Ankara, away from the Turkish border and to establish a safe zone in the northeast of the country to accommodate some of the millions of Syrian refugees currently in Turkey. However, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has raised some interesting questions and warned of the danger of “reverse migration” of foreign terrorists to their home countries as Turkey has completely ignored prisons and camps holding the jihadists.

Putin-Erdogan Meeting Aims to Organise Differences and Shorten the Gap Between Allies

By Elijah J. Magnier, October 22, 2019

In the first week of the month of October the US informed Turkey and Russia of its intention to withdraw from north-east Syria (NES). Turkish President Recep Tayyib Erdogan pulled out a plan prepared over a year ago to move forces into NES and take control of cities like Manbij, Ain al-Arab and Ras al-Ayn: an area 440 kilometres long and 35 kilometres wide. The US central command and the Russian military command, as well as other countries including Syria, were informed of the Turkish intention to move forward to fill in the gap. Turkey believes this incursion into the Syrian territory serves its national security and will relocate millions of Syrian refugees living in Turkey, and those who will move out of Idlib once the liberation of the city is in process.

US Syria Pullout Leaves Troops in North and South

By Stephen Lendman, October 22, 2019

Russia’s intervention in Syria changing the dynamic on the ground, US inability to topple Iran’s government, and effectiveness of Yemeni Houthis against Pentagon/CIA-orchestrated Saudi aggression foiled US/Israeli regional aims. Before withdrawal of unclear numbers of US forces from northern Syria cross-border to Iraq, Pentagon troops controlled around 30% of the country. Unknown numbers of US forces continue to unlawfully control southern Syrian territory near the Iraqi and Jordanian borders, no plans to withdraw them.

*

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

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Russia-Turkey Deal on Syria

President Bashar Al-Assad has stressed that the President of the Turkish regime Recep Tayyib Erdogan is a thief who stole the Syrian factories, wheat and oil and today he is stealing Syrian land.

President Al-Assad made the remarks during his meeting with soldiers and officers of the Syrian Arab Army on the front lines in al-Hbeit town of Edlib countryside.

 Military situation on the ground specifies priority

The president affirmed that all the Syrian areas have the same importance, but what specifies priority is the military situation on the ground.

According to SANA, President Al-Assad said that

“Idleb was an advanced outpost for them. The advanced outpost is usually located in the front lines, but in this case the battle is in the east and the advanced outpost is in the west. This is in order to disperse the forces of the Syrian Arab army.”

“We have been saying that the battle for Idleb is essential for ending chaos and terrorism in all the Syrian areas,” President Al-Assad added.

He made it clear that

“when we are exposed to an aggression or robbery we must support each other and join efforts. But, some Syrians didn’t do that, particularly during the early years of the war… We asked them not to count on foreign parties…we told them that your bet should be on the army, the people and the homeland but nobody listened, and now they are counting on the Americans.”

President Al-Assad went on to say that as soon as the Turkish aggression started in the north of the country, we made contacts with the different political and military forces on the ground. We told them that we are ready to support any group that would resist.”

 “This it is not a political decision, it is in fact a constitutional and national duty and if we don’t do that, we don’t deserve this homeland,” the president emphasized.

*

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 Syria Times

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Erdogan Stole Syrian Factories, Oil and Wheat and Today He Is Stealing Syrian Land”. President Al-Assad
  • Tags: , , ,

Russian/Turkish Agreement on Northern Syria

October 23rd, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

When deals are struck, the devil is in the details, along with implementation of what was agreed on by all parties involved.

The historical record is clear. The US, West and Israel can never be trusted. The Russian Federation operates by a higher standard. Its word is its bond, not so for Turkey, especially under lawbreaker/terrorist supporter/human rights abuser Erdogan.

He allied with US aggression on Syria for regime change, three times invaded its territory illegally, his latest aggression begun October 9 — the highest of high crimes, his forces using banned weapons, killing civilians indiscriminately.

Domestically he banned speech, media and academic freedoms, imprisoning or otherwise eliminating critics, including children — what tyranny is all about.

Throughout US-led war on Syria, he called for toppling overwhelmingly popular Bashar al-Assad, wants northern Syrian territory annexed, especially its oil-producing areas.

He supports ISIS, al-Nusra, and other terrorists, earlier conspired with the Islamic State to steal Syrian oil, currently using jihadists as proxy forces in his ongoing aggression and occupation of northern Syrian territory.

On Tuesday, Assad denounced him as a “thief,” adding:

“He has stolen factories, wheat, oil in cooperation with Daesh (ISIS), and today, he steals territory.”

He’s an “actor” in cahoots with US-led aggression.

“The latest of the plays is that he says they have decided to enter Syria. Well, for nine years, he has been trying to enter, but he was not allowed.”

“He said he has notified the Americans that he will enter. You mean you told the Americans?”

“What happened, happened. Despite all the bravado (about Kurdish fighters) that we have heard through the years, that they will fight and whatnot, the Turks have occupied most of the region in just four days, which the Americans have planned.”

Syrian officials earlier warned the Kurds against cooperating with the US, Assad explained.

“We repeated it,” he stressed, adding: “The Americans will sell you out one day” — precisely what happened.

Syria’s priority is “defending against (US-led NATO/Turkish) aggression,” all parts of the country of equal value, he stressed.

Turkish and proxy forces captured and control over 100 northern Syrian villages, along with the border towns of Ras al-Ain and Tel Abyad.

According to observers on the ground, his forces looted homes, shops, and other businesses, along with wheat and barley silos.

Assad vowed to liberate all areas of Syria controlled by US/Turkish-supported terrorists and illegally occupied by Pentagon and Turkish forces.

On Tuesday in Sochi, Russia, Vladimir Putin met with Erdogan on Syria. The Turkish regime communications director Fahrettin Altun claimed an agreement was reached to respect “Syria’s territorial integrity and political unity.”

Erdogan said remaining Kurdish fighters “must leave (a) 30-km zone…150 hours” from Wednesday (after which) Turkey and Russia will begin joint patrolling of the area to the east and to the west of” Syrian territory Turkish forces invaded (except the border city of Qamishli in Hasakah province), adding:

Joint patrols will be carried out within a 10-km area from Turkey’s border. According to Russia’s Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu,

“additional troops (and) equipment will be needed for patrolling since the border is rather extensive and the patrolling should be serious and substantial so that we could avert any serious incidents. Especially since the patrolling will be carried out jointly.”

Sergey Lavrov said Turkey’s cross-border “operation is coming to an end. Now everything will depend on whether the agreements will be adhered to, namely regarding the disengagement of forces and equipment, and the withdrawal of Kurdish military formations,” adding:

“We do not particularly look at the United States and its stance. That stance is quite variable and contradictory, and of course, the coalition led by the United States is in Syria illegally. This is well known.”

Erdogan’s cross-border aggression has nothing to do with combatting terrorists, nothing to do with Turkish security, nothing to do with helping Syrian refugees, everything to do with his revanchist aims.

It’s unclear how Putin handled these and related issues during talks with Erdogan on Tuesday.

Both leaders agreed to respect the 1998 Ankara/Damascus Adana Interstate Agreement on Combating Terrorism — vowing to prevent terrorists in Syria from threatening Turkey.

RT reported that

“Russian military police and Syrian servicemen will be deployed to northeastern Syria, while Turkey’s operation ‘Peace Spring’ will continue in a limited area,” as agreed to by Putin and Erdogan.

On October 9, Erdogan’s cross-border aggression began. He and Putin agreed on letting Turkish forces “temporarily” conduct so-called “counter-terrorism” operations in northern Syria.

At the same time, Russia’s president said unlawfully deployed foreign forces in Syria must leave. Claiming Erdogan shares this view is unsupported by reality on the ground.

Putin also urged Syrian and Kurdish officials to reach accommodation on issues where they differ to help restore peace and stability to the country.

Following talks with Erdogan, he briefed Syria’s Assad on what was discussed, according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, indicating he and Putin concurred on what was agreed on in Sochi.

Russia is an invaluable Syrian ally, the US, NATO, and Israel its mortal enemies.

Erdogan can never be trusted. It remains to be seen whether what was agreed on in Sochi sticks.

Given longstanding US hegemonic aims for regional control, resolution of years of conflict and chaos is far from achieved.

*

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.

Better Relations Between the US and Russia Are Not in the Cards

October 23rd, 2019 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

By now Russians must wonder if the better relations they desire with the US are ever to be.  US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat from Hawaii is the latest peacemaker to be declared “a Russian asset” by Hillary, the DNC, and the presstitutes.

The way the Democrats, the presstitutes, and their Puppet Master—the military/security complex—have it rigged, unless you want to bomb Russia into the stone age, you are a Russian asset.

How, then, can any American leader advocate bringing the dangerous tensions with Russia to an end?

Look what happened to Trump when he declared his intention of “normalizing relations with Russia.”  There is nothing more desperate that needs doing, but it cannot happen.

Two immovable mountains stand in the way.

One is the military/security complex’s need for an enemy in order to justify the military/security complex’s $1,000 billion dollar annual budget and the power that comes with it. Fifty-eight years ago in his last address to the American people,

President Dwight Eisenhower warned that

“we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.  We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

Ike’s warning went unheeded, and today, more than a half century later, the military/security complex rules America.

The other immovable mountain is the US world hegemonic ideology of the  neoconservatives who have controlled US foreign policy since the Clinton regime.  The neoconservatives declare the US to be the “indispensible, exceptional” country with the right to impose its will and agendas on the rest of the world.

The collapse of the Soviet Union removed all constraints on Washington’s unilateralism.  There was no longer another global power to get in Washington’s way.  

To keep it this way, neoconservative Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz set out the Wolfowitz Doctrine.  The doctrine states that it is the “first objective” of US foreign and military policy to prevent the rise of Russia or any country capable of serving as a check on US unilateral action.  

Caught offguard by Vladimir Putin, who restored Russian sovereignty from Russia’s status as an American vassal under Yeltsin, the neoconservatives and their Western media whores have launched massive propaganda attacks on Russia in order to demonize, isolate, marginalize, and perhaps overthrow with American-financed NGOs, as happened to Ukraine in the  Maidan Revolution and as the US is currently attempting in Hong Kong against China.

The hegemonic ideology of the neoconservatives and the military/security complex’s need for an enemy preclude any normalization of relations with Russia.

As I and Stephen Cohn have emphasized, the current tensions between the two nuclear superpowers are far more dangerous than during the Cold War.  During the Cold War every American president worked with his Soviet counterpart to reduce tensions.  John F. Kennedy and Khrushchev defused the Cuban missile crisis and removed the US missiles from Turkey.  JFK’s reward was to be assassinated by the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who concluded that JFK was soft on communism and a threat to the national security of the United States.

President Richard Nixon opened to China and negotiated the SALT I Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Leonid Brezhnev. Nixon’s reward was to be politically assassinated with the Watergate orchestration and forced to resign.

President Carter and Brezhnev signed the SALT II Treaty, and Carter was rewarded by the military/security complex throwing its money behind anti-communist Reagan.

President Reagan outmaneuvered the military/security complex,  and he and Gorbachev ended the Cold War.

The George H.W. Bush administration gave assurances to Gorbachev that if the Soviet Union permitted the reunification of Germany, the US would neither incorporate the former Warsaw Pact into NATO nor move NATO one inch to the East.

The Clinton regime reneged on the word of the US Government and moved NATO to Russia’s borders.

Subsequent US regimes—George W. Bush, Obama, Trump—have pulled out of the remaining treaties and agreements and, thereby, elevated the tensions between the nuclear superpowers to the pre-Kennedy era.

The danger of this development is not appreciated.  Nuclear warning systems of incoming ICBMs are notorious for false warnings.  During the Cold War both sides received false alarms of incoming attacks, but neither the Amerians nor the Soviets ever pushed the button in response to the warnings.

Why?  The reason is that both sides understood that they were working to reduce tensions and to build trust.  Both sides understood that in this atmosphere the alarms had to be false.

Today the situation is very different.  Russia and its leadership have been demonized and excoriated by Western politicians and media.  Americans and their vassals in Europe have been taught to hate and fear Russians.  The Russian government has experienced false accusations never before experienced in diplomatic affairs.  Neither side can possibly trust the other.  Add to this the fact that response times are now in the minutes, and you should be able to comprehend that the world can be blown up due to nothing more than a false alarm.

For the ideological neoconservatives and the greed-ridden corrupt American military/security complex to put life on Earth under this kind of risk indicates that neither neoconservatives nor armaments industries are capable of subordining their self-interests to life itself.

Normally, the restrained, non-confrontational responses of Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to American insults and provocative actions would be admirable.  But with the US playing the role of the bully, passive Russian responses to bullying encourage more bullying.  As kids of my generation learned, when confronted with a bully you immediately stand up to him.  Otherwise, he sees you as lacking self-respect and resolve and ups the bullying. The only way to avoid the fight is to stand up to him immediately.

The Russian government’s failure to stand up to Washington’s bullying guarantees more bullying.  Sooner or later the bullying will cross a line, and Russia will have to fight.

A less passive Russian government could do a lot for peace.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Harold Escalona/shutterstock And President Trump By Drop of Light/Shutterstock

Earlier we have suggested that Boris Johnson could easily quench the chaotic mess in British Parliament where for three years now we observe politicking and positioning for career advancement, and no consideration whatsoever about assisting the Government in its job: on the contrary, visible to everyone is the obsession by most MPs with opposing whatever move which would seem to bring BREXIT closer to the finale.

Previously our proposal was along the lines of informing Parliament that there are two illegalities that they should give strong consideration to /1,2/ before continuing with their obstructive behavior:

1. The EU is an illegitimate construction, and on top of that Gordon Brown’s signature on the Treaty of Lisbon is made outside the sovereign’s sanction – David Cameron’s suggestion for the 2016 referendum is a clear albeit implicit admission to awareness of this.

2. British Judiciary’s decision to grant a say on BREXIT to Parliament after The British People spoke can not be considered wise nor rightful nor fair nor just (it would have been called “unconstitutional” as well, if UK had a constitution as a single document) – no court should grant to a servant the right to control its master, and a careful slash experienced judge should anticipate the theoretical possibility of effective opposition to the boss’ decree.

Those arguments not having been used, we arrive at a critical point today whereby the agony could be extended further for no benefit to the British People. At the same time the voices in Parliament calling for another referendum have multiplied, and in our opinion exactly that could help resolve the crisis immediately.

If I were in the shoes of the British PM, I would make an urgent request, “cito,” to the High Court to immediately strike its earlier decision to grant Parliament a say on BREXIT, admitting its erroneous judgment. The request should rely on a single argument: various MPs have called for “new referendum” not realizing that this is expression of contempt vis-à-vis the sovereign’s decision in 2016. And if the court refuses to correct itself, it could in turn be accused of holding the sovereign in contempt. I do not think that a honest judge will omit the chance to restore justice and avoid blame in the future…

*

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.

Sources

https://www.academia.edu/40162717/The_EU_is_an_illegitimate_entity_short_term_consequences_and_mid_to_long_term_outlook

https://www.academia.edu/31096226/The_British_judiciary_is_totally_confused_it_allows_the_Servant_to_deliberate_after_the_Master_has_closed_the_case_and_gone_home

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on For Expedient Execution of Brexit Embattled British PM Has One Last Independent Legal Move Left
  • Tags: ,

Pesticides Trigger Cancer?

October 23rd, 2019 by GMWatch

A new review of carcinogenicity assessments of pesticide active ingredients shows 40 percent were not carried out in compliance with existing European guidelines, leading to possible continued exposure of farmers and consumers to cancer-causing pesticides.[1] In 30 percent of the cases, significant details were missing from the dossiers, raising uncertainties about how European authorities came to the conclusion they did.

The review, “Chronically underrated – A review of the EU carcinogenic hazard assessment of 10 pesticides”, released today by Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Germany and the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), analysed the carcinogenicity sections of the draft Renewal Assessments Reports (RARs) of ten pesticides.[2] The review, performed by senior toxicologist Dr Peter Clausing, focused on how the sections describing carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice in the EU assessment documents complied with the applicable guidelines and guidance documents of the EU and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Susan Haffmans, senior advisor on pesticides at PAN Germany, said,

“After discovering a considerable number of flaws in the carcinogenicity assessment of glyphosate, it was the logical next step to investigate whether similar problems occurred with other pesticides. Analysing these ten RARs has made it clear that at least three of the pesticides should have been classified as ‘presumed’ human carcinogens, rather than just ‘suspected’ human carcinogens.”

The carcinogenicity classification triggers the regulatory fate of a pesticide active ingredient. Pesticides classified as “suspected” human carcinogens can be marketed, while those classified as “presumed” human carcinogens cannot.[3]

The new review shows that:

  • For three pesticides, the outcome of Dr Clausing’s review was similar to that of the European authorities: chlorothalonil, diuron, forchlorfenuron;
  • For three pesticides, the outcome of Dr Clausing’s review differed from that of the European authorities and concluded that the classification should be upgraded: folpet, pirimicarb, and thiacloprid;
  • For one pesticide, Dr Clausing’s review found that severe data gap should have been identified by the European authorities and a flawed decisive carcinogenicity should not have been accepted: phosmet;
  • For three pesticides, Dr Clausing’s review found that reports were not sufficiently informed to allow any conclusive external review: captan, chlorpropham, and dimoxystrobin.

Abuse of historical control data

The new review found – in line with the long-standing concerns of GMWatch – that the most frequent flaw in carcinogenicity assessments was the abuse of historical control data. Historical control data are drawn from control animals in experiments other than the one under examination, carried out at different times and in different conditions. Due to the large number of variables introduced by these differing conditions, the data obtained from historical controls cover a very broad range of values.

In the abuse of such data identified by the new review, this broad range of values was wrongly used to state that any cancers seen in the animals exposed to the pesticide fall within this range and thus do not represent a real carcinogenic effect of the pesticide.

According to good scientific practice and official guidance set by the OECD for regulators to follow, the most valid control group is the one within the experiment under examination – and historical control data should not be used to dismiss tumours found in treatment (exposed) groups of animals. An exception can be made in certain highly restricted circumstances, but these hardly ever apply in such cases of invalid dismissals.

Specifically, the new review found that historical control data were wrongly used by industry and regulators to dismiss study results for dimoxystrobin, folpet, phosmet and pirimicarb.

Rise of cancer

Genon K. Jensen, Executive Director of the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) commented,

“The current rise of non-communicable diseases including cancer means that Europe cannot afford the health price of flawed pesticides classifications. Committing to a rigorous implementation of European laws should be a founding block of reaching Europe’s zero-pollution objective to prevent diseases and protect people, starting with farmers, from substances toxic to their health.”

PAN Germany and HEAL called on the European Commission President-elect Ursula von der Leyen to pay particular attention to a more rigorous application of existing pesticide legislation and guidance documents. In her recent confirmation hearing at the European Parliament, the Commissioner-designate for health Stella Kyriakides already agreed Europe needs to reduce dependency on pesticides and stimulate the take-up of low-risk and non-chemical alternatives.[4]

*

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] Chronically Underrated, Peter Clausing, October 2019.

[2] The ten pesticides reviewed included Captan, Chlorotalonil, Chlorpropham, Dimoxystrobin, Diuron, Folpet, Forchlorfenuron, Phosmet, Pirimicarb and Thiacloprid.

[3] Article 3.6.3 of regulation 1107/2009 states: “An active substance, safener or synergist shall only be approved, if, on the basis of assessment of carcinogenicity testing carried out in accordance with the data requirements for the active substances, safener or synergist and other available data and information, including a review of the scientific literature, reviewed by the Authority, it is not or has not to be classified, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, as carcinogen category 1A or 1B…”

[4] Answers to the European Parliament questionnaire to the Commissioner-designate for health Stella Kyriakides.

Featured image is from GMWatch

Last month, on the 80th anniversary of the start of World War II, the European Parliament voted on a resolution entitled “On the Importance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europe.” The adopted document:

“…Stresses that the Second World War, the most devastating war in Europe’s history, was started as an immediate result of the notorious Nazi-Soviet Treaty on Non-Aggression of 23 August 1939, also known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and its secret protocols, whereby two totalitarian regimes that shared the goal of world conquest divided Europe into two zones of influence; Recalls that the Nazi and communist regimes carried out mass murders, genocide and deportations and caused a loss of life and freedom in the 20th century on a scale unseen in human history, and recalls the horrific crime of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi regime; condemns in the strongest terms the acts of aggression, crimes against humanity and mass human rights violations perpetrated by the Nazi, communist and other totalitarian regimes.”

For 75 years, we have been told that the war started on September 1st, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, even though the Pacific Theater between Japan and China began two years earlier. Now we are to understand that it actually began eight days prior when the German foreign minister visited Moscow. Take no notice of the inherent doublespeak in the premise that a war could be the consequence of a peace agreement, which without any evidence provided is said to have contained “secret protocols”, not provisions. You see, unlike the other pacts signed between European countries and Nazi Germany — such as the Munich Betrayal of 1938 with France and Great Britain to which the Soviets were uninvited while Austria and Czechoslovakia were gifted to Hitler for the courtesy of attacking Moscow — Molotov-Ribbentrop was really a confidential agreement between Hitler and Stalin to conquer Europe and divide it between them.

This is pure mythology. The fact of the matter is that neither the Soviets or even Germany drew the dividing line in Poland in 1939, because it was a reinstatement of the border acknowledged by the League of Nations and Poland itself as put forward by the British following WWI. Even Winston Churchill during his first wartime radio broadcast later that year admitted:

“Russia has pursued a cold policy of self-interest. We could have wished that the Russian Armies should be standing on their present line as the friends and allies of Poland, instead of as invaders. But that the Russian Armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace.”

Yet according to the EU, even though Moscow was the last country to agree to a peace deal with Hitler, it was all part of a hidden plot between them. In that case, why then did Germany choose to invade the USSR in 1941? The EU leaves this question unanswered. Forget about its racial policies of enslaving slavs or that Hitler openly declared in Mein Kampf that Germany needed to conquer the East to secure the Lebensraum. Nevermind that in the Spring of 1941, less than two months before Operation Barbarossa, Stalin gave a speech to the Kremlin at a state banquet for recent graduates of the Frunze Military Academy to give warning of an imminent attack:

“War with Germany is inevitable. If comrade Molotov can manage to postpone the war for two or three months through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that will be our good fortune, but you yourselves must go off and take measures to raise the combat readiness of our forces.”

The EU has redacted that the entire reason for the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact in August 1939 had been to buy time for the Red Army’s attrition warfare strategy to adequately prepare its armaments against a future invasion by the Wehrmacht.

The Soviet leadership well understood that Germany would eventually renege on the agreement, considering that in 1936 it had signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan and Italy directed at the Communist International. For six years, the USSR was thwarted in its attempts to forge an equivalent anti-fascist coalition and to collectively defend Czechoslovakia by the British and the French, whose ruling classes were too busy courting and doing business with Germany. It had been the Soviets alone who defended the Spanish Republic from Franco in the final rehearsal before the worldwide conflict and only when all other recourses had run out did they finally agree to a deal with the Hitlerites.

Joachim von Ribbentrop signing the Anti-Comintern Pact.

Just a week prior to the signing of the neutrality treaty, Stalin gave a secretspeech to the Politburo where he explained:

“The question of war or peace has entered a critical phase for us. If we conclude a mutual assistance treaty with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off of Poland and seek a modus vivendi with the Western Powers. War would thus be prevented but future events could take a serious turn for the USSR. If we accept Germany’s proposal to conclude with it a non-aggression pact, Germany will then attack Poland and Europe will be thrown into serious acts of unrest and disorder. Under these circumstances we will have many chances of remaining out of the conflict while being able to hope for our own timely entrance into war.”

This latest resolution is part of a long pattern of misrepresentation of WWII by the Anglo-Saxon empire, but is perhaps its most egregious falsification that truly desecrates the graves of the 27 million Soviet citizens who were 80% of the total Allied death toll. Earlier this year, for the commemoration on the 75th anniversary of the Normandy landings, Russia and its head of state were excluded from the events in Portsmouth, England. As if the ongoing absence of Western European leaders from the May 9th Victory Day ceremonies held annually in Russia weren’t insulting enough, while it’s true that the Eastern Front was not involved in Operation Overlord, Russian President Vladimir Putin had previously been in attendance at the 70th anniversary D-Day events in 2014. No doubt the increase in geopolitical tensions between the West and Moscow in the years since has given the EU license to write out Russia’s role in the Allied victory entirely with little public disapproval, though many of the families of those who volunteered in the International Brigades were rightly insulted by this tampering of history and voiced their objection.

The EU motion‘s real purpose is to fabricate the war’s history by giving credit to the United States for the liberation of Europe while absolving the Western democracies that opened the door for the rise of fascism and tried to use Germany to annihilate the USSR. History itself should always be open to debate and subject to study and revision, but the Atlanticists have made this formal change without any evidence to support it and entirely for political purposes. Like the founding of the EU project itself, the declared aim of the proposal is supposedly to prevent future atrocities from taking place, even though the superstate was designed by former Nazis like Walter Hallstein, the first President of the European Commission, who was a German lawyer in several Nazi Party law organizations and fought for the Wehrmacht in France until his capture as a POW after the invasion of Normandy.

Rather than preventing future crimes, the EU has committed one itself by deceptively modifying the historical record of communism to be parallel with that of the Third Reich. Even further, that they were two sides of the same coin of ‘totalitarianism’ and that for all the barbarity committed during the war, the Soviets were equally culpable — or judging by the amount of times the text cites the USSR versus Germany, even more so. It remains unclear whether we are now to completely disregard the previous conclusions reached by the military tribunals held by the Allies under international law at Nuremberg of which all 12 war criminals sentenced to death in 1946 were German, not Soviet. The document doesn’t even attempt to hide its politicized direction at the current government in Moscow, stating that:

“Russia remains the greatest victim of communist totalitarianism and that its development into a democratic state will be impeded as long as the government, the political elite and political propaganda continue to whitewash communist crimes and glorify the Soviet totalitarian regime.”

This accusation does not stand up to critical observation, as Russia has since erected official memorials to those executed and politically persecuted during the so-called ‘Great Terror.’ However, the stark difference between the EU resolution and the Wall of Grief in Moscow is that the latter is based on evidence from the Soviet archives. It has become a widespread and ridiculous belief in the West that Stalin somehow killed as much as five times as many people as Hitler, an absurdity not reflected in the now disclosed and once highly secretive Soviet archives, which after two decades of examination show that over a period of three decades from the early 1920s to his death in 1953, the total recorded number of Soviet citizens executed by the state was slightly less than 800,000. While that is certainly a horrid number, how does it even begin to compare to an industrial scale extermination based on the race theory?

How can anyone believe Stalin killed tens of millions of people when even the most simple analysis of a population demographics chart shows that the Soviet population rate consistently increased each decade with the only reduction taking place during WWII as a result of their casualties? Socialists, who perhaps more than any other political tendency seem to suffer from autophobia, should defend their own history from such falsification. It is only when flaws occur under communist states that the entire political and economic system is to be denounced outright, but never capitalism which for five centuries has colonized half the world while enslaving and killing entire nations.

Most of the wildly exaggerated death figures stem from falsities written in The Black Book of Communism by a group of right-wing French academics in 1997,who did not conceal their apologism for the Nazi collaborationist self-proclaimed Russian Liberation Army (ROA) commanded by Gen. Andrey Vlasov who defected to Germany during the war:

“A singular fate was reserved for the Vlasovtsy, the Soviet soldiers who had fought under the Soviet general Andrei Vlasov. Vlasov was the commander of the Second Army who had been taken prisoner by the Germans in July 1942. On the basis of his anti-Stalinist convictions, General Vlasov agreed to collaborate with the Nazis to free his country from the tyranny of the Bolsheviks.”

The other highly cited work by the West for its overestimated portrayal of Soviet repression is the equally unreliable The Gulag Archipelago volumes by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who as historian Ludo Martens noted also attempted to provide justification for Vlasov’s treason in his best-selling 1973 work:

“And so it was that Vlasov’s Second Shock Army perished, literally recapitulating the fate of Samsonov’s Russian Second Army in World War I, having been just as insanely thrown into encirclement. Now this, of course, was treason to the Motherland! This, of course, was vicious, self-obsessed betrayal! But it was Stalin’s. Treason does not necessarily involve selling out for money. It can include ignorance and carelessness in the preparations for war, confusion and cowardice at its very start, the meaningless sacrifice of armies and corps solely for the sake of saving one’s own marshal’s uniform. Indeed, what more bitter treason is there on the part of a Supreme Commander in Chief?”

Image on the right: Alexander Solzhenitsyn

The truth is located in the Soviet archives which indicate that Stalin’s successor, the Ukrainian-born Nikita Khrushchev, was as intent on absolving the entirety of the Soviet leadership as himself from any culpability in the purges of the 1930s so that blame for its excesses were placed squarely on his predecessor. In succession, Western historians like the British Foreign Office propagandist Robert Conquest followed his example and this account quickly became official doctrine. In hindsight, Khrushchev’s infamous 1956 secret speech, “On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences”, was what planted the seeds of self-doubt in the Soviet system that would eventually lead to its undoing decades later. To the contrary, what the historical records show is most of those who were purged in that period were not necessarily perceived as political threats to Stalin himself, but were targeted because of an overall systemic paranoia held by the entire Soviet government regarding internal sabotage and counter-revolutionary activity by a real fifth column getting inspiration from a certain traitorous former Bolshevik in exile and a potential invasion originating from outside the country.

Many forget that during the Russian Civil War, exactly such a scenario had occurred when the Allies of World War I, including the United States, collectively intervened on the side of the Whites only to be driven out by the Red Army, making such fearful instincts not entirely unreasonable. Not to mention, the rapid industrialization of the entire nation in a single decade while in preparation for the growing threat of war with Germany. When Hitler began his Masterplan for the East, their worst fears came to fruition when tens of thousands of Banderite turncoats enlisted in the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) in Ukraine to collaborate with the German occupiers in the slaughter of their fellow countrymen and after the war ended, continued their treasonous struggle during the 1950s with assistance from the CIA. So the saying goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you…

As for the accusation of “whitewashing”, it is true that recent polls indicate that 70% of Russians today hold a favorable view of Stalin — but just as many are nostalgic for communism itself and regret the breakup of the USSR on the basis that the socialist system ‘took care of ordinary people.’ Putin did once remark that despite Stalin’s legacy of repression, he doubted that the native Georgian statesman would have been willing to drop two atomic bombs on Japan like the United States, an atrocity that killed 225,000 innocent civilians (most of them instantly) which is more than a quarter of those capitally punished during the entire Stalin era. Was he wrong to say so? A significant amount of deaths also occurred in the Soviet-wide famines of the 1930s, but there is significantly more evidence to suggest that the British deliberately starved 3 million Bengalis to death then there is to support the Holodomor fraud concocted by the Ukrainian nationalist diaspora. If the West wants to talk about deliberate starvation, it should take a look at what the U.S. did with its economic sanctions in the 1990s killing half a million Iraqi children which former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright famously described as “worth it.”

This isn’t the first time the Anglosphere has historically omitted the Soviet role in the Allied victory or conflated the USSR with the Third Reich. On previous occasions the European Parliament has issued resolutions declaring August 23rd “a European day of remembrance of the victims of the Nazi-Soviet alliance.” This is all an attempt by the Atlanticists to depict communism as somehow worse than fascism while disconnecting the Nazis from the lineage of European settler colonialism whose racism was its source of inspiration. Why is that which befell the Jews not considered an extension of what was already done to the Herero-Nama tribes for which Namibia is now suing Germany a century later?

The neoliberal political establishment in Europe and its anti-EU populist opponents are fond of appearing dead-set against one another, but it seems they share the same fairytale beliefs about WWII that the Nazis and Soviets were equivalent evils as inscribed in this latest decree. It has always been ironic that the liberal billionaire “philanthropist” and currency manipulator George Soros is so derided by right-wing populists when it was his Open Society Institute NGOs which engineered the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. Soros may be averse to the anti-immigrant brand of right-wing nationalism currently on the rise in Western Europe, but as a fanatical Russophobe he is willing to make strange bedfellows with ultra-nationalists in Kiev to undermine Moscow’s sphere of influence and that includes revising WWII history to a version favored by the Banderites which took power during the pro-EU 2014 coup d’etat in Ukraine.

The Nazi junta regime in Kiev has since instituted Russophobic ‘de-communization’ laws erasing the remaining traces of Ukraine’s Soviet past while replacing them with memorials to their wartime foes. A recentexample was the city of Vinnitsa renaming a street that paid tribute to the Soviet spy and war hero Richard Sorge to that after Omelyan Hrabetsk, a commander of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army which cooperated with Germany during the war and killed thousands of Poles and Jews. Sorge posed as a German journalist in Tokyo and famously provided timely intelligence to Moscow that Japan did not plan to attack the USSR, allowing Stalin to transfer essential reinforcements to the Battle of Moscow which proved to be a major turning point in the war. He was executed by the Japanese in 1944 and posthumously awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union.

Now the EU is ‘decommunizing’ history in its own legislation. Meanwhile, Soros’s influence over the EU cannot be overstated as his lobbying power has enabled him to provide direct council to its executive branch more than any official head of state in the political and economic union. The hedge fund tycoon made a fortune as an investor during Russia’s mass privatization in the 1990s after enlisting Jeffrey Sachs and the IMF to apply ‘shock therapy’ to its economy as it did in Poland and his native Hungary. Under Putin, however, Soros’s NGOs have since been barred from Russia. Perhaps the reason he can so cynically provide support to fascist elements in Ukraine to undercut Moscow is that he did so personally in his upbringing in Hungary.

Born Gyorgy Schwartz, during WWII he was a teenager from an affluent Jewish family which survived the Axis occupation by using their wealth to bribe a government official from the collaborationist Arrow Cross government who provided the Soros’s forged documents identifying them as Christians, while the adolescent by his own admission delivered deportation notices to other Jews. A short time later, the young Soros impersonated the adopted gentile son of an official who inventoried the stolen valuables and property from Jewish estates and even accompanied him during his work. One would assume as a Jew he would have been haunted by these experiences, but Soros has repeatedly stated he has no regrets and even disturbingly compared it to his future work as an investor.

Like Soros, the EU has no ideology except an unquenchable thirst for greed and is fond of Nazis when they are the kind that hate Russia. For its own political interests, it is willing to dangerously foster a version of history invented by a rebranded far right where the quislings who collaborated with the Axis powers elude guilt and the Soviets who courageously defeated them are maliciously slandered. Fascism was never fully eradicated only because the West continued to nurture it during the Cold War and even now that capitalism has been reinstated in Eurasia, it continues to do so to undermine a resurgent Moscow on the world stage.

As the world appears increasingly on the brink of WWIII, one is reminded of the expression by Karl Marx who famously stated that “history repeats itself…first as tragedy, then as farce” in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, when comparing Napoleon Bonaparte’s seizure of power in the French Revolution with the coup by his nephew half a century later which brought an end to the French Revolution. Equally fitting is the humorous line by the legendary writer and noted anti-imperialist Mark Twain who reputedly said, “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” Both are applicable to the unquestionable tragedy of WWII and the farcical mockery of its history by the EU whose policies continue to make another global conflict that much more likely.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

China’s Move towards Digital Cryptocurrency

October 23rd, 2019 by Paul Antonopoulos

The participants of last week’s “Block Chain Life” forum held in Moscow concluded that digital cryptocurrency and blockchain technology is an inevitable reality of the future that must be developed and harnessed. The event held on October 16-17 had over 4,800 participants, more than half of them Chinese and Russian.

It is not surprising considering China is becoming a center for digital cryptocurrency, especially when considering that over 80% of bitcoin mining activities occur in China. This of course was done with close Russian assistance who provided the necessary programming skills. However, it was a long time in the making as China initially expressed scepticism towards cryptocurrencies and blockchains before moving towards endorsement and support. National digital cryptocurrencies have the potential to become competitors with the traditionally decentralized digital cryptocurrencies and conventional payment method.

As the price of digital cryptocurrencies is very volatile and has even recently declined, China announced in 2017 that any digital cryptocurrency transaction, including the initial token offer (ICO), is illegal, with even reports that the government intends to ban mining. Beijing now appears to have a different outlook towards cryptocurrencies, especially as a vehicle to continue to the de-Dollarization of their economy.

Xu Haoyang, the founder of China’s largest mining pool, ViaBTC, explained that in 2017, China ordered mining companies to dismantle their equipment as at the time they understood that the situation was unstable. This did not mean that they cannot operate there, and rather, miners just returned to Sichuan and Yunnan provinces again to continue their activities shortly after. There is no news recently that digital cryptocurrency mining is still be banned and the difference now is that the Chinese government is now beginning to understand what digital cryptocurrencies are, and they even intend to issue its own digital coins, the “renminbi.” Haoyang believes that China will not ban digital mining and rather that if you consume too much electricity, access to electricity resources may be subject to certain restrictions.

China’s attitude towards digital cryptocurrency has changed, especially with Wang Xin, director of the Central Bank Research Bureau, saying this summer that the State Council of China has approved plans to develop the digital renminbi. Mu Changchun, director of the Digital Currency Institute of the People’s Bank of China, later said that the digital renminbi is actually ready for distribution. The digital renminbi will replace cash in circulation and the payment system can process up to 300,000 transactions per second.

After Facebook announced the establishment of the international digital cryptocurrency Libra, China immediately stepped up its efforts to issue its own digital cryptocurrency. China’s Global Times published an article entitled “China cannot be absent from the era of global digital currency competition” suggesting that China cannot ignore the inevitable rise of digital currency. The Chinese government seems to conclude that digital cryptocurrency has become an objective phenomenon.

Although digital currency was initially decentralized and dominated by companies like Bitcoin, large institutions and states are starting to issue their own digital cryptocurrencies. This also comes as the U.S., as revealed by Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, said that they are far from issuing digital currency because the technology is still in its infancy, but it is still a stated goal.

But China’s current idea has been decided. Mu Changchun, a Deputy Director at the People’s Bank of China, said that unlike the Libra crypto, a digital cryptocurrency that will be issued by private companies, the digital renminbi will have all the marks of China’s national sovereign currency. Because there is always a risk of a private company going bankrupt which can threaten the existence of the Libra, then the digital renminbi must be much more reliable. There is reason to believe that China will use the short pauses issued by Libra to launch its digital cryptocurrency.

Rather, it can be suggested that the move to digital currencies is a natural course for China to take to de-Dollarize their economies. Although only a catastrophic market change will end the Dollar’s hegemony over the global economy in the short term, China is now playing the long game to achieve 100% financial sovereignty. China has added almost 100 tonnes of gold to its reserves over the last ten months, an increase of nearly 5.4 tonnes of gold to China’s holdings — bringing the total additions since December to about 96 tonnes, according to the Financial Times. This includes efforts to trade in local currencies and selling its holdings in U.S. bonds.

Although it is unlikely that these efforts will topple the Dollar as the de facto currency of the world anytime soon, the long-term effects of these moves by China cannot be overlooked. Whether the Chinese Yuan will replace the Dollar remains to be seen, it is likely that in the medium-term we will begin to see a much more equitable balance in the financial markets and sectors between the Great Powers. With China pushing ahead with cryptocurrencies, it is not known yet how Washington will respond to this latest move by Beijing to liberate itself from the Dollar hegemony. There is definitely every possibility that U.S. President Donald Trump will want to consider options on how to counter Beijing’s move as a wider part of his trade war against 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.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

On Tuesday, Johnson won one Brexit vote, lost another, Britain’s status of leaving the EU uncertain.

By a 329 – 299 majority, MPs approved legislation, supporting Brexit in principle, short of final approval.

Its status is “paused (in) limbo” because MPs rejected Johnson’s fast-track demand for adopting the measure by a 322 – 308 margin.

On Tuesday, he and Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn met, his spokesman saying:

“Jeremy Corbyn reiterated Labor’s offer to the prime minister to agree (on) a reasonable timetable to debate, scrutinize, and amend the withdrawal agreement bill, and restated that Labor will support a general election when the threat of a no-deal crash-out is off the table.”

Johnson said if Brussels agrees to a three-month delay, requested in a letter he sent the bloc unsigned late Saturday as mandated, he’ll ask MPs to support a snap election.

Brussels is currently deciding on whether to grant Britain another extension until January 31.

European Council President Donald Tusk said he’ll recommend it. Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage said the UK won’t leave the EU on October 31, Johnson’s demand.

Since majority Brits voted by national referendum to leave the EU in June 2016, majority MPs approved any Brexit legislation Tuesday for the first time.

Johnson’s loss of control over the timetable gives opposition MPs time to pick apart what he and Brussels agreed on, perhaps changing it enough for a later vote to defeat it.

It’s status remains very much uncertain. Corbyn called Johnson the “author of his own misfortune,” adding:

“Tonight the House (of Commons) refused to be bounced into debating a hugely significant bill with barely any notice.”

“Work with us to agree a reasonable timetable, and I suspect this House will vote to debate this bill. That would be the sensible way forward.”

Johnson “express(ed) disappointment that the House has voted for delay rather than a timetable that would have guaranteed the UK could leave on 31 October with a deal,” adding:

“The EU must now make up their mind over how to answer parliament’s request for a delay…Until they have reached a decision, we will pause this legislation. Let me be clear, our policy remains that we should not delay.”

The so-called “Withdrawal Agreement Bill (WAB)” is around 115 pages, MPs needing time to examine, debate, and change what’s disagreed with by majority vote.

Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) MP Sammy Wilson said his party rejects Johnson’s (no-deal) deal as it proposed “a border in the Irish Sea,” adding:

“The prime minister has lost my respect. Instead of owning his decision to capitulate on Northern Ireland to get his deal through in a hurry, he is implying that none of us can read the detail.”

An EU extension is uncertain, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, saying “we consider that there is no justification for a new extension.” It requires approval by all other 27 EU member-states.

While Johnson’s no-Brexit/Brexit deal is alive, its fate remains uncertain following Tuesday’s parliamentary votes.

As things now stand, it’s highly unlikely that Britain will leave the EU in one form or other on October 31 as Johnson demanded.

*

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 October 22, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin reached an agreement to settle the situation in northeastern Syria.

According to the agreement, Turkey’s Operation ‘Peace Spring’ will continue in a limited area between Tell Abyad and Ras al-Ayn with a depth of 32km. Starting from 12:00 October 23, units of the Russian Military Police and the Syrian Army will be deployed along the rest of the Turkish border to the east of the Euphrates.

Syria and Russia should facilitate the removal of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and their weapons from to the depth of 30km from the Turkish-Syrian border. After this, joint Russian-Turkish patrols will start to the east and the west of the area of Operation Peace Spring.

Watch the video here.

A joint monitoring and verification mechanism to oversee these processes will be established.

Both sides reiterated their commitment to the territorial integrity of Syria and protection of the national security of Turkey, and vowed to combat terrorism in all forms and disrupt separatist agendas in the Syrian territory.

Turkey and Russia emphasized the importance of the 1998 Adana accord, a security pact between Syria and Turkey. Among other things, it allows Turkish to carry out cross-border operations against terrorists in Syria, while Damascus promises not to harbor members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party.

Other points of the agreement include the need to facilitate return of refugees to Syria and find a long-standing political solution of the conflict in Syria.

On October 22, Syrian government forces completed deployment along the Hasakah-Aleppo highway. On the same day, President Bashar al-Assad inspected frontlines in southern Idlib. During the visit, he called Turkish President Erdogan a “thief” stealing Syrian land. Nevertheless, such statements are typical for the Damascus government, when it comments on Turkish military actions in Syria.

Developments on the ground and actions of the Syrian government demonstrate that Damascus supports the settlement of the situation in northeastern Syria through cooperation with Turkey.

*

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

We call upon Global Research readers to support South Front in its endeavors.

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

Where Are the Influentials Who Find Trump Despicable?

October 23rd, 2019 by Ralph Nader

The British political philosopher, John Stuart Mill, was a man of many pithy phrases. Possibly his most widely quoted assertion is that “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”

This quote fits the Trump age perfectly. Where are you, Barack Obama? Obama is still polling higher than any other politician, active or retired. Instead of speaking out, he is making movies, maybe writing another book, and otherwise really enjoying himself.

Where are you Condoleezza Rice? She encouraged Rex Tillerson to be Trump’s Secretary of State, but Tillerson was cast aside in 2018 by a sneering Trump, who pronounced him “dumb as a rock.” Condoleezza is collecting honors and large speech fees and teaching at Stanford University (keep in mind that Rice was on the inside during the criminal Bush/Cheney war in Iraq, which she supported and defended).

Where are you General Colin Powell? Powell is another former disgusted high official still high in the polls. He thinks he is hated by the White House. He needs to speak up, as his formidable former Chief of Staff, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, has repeatedly done.

The list could go on and on. The former high officials or elected politicians, now retired, who do want to speak up, complain that they can’t get any media attention. If that is true, they should organize into a collective force, with some staff, to help push for media attention. I’m sure they will be able to attract some enlightened large donors.

Not all former officials are AWOL. Some former officials write prominent op-eds in newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post. Some former Obama-era public servants started a podcast called Pod Save America. These efforts are, sadly, not enough to compete with Trump’s onslaught.

It is imperative that these political figures speak out, stand tall, and push back against Trump’s worsening outrages. Trump’s brazen lies obscure his administration’s secrecy and cover-ups; for his abysmal betrayals of workers, patients, consumers, communities; and for Trump’s false pledges that he would help create a safe, healthy environment. Remember his nonsensical rhetoric about clean air, clean water, and beautiful, clean coal.

He still thinks evidence about climate disruption is a “Chinese hoax.”

In his mass rallies – that screen out critical citizens – Trump knowingly lies with reckless abandon. For example, at his recent Dallas rally, Trump said that he has brought the “largest decline in drug prices in over 51 years.” Actually, drug prices are soaring as deprived patients, insurance company executives, and Medicare officials know so well. So what does Trump add? He tells his believers that the reason they don’t know about lower drug prices is that the media, which he calls “crooked,” “corrupt,” and “fake,” isn’t telling Americans the truth.

That Trump has lied over ten thousand times to the American people is itself, given their many ramifications, a “violation of the public trust,” which Alexander Hamilton described as an impeachable offense.  Trump lies more in a month than other presidents do during their entire four year term.

Many of the influential people who are silent about Trump’s abuses have no economic worries. They are sufficiently or extravagantly well-off. They have no concerns over the need for future jobs, being in their sixties or seventies. Retired lawyers who see Trump trampling on our constitutional and legal frameworks should be particularly incensed.

If some billionaire would fund the creation of a Secretariat to promote the views of Trump’s critics, a small experienced staff and these influential people together could create a whole that is much greater than the sum of its parts.

Former lawmakers and executive officials, when acting together and assisted by a support staff, can multiply their efforts. Former Senators Lowell Wiecker and Gary Hart; former EPA chiefs, such as William Ruckelshaus; and former governors of New Jersey, Thomas Keane and Christine Todd Whitman are all critical of Trump’s misbehavior. Trump ravages people and lies about a variety of serious matters without rebuttal. As we know from history, an unchallenged lie, repeated over and over again begins to sink in. It is imperative that accomplished people who challenge Trump’s lies gain public credibility. Just consider the “nicknames” Trump assigns to his adversaries, without any nicknames being successfully applied to him. “Crooked Donald,” “Decadent Donald,” “Draft-dodging Donald,” “Disgraceful Donald,” “Lying Donald,” and so forth. He has used such monikers, and worse, to slander opponents and these insults have been repeated by the mass media. Trump’s victims are not afforded a chance to respond to his invectives.

A few media critics, notably Margaret Sullivan from The Washington Post, have chided their editors for allowing such defamatory Trumpian soliloquies. To avoid being his bullhorn, Sullivan argues, the media should not report such abuses. At a minimum, those who are attacked by Trump should be offered the chance to respond. Rebutting bullies is the first step in balancing the public stage. This would be particularly effective for a nasty, thin-skinned bully like Donald Trump.

*

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

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

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 CourseHow the Rats Re-Formed the Congress, Breaking Through Power: It’s easier than we think, and Animal Envy: A Fable

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Where Are the Influentials Who Find Trump Despicable?
  • Tags:

What else can we call it when a publisher does what the New York Times did when it published the Pentagon Papers and was ruled by the Supreme Court in 1971 (New York Times Co. v. United States) to have been protected by the First Amendment.

But the publisher this time has been kept for years in various types of imprisonment without trial, and by now has been so destroyed that, in this, his first court appearance to defend himself, he seems to have been drugged, but for whatever reason “When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over several seconds to recall both.” “It was a real struggle for him to articulate the words and focus his train of thought.” The event occurred on October 21st.

Here (with boldface being used by me only to highlight especially the names of the principal persons at the hearing) are more highlights from the account that was provided on October 22nd by the whistleblowing former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, under the headline “Assange in Court”:

“Having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that yesterday changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.”

“Everybody in that court yesterday saw that one of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes. To see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known, reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable. Yet the agents of the state, particularly the callous magistrate Vanessa Baraitser, were not just prepared but eager to be a part of this bloodsport.”

“The charge against Julian is very specific: conspiring with Chelsea Manning to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables.”

“The key points at issue were that Julian’s defence was requesting more time to prepare their evidence; and arguing that political offences were specifically excluded from the extradition treaty. There should, they argued, therefore be a preliminary hearing to determine whether the extradition treaty applied at all. The reasons given by Assange’s defence team for more time to prepare were both compelling and startling.”

“The evidence to the Spanish court also included a CIA plot to kidnap Assange, which went to the US authorities’ attitude to lawfulness in his case and the treatment he might expect in the United States. Julian’s team explained that the Spanish legal process was happening now and the evidence from it would be extremely important, but it might not be finished and thus the evidence not fully validated and available in time for the current proposed timetable for the Assange extradition hearings. For the prosecution, James Lewis QC [Queen’s Counsel] stated that the government strongly opposed any delay being given for the defence to prepare.”

“There were five representatives of the US government present.”

“Lewis actually told the judge he was ‘taking instructions from those behind’.”

“The US government was dictating its instructions to Lewis, who was relaying those instructions to Baraitser, who was ruling them as her legal decision.”

“Baraitser then capped it all by saying the February hearing will be held, not at the comparatively open and accessible Westminster Magistrates Court where we were, but at Belmarsh Magistrates Court, the grim high security facility used for preliminary legal processing of terrorists, attached to the maximum security prison where Assange is being held. There are only six seats for the public in even the largest court at Belmarsh, and the object is plainly to evade public scrutiny.”

“Assange’s defence team objected strenuously to the move to Belmarsh, in particular on the grounds that there are no conference rooms available there to consult their client.”

“Finally, Baraitser turned to Julian and ordered him to stand, and asked him if he had understood the proceedings. He replied in the negative, said that he could not think, and gave every appearance of disorientation. … He became increasingly confused and incoherent.”

“I have been both cataloguing and protesting for years the increasingly authoritarian powers of the UK state, but that the most gross abuse could be so open and undisguised is still a shock.”

“Unless Julian is released shortly he will be destroyed. If the state can do this, then who is next?”

There’s yet more that’s in Murray’s account which would shock any intelligent reader, but those excerpts constitute what I consider its main points.

As regards whether the U.S. Government is a dictatorship: there have, by now, even been some rigorous quantitative social-scientific analyses of that question, and all of the evidence points clearly to a “Yes” answer to it, concerning at least that particular Government.

We thus clearly have come to live in a totalitarian state: the U.S.-and-allied Deep State. To call this a ‘democracy’ is to insult that magnificent word. Some authentic revolutions have been sparked by tyrannies that aren’t as vile as this one.

The military-industrial complex (MIC) didn’t entirely control the U.S. Government back in 1971 when the MIC’s absolute right of censorship was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Pentagon Papers case; but, now, after 9/11, it finally does, and thus democracy has become totally eliminated in today’s America.

*

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

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

The Russian-Turkish Deal on Syria: Who Won and Who Lost?

October 23rd, 2019 by Andrew Korybko

Presidents Putin and Erdogan reached a deal on Syria that represents a decisive victory for Turkey while being a drastic climbdown for Damascus after President Assad vowed earlier that day that the Syrian Arab Army was “prepared to support any group carrying out popular resistance against the Turkish aggression” only to later “fully support” the Russian-brokered agreement to give Ankara practically all of what it wants once he was informed about the details by his counterpart in Moscow.

Practically everyone in the Alt-Media Community has an opinion about the latest Russian-Turkish deal on Syria that was reached after hours of negotiations between Presidents Putin and Erdogan during their summit in Sochi, with most portraying it as a victory for Damascus and a defeat for Ankara, though the reality is close (key word) to the polar opposite. Turkey received practically all of what it wanted by being given its long-sought “safe zone” in Northern Syria, albeit in a “modified” format. According to the Memorandum of Understanding published on the official Kremlin website, the two leaders agreed to the following ten points:

“1. The two sides reiterate their commitment to the preservation of the political unity and territorial integrity of Syria and the protection of national security of Turkey.

2. They emphasize their determination to combat terrorism in all forms and manifestations and to disrupt separatist agendas in the Syrian territory.

3. In this framework, the established status quo in the current Operation Peace Spring area covering Tel Abyad and Ras Al Ayn with a depth of 32 km will be preserved.

4. Both sides reaffirm the importance of the Adana Agreement. The Russian Federation will facilitate the implementation of the Adana Agreement in the current circumstances.

5. Starting 12.00 noon of October 23, 2019, Russian military police and Syrian border guards will enter the Syrian side of the Turkish-Syrian border, outside the area of Operation Peace Spring, to facilitate the removal of YPG elements and their weapons to the depth of 30 km from the Turkish-Syrian border, which should be finalized in 150 hours. At that moment, joint Russian-Turkish patrols will start in the west and the east of the area of Operation Peace Spring with a depth of 10 km, except Qamishli city.

6. All YPG elements and their weapons will be removed from Manbij and Tal Rifat.

7. Both sides will take necessary measures to prevent infiltrations of terrorist elements.

8. Joint efforts will be launched to facilitate the return of refugees in a safe and voluntary manner.

9. A joint monitoring and verification mechanism will be established to oversee and coordinate the implementation of this memorandum.

10. The two sides will continue to work to find a lasting political solution to the Syrian conflict within Astana Mechanism and will support the activity of the Constitutional Committee.”

Here’s a point-by-point interpretation of them:

1. Turkey reassured Russia that it isn’t interested in annexing any Syrian territory unlike what Alt-Media has repeatedly alleged, so Russia reconfirmed its support of Ankara’s anti-terrorist operation.

2. Not only does Russia support Turkey’s anti-terrorist actions, but it’s also on the same side as Ankara when it comes to its opposition to Kurdish separatist ambitions.

3. The “established status quo” talked about in this point is simply a euphemism for legitimizing the indefinite presence of Turkish military forces in the current area of operations.

4. Russia doesn’t agree with Syria’s repeated claims that the Adana Agreement is invalid until Turkey withdraws its military from the country, and is actually basing the following points on this international agreement.

5. Per the above, Russia committed Syria to assisting it with the disarmament and removal of Damascus’ new Kurdish “allies”, after which it’ll jointly patrol a 10-kilometer-deep “safe zone” with Turkey to enforce this.

6. Syria’s new Kurdish “allies” will be forced to surrender the doubly strategic and symbolic city of Manbij, further weakening their military position in the country.

7. This vague point doesn’t mention what exactly is supposed to be protected from terrorist infiltration, though it’s assumed to refer to the “safe zone”, in which case it simply reaffirms Russia’s support for Turkey’s plans.

8. This is yet another vague point because it doesn’t specify whether the repatriated refugees will be concentrated in the “safe zone” like Turkey wants or scattered throughout all of Syria.

9. Both sides will ensure that the other keeps its word, which for the Russians refers to the promises that they made on Syria and the Kurds’ behalf, while for the Turks this concerns the return of refugees.

10. Russia and Turkey reaffirm that they’re on the same side when it comes to promoting a political solution to the Hybrid War of Terror on Syria.

To summarize the Sochi Agreement, Russia is giving Turkey its “safe zone” and committing Syria to assist it with this by having Damascus disarm and remove its new Kurdish “allies” from Ankara’s envisaged sphere of influence, though the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the country’s border guards will reportedly be allowed to control parts of the international frontier from “from Kobani to Tell Abyad and from Ras al-Ayn to the Iraqi border…supported by Russian military police” according to RT. It’s unclear, however, whether that’s temporary or will remain in force when Russia and Turkey patrol up to 10 kilometers deep in those regions next week.

What’s so surprising about all of this is that President Assad “gave his full support” to it after being informed about the details by President Putin after the summit ended since the Syrian leader had vowed earlier that day that the SAA is “prepared to support any group carrying out popular resistance against the Turkish aggression“, which would of course also imply the YPG Kurdish militia that Ankara regards as terrorists and which Russia agreed to sweep out of the “safe zone” per President Erdogan’s wishes. The SAA’s possible support of this group’s anti-Turkish attacks would violate the Adana Agreement that Moscow said it will implement.

In fact, it can even be reasonably speculated that President Assad’s vague vow might have been the reason behind Russia so strongly declaring that it “will facilitate the implementation of the Adana Agreement in the current circumstances” and even speak on Syria’s behalf to commit the SAA to helping it with this in order to teach its leader a “lesson” about how dangerous it is to use such rhetoric during as sensitive of a time as this one when the delicate peace process is at stake. Even so, this unexpected twist can’t exactly be characterized as a “loss” since it nevertheless preserves international peace and pushes the conflict resolution process forward.

Therefore, an assessment of the Sochi Agreement reveals that while it’s a huge victory for Turkey, it’s not necessarily a “loss” for Syria even if it does indeed represent a dramatic climbdown from what President Assad had vowed to do earlier that day. Ankara “compromised” by receiving the breadth of what it wanted but only one-third the depth, while Damascus’ “compromise” was to “fully support” President Putin’s promise that it would actively facilitate the disarmament and removal of its new Kurdish “allies” in exchange for being allowed to jointly patrol part of the international frontier together with the Russian military police.

The militant Kurds, however, are definitely the losers after having their fate decided for them by Moscow and Ankara. While their separatist dreams are shattered and they’ll be unable to pose a credible terrorist threat to Turkey following the successful implementation of the Sochi Agreement, Russia might proverbially throw them a bone by “encouraging” Syria to “seriously consider” granting them some level of “autonomy” in the Northeast in exchange for all the concessions they were forced to undertake after being abandoned by the US earlier this month. If that happens, then this scenario could possibly stop them from being “sore losers” and spoiling the complex peace process.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

As Trump Aids and Abets Turkey’s War Crimes, the UN Must Act

October 23rd, 2019 by Prof. Marjorie Cohn

Nearly two weeks have passed since Turkey launched its ground and air attack on Rojava, the autonomous region of northeast Syria, following Trump’s sudden removal of 1,000 U.S. troops from the area.

While the United States and Turkey reached a “ceasefire” agreement on October 17, there are ongoing reports of violations of the deal. A U.S. official told CNN that Turkish-backed forces broke the ceasefire on its first day, saying that they were either acting beyond the scope of Turkish control or Turkey “didn’t care what they did.” Two U.S. officials said the ceasefire “is not holding.”

The agreement calls for a five-day ceasefire and requires Kurdish fighters to leave an area of Syria along the Turkish border, in essence, relinquishing control of their territory. The United States would lift the threat of further sanctions on Turkey, and once a “permanent cease-fire” occurs, would remove the sanctions that Trump imposed in the wake of criticism of his abrupt withdrawal from the region.

Turkish airstrikes have killed at least 20 civilians and 14 Kurdish fighters since the “ceasefire” was announced, according to the Kurds.

“The so-called cease-fire is not what we expected,” European Union Council President Donald Tusk told reporters. “In fact, it’s a demand of capitulation of the Kurds.” Turkey concurs. Turkish foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, said the deal was not a ceasefire but only a “pause for our operation,” adding, “We got what we wanted.”

Indeed, U.S. military officials told The New York Times “they were stunned that the agreement essentially allowed Turkey to annex a portion of Syria, displace tens of thousands of Kurdish residents and wipe away years of counterterrorism gains against the Islamic State.”

From Illegal U.S. Occupation to Turkish Aggression

Turkey’s invasion of Syria is a war of aggression. It is incumbent upon the UN Security Council or General Assembly to take measures to restore international peace and security, as mandated by the UN Charter.

The United States has no right to occupy Syria in the first place. Yet intermittently for 50 years, the U.S. government has been trying to engineer regime change there, in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since 2015, the U.S., France, Britain and other countries have supplied weapons to the Syrian Democratic Forces, consisting largely of Syrian Kurds, to overthrow the Islamic State (ISIS).

As of 2011, the Kurds comprised between 5 and 10 percent of the Syrian population of 21 million. The largest ethnic minority in Syria, the Kurds live primarily near the northeast border.

Last year, at the behest of the Turkish government, the U.S. State Department blocked a Kurdish attempt to reconcile with the Syrian government.

“Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hand, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing ‘regime change’ war in Syria that started in 2011, along with many in the mainstream media, who have been championing and cheerleading this regime change war,” Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard accurately noted.

Now Turkey is mounting a war of aggression in Syria and committing war crimes against the Kurds, aided and abetted by the United States.

“Turkish military forces and a coalition of Turkey-backed Syrian armed groups have displayed a shameful disregard for civilian life, carrying out serious violations and war crimes, including summary killings and unlawful attacks that have killed and injured civilians, during the offensive into northeast Syria,” Amnesty International reported on October 18.

This report documents indiscriminate bombardment, summary killings and abductions. It discusses “gruesome details of a summary killing in cold blood” of the prominent Syrian-Kurdish female politician Hevrin Khalaf by a coalition of armed Syrian groups that Turkey supports and equips. Her injuries included “multiple gunshot wounds to the head, face and back as well as fractures to her legs, face and skull, detachment of skin from her skull and loss of hair as a result of being dragged by the hair.”

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based monitoring group, reports that the Turkish military has killed at least 436 people since its offensive began on October 9. The Kurdish Red Crescent puts the number of civilians killed at a minimum of 235 and Kurdish forces say 22 children have been killed. Between 160,000 and 300,000 people have fled from their homes.

“In one of the most horrific attacks documented, a Kurdish Red Crescent worker described how he pulled bodies from the wreckage of a Turkish air strike … in which two munitions landed near to a school in Salhiye, where civilians displaced by the fighting had sought shelter,” according to the report.

Additionally, there are numerous accounts of Turkey using illegal white phosphorus-loaded munitions, which burn to the bone and cannot be extinguished by water.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that deliveries of humanitarian assistance have been prevented from entering Ras al-Ain, a border town where most of the ceasefire violations have occurred.

Trump Greenlighted Turkey’s Invasion

Turkey’s October 9 invasion of Rojava was greenlighted by Trump’s abrupt October 6 removal of U.S. troops from the region after a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Trump and Erdoğandiscussed the forthcoming Turkish invasion during the call.

“Today, President Donald J. Trump spoke with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey by telephone,” the White House press statement said. “Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria. The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial ‘Caliphate,’ will no longer be in the immediate area.”

Trump knew that Turkey would attack the Kurds and he sanctioned it.

Before Trump withdrew the U.S. troops, the Kurds had been suppressing ISIS in the region. City University of New York professor Ozlem Goner told Democracy Now! that after the U.S. withdrawal, “Turkey actually bombed the ISIS prison so that [ISIS prisoners] can escape.”

Turkey intends to transfer many of the 3.6 million Syrian refugees currently living in Turkey over the border into Syria, which would violate the Geneva Conventions.

On October 10, in the wake of a storm of criticism from both Democrats and Republicans of Trump’s precipitous withdrawal from Rojava, the White House denounced the Turkish invasion, issuing a statement that said,

“This morning, Turkey, a [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] member, invaded Syria. The United States does not endorse this attack and has made it clear to Turkey that this operation is a bad idea.”

The U.S. Is Aiding and Abetting Turkey’s War Crimes Against the Kurds

But for Trump’s sudden pullout of U.S. troops, Turkey would not have invaded Rojava. The United States is aiding and abetting Turkey’s war crimes.

Aiding and abetting a war crime requires three elements: 1.) a person or entity committed a war crime; 2.) another actor committed an act that had a substantial effect on the commission of the war crime; and 3.) the other actor knew that the act would assist, or have a substantial likelihood of assisting, the commission of the war crime.

First, Turkey is committing war crimes. Willful killing, targeting civilians, and willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health constitute grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The U.S. War Crimes Act defines grave breaches of Geneva as war crimes.

Second, U.S. officials provided the means to commit war crimes. The United States is the primary exporter of weapons to Turkey. In 2017, the U.S. gave $154 million in aid to Turkey, the fourth highest amount provided to any country in Europe and Asia. And The New York Times reported that the U.S. furnished intelligence, including surveillance data, to Turkey that may have enabled its assault on the Syrian Kurds..

Third, Trump knew that once the U.S. troops left Rojava, the Turkish military would invade it.

Moreover, Trump threatened genocide on October 17 when he said that the Kurds near the Turkish border had to be “cleaned out” by Turkey. He lauded the “ceasefire” because now Turkey was “not going to have to kill millions of people.”

But Mazlum Kobani, commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces, told The New York Times,

“There will be ethnic cleansing of the Kurdish people from Syria and the American administration will be responsible for it.”

The Genocide Convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”: “Killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, or deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

On October 15, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights warned that Turkey could be held responsible for war crimes.

If the Security Council Doesn’t Act, the General Assembly Should

Turkey’s war of aggression in Syria is illegal.

“Aggression is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations,” according to General Assembly Resolution 3314.

The UN Charter allows the use of military force against another state only in self-defense or when sanctioned by the Security Council. Turkey was not acting in self-defense and the council did not approve its invasion of northeast Syria.

Under the UN Charter, the Security Council has primary responsibility to maintain and restore international peace and security. The Security Council should convene immediately, condemn Turkey’s aggression, order a real ceasefire and a no-fly-zone over Rojava, send peacekeeping troops to enforce the ceasefire, require that countries immediately suspend weapons transfers to Turkey, and mandate that all parties provide unfettered access to humanitarian assistance, including to those displaced by the conflict. It should also urge the parties to pursue a diplomatic solution to the conflict and call on all countries to open their borders to refugees from the region.

But the United States and Russia would likely veto such a resolution. When the council is unable to act because the five permanent members cannot agree, there is a procedure for the General Assembly to fulfill that role. It is contained in the “Uniting for Peace Resolution.”

Within 24 hours of a stalemate in the Security Council, the General Assembly can meet to consider the matter. Either seven members of the Security Council or a majority of the members of the General Assembly can invoke the Uniting for Peace Resolution.

Once the Resolution is invoked, the General Assembly can recommend collective measures to “maintain or restore international peace and security.”

House of Representatives Condemns Trump’s Pullout

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad concluded a deal, brokered by Russia, to protect the Kurds from Turkey’s onslaught. In return, the Kurds agreed to allow the Syrian government to enter two border towns, although the Kurds intend to retain their military structure and control of local government.

On October 16, the House of Representatives, by a bipartisan vote of 354-60, adopted H.J. Res. 77, opposing “the decision to end certain United States efforts to prevent Turkish military operations against Syrian Kurdish forces in Northeast Syria.” It calls on Turkey to end its military incursion, protect the Kurds and “present a clear and specific plan for the enduring defeat of ISIS.”

Meanwhile all 28 countries of the European Union and Britain had agreed to suspend arms sales to Turkey.

Veterans for Peace issued a statement in which it “condemns the Turkish invasion of Syrian Kurdistan and calls on the United States government to withdraw any support for the incursion.” It also calls on the U.S. “to pursue a diplomatic resolution to the current crisis and to reopen our borders to allow in more refugees from this war torn region.”

It is essential that the Security Council or the General Assembly act immediately to stop the carnage and allow humanitarian relief into the war-torn 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.

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

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

China’s Hidden Economic Time Bomb

October 23rd, 2019 by F. William Engdahl

The China government statistical agency just released economic data showing the poorest GDP growth in almost 30 years for China. The problem goes far deeper than recent effects of the US-China trade war or the impact of calamities such as African Swine Fever that have decimated the nation’s pig herds. The underlying far more serious problem is an emerging disaster that few are willing to discuss openly.

Since about 2017 China’s population has begun to feel the real impact of the ill-conceived One Child Policy imposed by the Communist Party in 1979, some 40 years ago. This slow-growing problem, once seen as benefit, is undermining the entire basis of the China Economic Miracle. The question is whether Beijing can make the transition to an ageing population without major social and economic dislocation.

On October 18 the China State Statistics bureau released Third Quarter GDP which came in at 6.0% compared with 6.2% the previous quarter. While there is great skepticism as to how honest the reporting is, the fact the government must announce a slowing growth at all suggests the situation in reality could be far worse.

The true data on China’s economy remain opaque. In December 2018 the Shanghai University of Finance and Economics published its annual transparency survey on the 31 provincial-level regions. The average score was just above 53%. The study concluded, “[Unfortunately,] the general level of transparency in China’s local governments remains poor.”

A more direct indicator of the health of the economy comes from actual trade data. Bloomberg reports that auto sales in China have fallen for the 15th month out of 16 months in September. It’s the “worst slump in a generation”, according to Bloomberg. As well, sales of new homes and apartments in Beijing, Shanghai and other major cities fell dramatically to lows of 2014.

The deeper issue is not the transparency of official economic data. The deeper issue is whether the China Miracle, the remarkable rise from a Third World level backwardness in less than three decades, is entering a structural crisis that will impact not only China’s economy. The recent data on new car sales and new home buying could be an ominous indicator that the China boom years are coming into a drastic slowing with huge consequences not only for China but also for the world.

Golden Era Peaks

Like no other economy in modern history, China’s remarkable economic rise has been facilitated by an extraordinary short-term demographic blessing. That blessing has begun to turn into a curse.

In the 1980’s as China officially opened its economy to Western factories and investment, China had what seemed to be an endless pool of low wage labor power from the countryside to build its roads, new cities and assemble its goods in factories of the likes of Nike or VW or Apple to be shipped to the world. In 1987, the early days of China’s economic miracle, 64 percent of the population were of working age, and only 4 percent were aged above 65. That meant a huge surplus of workers to feed China’s low-cost manufacturing boom. This drove the average 10-11 percent annual GDP growth seen between 1987 and 2007.

So long as globalization with the rules of the newly-created World Trade Organization encouraged the outsourcing of manufacture to China with its huge work force and ultra-low wages, China was booming like no other.

In 1979, alarmed at a population that had been increasing from 1950 to 1978, at a 20 percent annual natural population growth rate, the Communist Party imposed a draconian One Child Policy. Deng Xiaoping as part of the Four Modernizations, set a goal to keep the population at 1.2 billion by 2000 as part of the formula for quadrupling China’s GDP within the same period.

The longer term economic consequences of that policy were not to emerge until some three decades, roughly a generation later, around the time, significantly, of the 2008-9 world economic crisis. A case can be made that the rising wages in China’s manufacturing sector, occasioned by the first shortages of manpower beginning around 2007-10, were more a factor for the severity of the world financial crisis at that time than was merely the US real estate market.

China’s turn to what Deng Xiaoping called “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” after 1979 was in fact a state-controlled turn to western companies and investment to take advantage of China’s seemingly unlimited low cost labor. That labor mostly came from those born prior to 1979, before the One Child Policy. A worker in his mid-20s in 1980 was in his 50s by the time of the 2008-9 crisis in the West. Demographic change is a slow process and could be overlooked in the boom years before 2008. Now, in the past decade, manufacturing wages across China are rising and the population born under the One Child era are notably fewer, adding to recent rising wage pressures.

As China’s manufacturing has moved up the value-added chain as part of its development strategy of Made in China, wages have risen significantly. The Economist Intelligence Unit estimates that from 2013-2020 average manufacturing labor costs have risen on average 12% a year. Today average factory wage costs in China are some three times that of India and far higher than in Indonesia or Vietnam.

At the same time as higher skilled labor is needed for China’s fast-developing manufacturing base, especially under the mandates of the Made in China2025 transformation to a world high-tech economy, the size of the overall workforce, once considered nearly limitless, has begun to decline. China’s labor force peaked in 2015 and has begun shrinking, albeit slowly at first. That decline now is pre-programmed to accelerate as the pre-1979 workforce reaches retirement age and is not replaced in equal numbers after 1979 due to the drastic decline in births. According to Deutsche Bank estimates, the work force will shrink from 911 million in 2015, to 849 million in 2020, and to 782 million in 2030. Barring a dramatic change in birth rates, beginning about 2025 China’s overall population will begin a slow but accelerating decline as well.

In 2017 China had a fertility rate well below population replacement levels of 2.1 needed to sustain population size. Slowly realizing the long-term implications, in 2013 the Communist Party moved to slightly lift the limit to two children for some families, and by 2016 to 2 children for all. Even if the result had been as hoped, it would take at least a generation to change the dynamics. However, the policy has yet to produce any major increase in birth rates for a complex of reasons.

Ageing Shift

Not only is China’s labor force declining and wages rising, China’s overall population is ageing faster than any comparable country, owing to the combination of rapid economic growth and the limits on children over the past four decades. With improving living standards in rural areas the longevity of the population has improved significantly. Life expectancy in China increased from 43 years in 1960 to 75 years in 2013. 

China is ageing faster than almost any other country because the number of new births has been blocked while those born are living far longer. By 2016 China had the lowest fertility rate in the world—1.05 according to China’s 2016 State Statistical Bureau data. Social changes encourage young women to postpone marriage and pursue careers, while rural practice encourages male over female births, all of which drive fertility rates lower.

China’s elderly population (over sixty), 14 percent in 2016, will grow to 24 percent of the population by 2030, and will reach 39 percent of the population by 2050. At that time, China’s dependency ratio–the number of people below 15 and above 65 divided by the total working population–is projected to increase to 70 percent, up from 37 percent in 2015. This means a dramatically smaller working-age population with the responsibility of providing for both the young and old. In other words a shrinking relative number of working age taxpayers is facing the growing number of elderly retirees. To avert social unrest the government must somehow undertake huge costs to provide for the elderly.

Traditionally, younger Chinese have taken care of their elderly parents but now, with significantly fewer working children to care for the older retirees, the government will be forced to secure some improved form of social benefits, health care and income support at a time trade surpluses are declining and state debt soaring. At the same time young families are under pressure to increase family size which increases family costs as well. An estimated 23 percent of the elderly in China today cannot take care of themselves, while in 2010 only 43 percent of elderly males and 13 percent of elderly females received any financial pension. While Japan became rich before its population aged, China will not. Ageing of China is a social ticking time bomb.

While all this might sound similar to problems faced by many countries such as Italy or Germany, given the scale of China’s role in the world economy and the dramatic shift in just a few years from what was called a “demographic dividend” —acceleration of economic growth following a decline in birth and death rates—to what might be now called a “demographic disaster,” China is unique.

It becomes clear that the urgency with which Xi Jinping and the Party leadership is promoting its Belt, Road Initiative, as well as Made in China 2025, as an attempt to achieve a near impossible economic feat. Yet the demographic shift is here, while the hoped-for dividends from the BRI and Made in China2025 look far remote at this point. The sharp declines in recent months in domestic consumption for cars and housing could in fact be far more alarming than a mere cyclical downturn. It could well be the first signs of the negative global economics of the huge China demographic shift now unfolding.

*

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.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) .

Featured image is from NEO


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China’s Hidden Economic Time Bomb
  • Tags:

People attacked and bleeding, public institutions burning. A government official hanging on the window not to die burned fell from the third floor of the Electoral Court. Carlos Mesa, President Evo Morales opponent, has been inciting violence. Shocking images all over Bolivia after Morales’ re-election, for the fourth time. The opposition across the country is promising much more. Increasing and frightful hate has taken the South American country in the last months, fueled by the mainstream media and obscure powers. Where does Bolivia go toward?

In Bolivia, truth does not matter so much, it does not come first especially to President Evo Morales’s opposition, the Washington regime-backed right-wing. Emotion comes first. Deep hate, in many cases an open sentiment by those who condemn in others, in many cases without proof, exactly what their leaders did once in power, and even does as opposition leaders.

Discrimination, manipulation, and corruption: their hallmark in the South American country. As elites everywhere in the now too effervescent region.

Currently in Santa Cruz de la Sierra city, this Brazilian reporter feels like being in the too hateful Brazil on the eve of the coup against then-President Dilma Rousseff in 2016, and during Michel Temer’s black years (2016-2018) which paved the way for fascist Jair Bolsonaro. Dialogue has been impossible in Bolivia, stuck in a hateful social division.

Lies are heard everywhere in Bolivia. Too intensively. One cannot trust anyone here when politics is the subject, much worse performance from the local opposition about it. But in general, both sides are lying.

What has been achieved under Morales

Bolivia has until recently achieved a relatively stable economy and politics, a more respected country all over the world; the current president has taken millions out of poverty and extreme poverty. All this, as the nation never lived before.

The Morales administration has pursued Latin American integration, Evo Morales has given minorities and indigenous people (historically forgotten and massacred) more rights, his administration has strongly opposed U.S. imperialism.

If there is hope for Bolivia, that means having Evo Morales in the Presidency.

The Historian and Journalist Carlos Mesa from the Citizen Community, Morales’ principal opponent, was vice-president during Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada‘s dark years: a pro-IMF President from 2002 to 2004 who massacred more than 70 peasants, simply paid Mesa to be his vice. After Lozada’s escape, Mesa took power until he resigned six months later.

So the Bolivian historian and journalist, now losing the presidential election to Morales in the first round, means that political retrocession to the once poorest country in the region under Gonny’s former Vice president has been foreclosed

The election process was peaceful last Sunday. But on the following day, a foreseen terror started. No matter the election results. Mesa incited street mobilizations, leading to violence at vote-counting stations: opposition protesters have burned ballots, buildings where counting was taking place, and Electoral Courts across the country.

As the Organization of the American States (OAS) and the Washington regime have questioned the legitimacy of the election results leading to the reelection of Evo Morales, several international observers have praised the legitimacy and transparency of the Bolivian electoral process.

Shortly after Evo Morales was re-elected with 46.86 percent of the votes against 36.73 percent to Carlos de Mesa, considered 95.03 percent of votes counted from within Bolivia and across the world, violence is spreading all over the country since Monday evening: people attacked and bleeding, public institutions burning…

The opposition promises much more violence: from Wednesday’s midnight, Mesa voters who supposedly advocate for democracy has prevented people from leaving their homes, and has blocked retail trade outlets from opening their doors under the threat of aggression and destruction, for an indefinite time all over Bolivia.

This reporter talked to both sides last Tuesday. An opposition leader in the afternoon at Santa Cruz de la Sierra’s central square called 24 de Septiembre, said:

“There will surely be dead people [in the curfew], but we are not going to cede, this is the only way [to ensure a runoff].”

At the back of the square, a group of young people carefully watching what as occurring, said the same thing: violence so to speak is heralded as the solution. What they require is that President Evo Morales accept a runoff or resign.

A few hours later in that Tuesday afternoon, talking to a Morales voter who owns a store in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, he answered when asked about how the current deadlock situation could end: “Only through a conflict,” he said. Not because that Morales’ supporters want it, but conflict really seems the only way in Bolivia now. Another dead-end South American nation?

As mentioned above, a lie and hate campaign by the right-wing had started in the country much before the electoral process. That campaign included many religious leaders, recalling the military coups in Latin American which relied on the dominant and domineering religion which manipulates people’s minds.

So what is happening now was predictable months ago, when this reporter, as a voice in the desert, announced it. From a year ago, Bolivia strongly smells violence. It smells a coup in Bolivia, for a long time.

What comes in Morales’s favor is that unlike Brazil he has not rogue “Sergio Moro” character in his way. Nor does Bolivia have a Public Ministry as Brazil has, capable of orchestrating a “legal” coup against the first indigenous president in  Bolivian history: the Movement towards Socialism (the official party) controls the Bolivian Justice system, unlike former Brazilian President Lula who provided Brazil’s Judiciary more independence. What does not favor Morales,  the current Bolivian government has not politicized the grassroots.

The unspoken truth is that there is an invisible ‘foreign hand” working in (and against) Bolivia’s weakened democracy. The near future is completely uncertain here. Edu Montesanti *reporting from Bolivia. .

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

Featured image: Protestas en Bolivia por resultado electoral favorable a Evo Morales. (Source: Redes)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bolivia’s Presidential Election: Violence and Terror All Over the Country
  • Tags:

Assange in Court

October 23rd, 2019 by Craig Murray

I was deeply shaken while witnessing yesterday’s events in Westminster Magistrates Court. Every decision was railroaded through over the scarcely heard arguments and objections of Assange’s legal team, by a magistrate who barely pretended to be listening.

Before I get on to the blatant lack of fair process, the first thing I must note was Julian’s condition. I was badly shocked by just how much weight my friend has lost, by the speed his hair has receded and by the appearance of premature and vastly accelerated ageing. He has a pronounced limp I have never seen before. Since his arrest he has lost over 15 kg in weight.

But his physical appearance was not as shocking as his mental deterioration. When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over several seconds to recall both. I will come to the important content of his statement at the end of proceedings in due course, but his difficulty in making it was very evident; it was a real struggle for him to articulate the words and focus his train of thought.

Until yesterday I had always been quietly sceptical of those who claimed that Julian’s treatment amounted to torture – even of Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture – and sceptical of those who suggested he may be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that yesterday changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.

I had been even more sceptical of those who claimed, as a senior member of his legal team did to me on Sunday night, that they were worried that Julian might not live to the end of the extradition process. I now find myself not only believing it, but haunted by the thought. Everybody in that court yesterday saw that one of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes. To see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known, reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable. Yet the agents of the state, particularly the callous magistrate Vanessa Baraitser, were not just prepared but eager to be a part of this bloodsport. She actually told him that if he were incapable of following proceedings, then his lawyers could explain what had happened to him later. The question of why a man who, by the very charges against him, was acknowledged to be highly intelligent and competent, had been reduced by the state to somebody incapable of following court proceedings, gave her not a millisecond of concern.

The charge against Julian is very specific; conspiring with Chelsea Manning to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables. The charges are nothing to do with Sweden, nothing to do with sex, and nothing to do with the 2016 US election; a simple clarification the mainstream media appears incapable of understanding.

The purpose of yesterday’s hearing was case management; to determine the timetable for the extradition proceedings. The key points at issue were that Julian’s defence was requesting more time to prepare their evidence; and arguing that political offences were specifically excluded from the extradition treaty. There should, they argued, therefore be a preliminary hearing to determine whether the extradition treaty applied at all.

The reasons given by Assange’s defence team for more time to prepare were both compelling and startling. They had very limited access to their client in jail and had not been permitted to hand him any documents about the case until one week ago. He had also only just been given limited computer access, and all his relevant records and materials had been seized from the Ecuadorean Embassy by the US Government; he had no access to his own materials for the purpose of preparing his defence.

Furthermore, the defence argued, they were in touch with the Spanish courts about a very important and relevant legal case in Madrid which would provide vital evidence. It showed that the CIA had been directly ordering spying on Julian in the Embassy through a Spanish company, UC Global, contracted to provide security there. Crucially this included spying on privileged conversations between Assange and his lawyers discussing his defence against these extradition proceedings, which had been in train in the USA since 2010. In any normal process, that fact would in itself be sufficient to have the extradition proceedings dismissed. Incidentally I learnt on Sunday that the Spanish material produced in court, which had been commissioned by the CIA, specifically includes high resolution video coverage of Julian and I discussing various matters.

The evidence to the Spanish court also included a CIA plot to kidnap Assange, which went to the US authorities’ attitude to lawfulness in his case and the treatment he might expect in the United States. Julian’s team explained that the Spanish legal process was happening now and the evidence from it would be extremely important, but it might not be finished and thus the evidence not fully validated and available in time for the current proposed timetable for the Assange extradition hearings.

For the prosecution, James Lewis QC stated that the government strongly opposed any delay being given for the defence to prepare, and strongly opposed any separate consideration of the question of whether the charge was a political offence excluded by the extradition treaty. Baraitser took her cue from Lewis and stated categorically that the date for the extradition hearing, 25 February, could not be changed. She was open to changes in dates for submission of evidence and responses before this, and called a ten minute recess for the prosecution and defence to agree these steps.

What happened next was very instructive. There were five representatives of the US government present (initially three, and two more arrived in the course of the hearing), seated at desks behind the lawyers in court. The prosecution lawyers immediately went into huddle with the US representatives, then went outside the courtroom with them, to decide how to respond on the dates.

After the recess the defence team stated they could not, in their professional opinion, adequately prepare if the hearing date were kept to February, but within Baraitser’s instruction to do so they nevertheless outlined a proposed timetable on delivery of evidence. In responding to this, Lewis’ junior counsel scurried to the back of the court to consult the Americans again while Lewis actually told the judge he was “taking instructions from those behind”. It is important to note that as he said this, it was not the UK Attorney-General’s office who were being consulted but the US Embassy. Lewis received his American instructions and agreed that the defence might have two months to prepare their evidence (they had said they needed an absolute minimum of three) but the February hearing date may not be moved. Baraitser gave a ruling agreeing everything Lewis had said.

At this stage it was unclear why we were sitting through this farce. The US government was dictating its instructions to Lewis, who was relaying those instructions to Baraitser, who was ruling them as her legal decision. The charade might as well have been cut and the US government simply sat on the bench to control the whole process. Nobody could sit there and believe they were in any part of a genuine legal process or that Baraitser was giving a moment’s consideration to the arguments of the defence. Her facial expressions on the few occasions she looked at the defence ranged from contempt through boredom to sarcasm. When she looked at Lewis she was attentive, open and warm.

The extradition is plainly being rushed through in accordance with a Washington dictated timetable. Apart from a desire to pre-empt the Spanish court providing evidence on CIA activity in sabotaging the defence, what makes the February date so important to the USA? I would welcome any thoughts.

Baraitser dismissed the defence’s request for a separate prior hearing to consider whether the extradition treaty applied at all, without bothering to give any reason why (possibly she had not properly memorised what Lewis had been instructing her to agree with). Yet this is Article 4 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty 2007 in full:

On the face of it, what Assange is accused of is the very definition of a political offence – if this is not, then what is? It is not covered by any of the exceptions from that listed. There is every reason to consider whether this charge is excluded by the extradition treaty, and to do so before the long and very costly process of considering all the evidence should the treaty apply. But Baraitser simply dismissed the argument out of hand.

Just in case anybody was left in any doubt as to what was happening here, Lewis then stood up and suggested that the defence should not be allowed to waste the court’s time with a lot of arguments. All arguments for the substantive hearing should be given in writing in advance and a “guillotine should be applied” (his exact words) to arguments and witnesses in court, perhaps of five hours for the defence. The defence had suggested they would need more than the scheduled five days to present their case. Lewis countered that the entire hearing should be over in two days. Baraitser said this was not procedurally the correct moment to agree this but she will consider it once she had received the evidence bundles.

(SPOILER: Baraitser is going to do as Lewis instructs and cut the substantive hearing short).

Baraitser then capped it all by saying the February hearing will be held, not at the comparatively open and accessible Westminster Magistrates Court where we were, but at Belmarsh Magistrates Court, the grim high security facility used for preliminary legal processing of terrorists, attached to the maximum security prison where Assange is being held. There are only six seats for the public in even the largest court at Belmarsh, and the object is plainly to evade public scrutiny and make sure that Baraitser is not exposed in public again to a genuine account of her proceedings, like this one you are reading. I will probably be unable to get in to the substantive hearing at Belmarsh.

Plainly the authorities were disconcerted by the hundreds of good people who had turned up to support Julian. They hope that far fewer will get to the much less accessible Belmarsh. I am fairly certain (and recall I had a long career as a diplomat) that the two extra American government officials who arrived halfway through proceedings were armed security personnel, brought in because of alarm at the number of protestors around a hearing in which were present senior US officials. The move to Belmarsh may be an American initiative.

Assange’s defence team objected strenuously to the move to Belmarsh, in particular on the grounds that there are no conference rooms available there to consult their client and they have very inadequate access to him in the jail. Baraitser dismissed their objection offhand and with a very definite smirk.

Finally, Baraitser turned to Julian and ordered him to stand, and asked him if he had understood the proceedings. He replied in the negative, said that he could not think, and gave every appearance of disorientation. Then he seemed to find an inner strength, drew himself up a little, and said:

I do not understand how this process is equitable. This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case and I can’t even access my writings. It is very difficult, where I am, to do anything. These people have unlimited resources.

The effort then seemed to become too much, his voice dropped and he became increasingly confused and incoherent. He spoke of whistleblowers and publishers being labeled enemies of the people, then spoke about his children’s DNA being stolen and of being spied on in his meetings with his psychologist. I am not suggesting at all that Julian was wrong about these points, but he could not properly frame nor articulate them. He was plainly not himself, very ill and it was just horribly painful to watch. Baraitser showed neither sympathy nor the least concern. She tartly observed that if he could not understand what had happened, his lawyers could explain it to him, and she swept out of court.

The whole experience was profoundly upsetting. It was very plain that there was no genuine process of legal consideration happening here. What we had was a naked demonstration of the power of the state, and a naked dictation of proceedings by the Americans. Julian was in a box behind bulletproof glass, and I and the thirty odd other members of the public who had squeezed in were in a different box behind more bulletproof glass. I do not know if he could see me or his other friends in the court, or if he was capable of recognising anybody. He gave no indication that he did.

In Belmarsh he is kept in complete isolation for 23 hours a day. He is permitted 45 minutes exercise. If he has to be moved, they clear the corridors before he walks down them and they lock all cell doors to ensure he has no contact with any other prisoner outside the short and strictly supervised exercise period. There is no possible justification for this inhuman regime, used on major terrorists, being imposed on a publisher who is a remand prisoner.

I have been both cataloguing and protesting for years the increasingly authoritarian powers of the UK state, but that the most gross abuse could be so open and undisguised is still a shock. The campaign of demonisation and dehumanisation against Julian, based on government and media lie after government and media lie, has led to a situation where he can be slowly killed in public sight, and arraigned on a charge of publishing the truth about government wrongdoing, while receiving no assistance from “liberal” society.

Unless Julian is released shortly he will be destroyed. If the state can do this, then who is next?

*

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 US is planning to keep control of oil fields on the eastern bank of the Euphrates despite the ongoing troops withdrawal. On October 21, US Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters that Washington wants to be sure that ensure oil fields do not fall into the hands of ISIS or other militants.

According to media reports, the number of US troops remaining in the Omar oil fields area will be 200. 400 more US-linked private military contractors are also expected to remain. This number, backed up by the US Air Force, will be enough to remain in the area. However, it remains unclear how Washington is planning to exploit the seized oilfields when forces of the ‘bloody Assad regime’ deploy all around the US garrison. Most likely, the oil fields will become another bargaining chip in Washington’s Syrian strategy.

Northeastern Syria remains the hottest part of the country despite the temporary ceasefire in the region. According to the Turkish Defense Ministry, a total of 765 ‘terrorists’ have been neutralized since the start of Operation Peace Spring.

Watch the video here.

Speaking at TRT World Forum, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Turkey has “never sat at a table with the terror groups” during the government’s 17-year term, and “will never do so.” Additionally Erdogan slammed the West, including EU and NATO states, for standing by ‘terrorists’ against Turkey during its operation in northern Syria. Erdogan further recalled his upcoming visit to Russia to discuss the processes ongoing in northeastern Syria.

During the October 17 press briefing, a spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, Mariya Zakharova, said that Russia “has always recognized Turkey’s legitimate interests in the security of its borders” and stands “for practical cooperation between Damascus and Ankara on the basis of the 1998 Adana Agreement.”

Remarks by the Russian side became another demonstration of the ongoing cooperation of Turkey, the US and the Syrian-Russian bloc over the situation in northeastern Syria. In this situation versions that describe the current situation in northeastern Syria as a pre-agreed scenario that plays into the hand of Damascus, Moscow, Washington and Ankara look even more reliable.

*

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

We call upon Global Research readers to support South Front in its endeavors.

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

Hashtag Politics: “Brand Trudeau” Wins a Second Term

October 23rd, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

“Brand Trudeau is: ‘Welcome to the new politics, just like the old politics.’” – Shachi Kurl, Angus Reid Institute, The Guardian, Aug 22, 2019

Few politicians come across more as products of hashtag committee management than Justin Trudeau.  His image has been doctored, massaged and spruced, and even then, the Instagram-Twitter committee did not quite see those corrupt influences that are bound to tarnish someone who believes in endless, indestructible parliamentary majorities.  The image can do much, but not that much.

After being elected in October, 2015, Trudeaumania became something of a syndrome, helped along by a persistent dedication to being in the permanent social media cycle.  The photo-op became staple, as is a certain shallowness that lends itself to it.  In picking Canada’s first gender-balanced federal cabinet, he was mindful of the optical moment.  Change was coming, and his revolution would be tweeted.   

In a fast spinning, whirling age of disseminated images, lacking substance helps and acts as a powerful propulsion.  The Internet, observed Eric Andrew-Gee in 2016, “has given still photos a pride of place in our media culture that they haven’t enjoyed since the rise of television.  Mr Trudeau has used that power, and that technology, to the hilt.  He is the first prime minister of the Instagram age.”

In July 2016, it was noted that Trudeau “has had about one official photo-op for every weekday he has been in the business of governing.”  Marie-Danielle Smith of the National Post considered him “the most visible Canadian leader since his father, Pierre” having “participated in at least 168 public events since swearing in his cabinet last November.” 

Trudeau the Brand has been in business for some time.  It came to the fore in the now famed charity boxing match in March 2012 against Patrick “Brass Knuckles” Brazeau, second-degree black belt in karate and former navy reservist.  The Liberal MP for Papineau seemingly did not stand a chance.  Nor did the Liberal Party, having been wiped by the Conservatives.  Trudeau, after absorbing the initial barrage of punches, won.

In a film on the encounter by Eric Ruel and Guylaine Maroist, Trudeau suggested that “the power of symbols in today’s world” should never been underestimated.  The Liberals were weak in parliament.  “We’ve never had so few MPs.  The Conservatives have all the money and the support.  So… wouldn’t it be fun to see Justin Trudeau win?  A triumph over the all-powerful Conservatives?” 

In 2017, Trudeau would tell Rolling Stone that the choice of opponent in the boxing bout was entirely conscious, giving the impression that the whole affair, from start to finish, had been an exercise of eager manipulation.  “I wanted someone who would be a good foil, and we stumbled across the scrappy, tough-guy senator from an Indigenous community… I saw it as the right kind of narrative, the right story to tell.” Very British New Labour; very Old Third Way. 

The Canadian elections have returned Trudeau to Ottawa, but with a reduced vote.  The sheen has come off, and the coat seems somewhat tattered.  Trudeau was found by Canada’s ethics watchdog to have violated conflict of interest laws in pressuring his attorney general to avoid a criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin for bribes made to Libyan officials between 2001 and 2011.  As the ethics commissioner, Mario Dion, found, Trudeau “contravened section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act”, being the only public official “able to exert influence over the attorney-general in her decision whether to intervene in a matter relating to a criminal prosecution”.  

Then came the other side of branding and e-marketing political candidates.  What goes around in image terms will come around.  If you pontificate about the evils of toxic masculinity, be wary of what skeletal remains the historical cupboard is stocked with.  And so it transpired that a younger Trudeau was prone to don “blackface” and “brownface” pose, less in terms of toxicity than being intoxicated by moment and situation.  (Those few mishaps included singing Harry Belafonte’s Day-O at a high school revue, and sporting an Afro wig, black face and body paint in the company of fellow white water rafters.)  A public apology followed: “It was something that I didn’t think was racist at the time, but now I recognise it was something racist to do, and I am deeply sorry.”

As it wore on, the nodding suggestion of Trudeau’s time in office was a return to what had been dubbed in Canadian political circles the Laurentian Consensus, the elite self-absorbed view of those in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and cities along the St. Lawrence River.  As John Ibbitson of The Globe and Mail described it in 2011, “On all the great issues of the day, this Laurentian elite debated among themselves, reached a consensus and implemented that consensus.  In short, they governed the country.” 

Nor could Trudeau claim to be vastly different from his 2015 conservative opponent, Stephen Harper, certainly on the subjects of Canada-US ties, free trade and the Keystone XL pipeline.  Trudeau might have excited millennials on the subject of legalising cannabis, or opening doors to Syrian refugees, but he caused suitable irritation, even fury, over breaking a campaign promise to end “first-past-the-post” federal voting.  The Afghan Canadian Liberal MP, Maryam Monsef, was saddled with the task of gradually strangling electoral reform in the crib. 

Trudeau also revealed, in his government’s purchase of the Trans Mountain Pipeline for some $3.4 billion from Kinder Morgan, that he was more than willing to back fossil-fuel infrastructure while proclaiming green credentials.  As Martin Lukacs noted with devastating precision, despite Trudeau signing the Paris Climate Accords in 2016, “the gap between Canada’s official carbon reduction targets and its spiralling emissions has grown wider.” 

The record, then, is not only patchy, but abysmal for this particular cardboard progressive.  Oil companies have been guaranteed continuing subsidies, organised labour has been confronted with attempts to outlaw strike action, notably in the postal sector, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been assured arms sales even as Trudeau celebrates Womankind. 

Fighting an Instagram prime minister might have required some marrow, but the Conservatives’ Andrew Scheer was not going to provide it.  He did win more votes than the Liberals and dominated in Alberta and Saskatchewan, but this merely served to eliminate Trudeau’s majority and highlight a chronic sense of Western alienation.  Nor did Jagmeet Singh’s NDP, whose caucus was reduced by half, roar with any success. The Bloc Québécois buzzed, the Greens were a preserving stutter and the People’s Party barely registered. 

Scheer decided to play the card of ordinariness, and stayed, for the most part, ordinary.  When supporters chanted the old Donald Trump expression of locking up the opponent – in this case, Trudeau – he doused the flames, favouring the chant of “Vote him out.”  A judicial inquiry would be preferable.  The politics of blandness.   

Canadian political strategists were even noting a certain similarity between Scheer’s views and those of the Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, whose tactics he is said to have embraced.  But Canadians were left with the spectre of considerable vacuity.  As Jonathan Kay argued this month in Foreign Policy, the big issues had been settled if not avoided altogether, leaving the ground on hashtag wars to be fought with mind numbing emptiness.

*

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]

Russia and Clinton’s Election Plan B

October 23rd, 2019 by Kurt Nimmo

America is an insular nation, exceptional only in its willful ignorance of the rest of the world. Many Americans, undoubtedly a majority, know very little about what is really going on in the world. 

Millions of Americans are unable to see Hillary Clinton for what she is—a “pay-to-play” corrupt psychopath and warmonger. It is entirely fair to say she is responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people in Libya and Syria. But, like most Americans, if you get your information from establishment sources, you’re not going to know about this. Only Benghazi briefly scraped away the patina and whitewash to provide a glimpse of the real Hillary Clinton, a glimpse long ago faded in the rearview mirror of controlled corporate media politics.  

Social media meme-izes a conspiracy theory so weak, so transparently bogus and manufactured it is sincerely shocking anybody beyond a six-year-old believes it. 

Meanwhile, if the idea Tulsi Gabbard is some kind of Russian subversion agent is too much for you to wrap your head around, there is a more believable lie to destroy the only antiwar candidate: insist she’s merely a “useful idiot” for Putin and the perfidious Russians. Evidence? She was favorably covered by Russian media.

Democrat zombies, mouthing fantasy talking points, actually believe “Tulski” Gabbard and the other mostly forgettable candidates are in the race simply to prevent “Wonder Woman”—I prefer the Iron Maiden of Creative Destruction—from grabbing her due. Anything less than ushering Hillary to the executive throne is “Putin’s Plan” to destroy democracy. All third party candidates are traitors. Jill Stein works directly with the Russians. 

How dizzy are Democrats? Check out the next tweet. 

Both ISIS and al-Qaeda were manufactured by the national security state as an excuse to stretch out the war on terror for long as possible—gifting the military industrial complex with never-ending death merchandise contracts—while putting finishing touches on the surveillance and police state at home. The latter will make sure another Trump doesn’t rock the boat. 

Meanwhile, we should not underestimate how the Trump Derangement Syndrome is capable of creating sectarian violence, or at least fairy-tale level frenzied delusions that may result in real-world—or world-ending—violence. 

For the indoctrinated, it’s not Jeffrey Epstein and the Mossad blackmailing representatives of the corporate state, it’s Putin. 

Clinton’s Plan B to finally capture the throne—where she can do more damage than a Tiberius or Domitian to her rivals and enemies—relies on the outrageous Russian Lie. It is, of course, an entirely illogical and dangerous lie, but it’s all Hillary and the war party Democrats have to wage battle in the upcoming race (minus impeachment) of the regrettable Trump. 

Clinton’s attacks on rivals both inside and outside of the one-party state will intensify prior to her reentry into presidential politics. Like Trump, Clinton understands the power of invective—and the Big Lie as perfected by Hitler—and this will be her weapon of choice. Lies and conspiracy theories about Russia and Ukraine will propel her into summer of next and undermine what is already a rickety ship taking on water: the new “left” side of the one party state touting identity authoritarianism at home and a continuation of neocon wars and occupations in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. 

The other Democrat candidates—with the exclusion of Tulsi Gabbard—will jump at the chance to be Hillary’s running mate in the upcoming battle to get rid of Trump and put down the deplorables. Not Biden. He’s been there, done that. 

Of course, I could be totally wrong on all of this. Trump may defeat the latest national security state coup (FBI, CIA) against a sitting president, following Kennedy and Nixon. He might follow through on his half-ass promise to drain the swamp and close down US military bases around the world and bring the troops home. 

Then again, he might not. 

*

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

Western Insanity and 5G Electromagnetic Radiation

October 23rd, 2019 by Claire Edwards

  1. Western insanity: the materialist-reductionist paradigm

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction E.F. Schumacher

The Western world is insane. It suffers from a persistent delusion called the materialist-reductionist paradigm. We learned this from the Greek philosophers who preferred to look at objects in isolation: nature, for example, was defined as the universe minus human beings and their culture.[i] They divided the world into parts assumed to be static and unchanging, and categorized the parts according to their attributes (solidity, whiteness, etc.). We are socialized as children to learn the names and categories of things and psychologists have confirmed that Westerners tend to focus on discrete objects (a left-brain emphasis), while Easterners tend to focus on relationships (a right-brain emphasis).[ii]

The intellectual approach to perception was alien to Chinese philosophers, who perceived the world as a mass of substances rather than a collection of discrete objects.[iii] Their universe was a continuous medium or matrix within which interactions of things took place, not by the clash of atoms, but by radiating influences.[iv] Quantum physics tends to confirm this view of the universe, suggesting, for example, that particles can behave like waves and can remain connected even when separated over large distances.[v]

Taoism exemplifies the holistic view: objects and events are embedded in a meaningful whole in which yin contains yang and yang contains yin in an ongoing cycle of change, giving rise to a “both/and” orientation.[vi] By contrast, the Aristotelian law of non-contradiction favoured in the West gives rise to an “either/or” orientation.[vii] Quantum physics and fuzzy or multivalent logic challenge Aristotelian binary logic and imply that the view of the universe expounded by Eastern mystics may be a more accurate representation of reality.[viii]

The difference is illustrated by contrasting the ideas of traditional Chinese medicine with those of Western medicine. The latter focuses on the parts of the body and treats problems in isolation, whereas traditional Chinese medicine considers the body to be influenced by its context (lifestyle, current activities, food intake, environment and seasons) and all its parts to be interrelated. While Westerners readily see themselves as a machine, Japanese see themselves as deriving from nature, analogous to a plant.[ix]

Notions of an organic, living and spiritual universe were largely eradicated in the 17th century by Newton’s conception of a mechanistic universe. Europeans welcomed the Scientific Revolution as evidence of progress, a concept that arises from the Christian notion of rectilinear time. In Christianity, time appears to run in a straight line from the Creation, by way of the Fall of Man and the Revelation, to the Last Judgment.[x] Since time was seen as a line moving forward towards salvation, it entailed a belief in progress being made over the course of time.

Spirituality in the West was finally extinguished by René Descartes, who pronounced that mind and body are separate, which was readily accepted by Christians already primed with dualistic notions of the Bible such as heaven and hell, good and evil, God and Satan. Descartes’ famous dictum of “I think, therefore I am” completed the schism in the West between the head and the heart and made the individual ascendant. The Bible having already granted him dominion over the animals, Western man could now believe that he was separate from his environment. He saw himself as contributing to human progress and acting both rationally and morally in exploiting his environment for his own individual profit, heedless of the consequences for others who shared it. He was as cut off from his environment as he was from the emotions that informed his thoughts. As a result, interest in spirituality was largely extinguished for several centuries in the West, while rationality reigned supreme, such that labelling an idea “Illogical” was to condemn it out of hand. The way of thinking about the world that developed between 1500 and 1700 has dominated Western culture for the past 300 years.[xi]

Physicist Wallace Thornhill is challenging the left-brain view. He believes that we don’t understand the world by putting it together bit by bit, suggesting that the method used at the Large Hadron Collider is like smashing countless jumbo jets into mountains and picking over the debris to see how they fly. The machine metaphor reduces things to isolated bits and loses sight of the connected whole: stars and galaxies are isolated objects; we are isolated individuals. Thornhill compares the modern academy to the universities of the 16th and 17th centuries that conformed to the Church and to Aristotle’s text. He accuses modern science of ignoring or suppressing counter-arguments and sanitizing the history of science to give the impression of progress.[xii]

The materialist-reductionist paradigm has run its course. The world is undergoing a new period of enlightenment that is changing our understanding of everything and vindicating what Chinese mysticism has taught for thousands of years. Everything isconnected and we are not isolated from nature but are a part of, and interact with it. Modern scientific gatekeepers are like King Canute, struggling to turn back the tide, which has definitively turned against their scientific orthodoxy to threaten their dominance, prestige and power.

It is a dangerous time to be alive, for those who wield power remain wedded to the fear-generating paranoia of the materialist-reductionist paradigm: everything is material, scarce, perishable and limited. Life is inevitably nasty, brutal and short, and only the fittest, i.e. the most ruthless, survive. Neoliberal economics is the apotheosis of this thinking. Heavily influenced by Plato, the University of Chicago philosopher Leo Strauss taught his students to go out and rule the world using any means necessary, chiefly deception.[xiii] They promptly did so, authoring the Project for the New American Century and orchestrating the post-9/11 collapse of the rule of law. Like Nietzsche, Strauss believed that the history of Western civilization had led to the triumph of the inferior, the rabble. Strauss’s sick mind is largely responsible for the banalization of evil over the last 18 years.[xiv]

Physicist David Bohm believed that our almost universal tendency to fragment the world and ignore the dynamic interconnectedness of all things is responsible for many of our problems. He argued passionately that our current way of fragmenting the world into parts not only doesn’t work, but may even lead to our extinction.[xv] How prescient he was! Just a few decades later here we are, standing at the brink of our own destruction by 5G technologies.

  1. Is Western insanity exacerbated by electromagnetic radiation? 

The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence  Nikola Tesla

Modern science blindly continues to prop up an increasingly indefensible Newtonian model of a material universe and demeans the efforts of open-minded scientists who are providing ever more data to support Nikola Tesla’s assertion that the universe can be understood only in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.

While materialists continue to assert that consciousness is a function of the brain, a consensus is building that the ancient worldviewof consciousness beingactually the source rather than an epiphenomenon of matter was correct. “The ‘hard problem’ of consciousness is the result of a category mistake. We have been trying to reduce consciousness to physical properties when it is consciousness that is the more comprehensive category, and it is only in terms of consciousness that physical properties themselves can be understood.”[xvi] Bruce Lipton compares the brain to a television set: whether or not the set is functional and can pick it up, the signal is always there.[xvii] For Anthony Peake, that signal is the real reality around us – what he calls the “Bohmian IMAX” – and the brain is an attenuator that reduces and processes this fizzing and buzzing mass of electromagnetic energy to enable us to make sense of it. People who believe that what they perceive through their senses is exactly what is happening “out there” he calls “literalists”. Certain individuals have a malfunctioning attenuator that causes them to perceive the Bohmian IMAX in all its glory, resulting in a diagnosis of schizophrenia, severe autism or Asperger’s syndrome.[xviii]

We are all taught that everything is made of atoms and molecules, which we know are not solid. We should by now all understand that when we think we touch something, we are simply meeting the electromagnetic field created by electron repulsion. However, because we are nevertheless browbeaten into believing that everything is matter, we live in an inverted world. It is not “material objects” that produce electromagnetic fields, but electromagnetic fields that organize matter, as proposed by Harold Saxton Burr in 1973 (in other words, matter is an epiphenomenon of energy). Both cymatics and Masaru Emoto’s experiments with water crystals appear to confirm that this is the case. These experiments chime with biologist Rupert Sheldrake’s hypothesis of morphic fields, which connect together members of the group even when they are many miles apart. The HeartMath Institute has shown experimentally that aspects of the DNA molecule can be altered through intentionality. When individuals are in a heart-focused, loving state and in a more coherent mode of physiological functioning, they have a greater ability to alter the conformation of DNA.[xix]

Resolving the question of whether it is a material or an energy universe is not an interesting philosophical dilemma but involves our very survival as a species. For those who are trapped in the materialist paradigm fail to see the existential threat of 5G technologies.

The different worldviews of West and East may be a result of emphasis on one or other of the hemispheres of the brain. The world of the left hemisphere yields clarity and power to manipulate things that are known, fixed, static, isolated, decontextualized, explicit, general in nature, but ultimately lifeless. The right hemisphere, by contrast, yields a world of individual, changing, evolving, interconnected, implicit, incarnate, living beings within the context of the lived world, but in the nature of things never fully graspable, never perfectly known.[xx] In other words, the right brain has a marked disposition for the living rather than the mechanical. The knowledge that is mediated by the left hemisphere is, however, within a closed system. It has the advantage of perfection, but the perfection is bought ultimately at the price of emptiness. This is typical of the scientific approach, says Wallace Thornhill: you isolate the small part of something and then try to analyse that.[xxi]

Since our perception of reality is mediated by the brain and we in the West are already having difficulties in terms of left-right hemisphere balance, it might seem unwise to do anything that might exacerbate these, such as permanently exposing the brain – including the brains of foetuses and children – to high levels of pulsed and modulated electromagnetic radiation. Yuri Grigoriev, the doyen of electromagnetic research in Russia, has observed that this is the first time in the history of humanity that people’s brains are being openly exposed to microwaves.[xxii] Do we have any evidence of effects on the brain after 25 years of cell phone use and ubiquitous wireless technology? The answer is, yes, very definitely, we do. The Oscillatorium sets out all these EMF effects on the brain in full, but here are some highlights from recent reports:

Could these devastating findings have anything to do with cell phone manufacturers irradiating adults, children and foetuses way over even the already astronomically high permitted limits? French NGO Alert Phonegate has established that for years “smart” phones have been irradiating users at levels far above the limits and the Chicago Tribune has established that the same has been happening in the US. Australian barrister Ray Broomhall has revealed that 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(slide show). Meanwhile, a new European directive (2014/53/EU) relaxes controls by allowing manufacturers to self-certify their products.

Writer and brain-tumour-survivor Olga Sheean, who is acutely affected by electromagnetic radiation, describes feeling “ill, confused, lethargic and many other things that you can’t even articulate because this radiation scrambles the brain and dulls the senses—and I have experienced this when exposed to strong microwaves in WiFi zones”.[xxxiii]

Professor Neil Cherry’s research persuaded him that electromagnetic fields and radiation damage DNA and enhance cell death rates and that they are therefore a ubiquitous universal genotoxic carcinogen that enhances the rates of cancer, cardiac, reproductive and neurological disease and mortality in human populations. Therefore there is no safe threshold level. The only safe exposure level is zero, a position confirmed by dose-response trends in epidemiological studies.

  1. Proof of insanity: rolling out 5G is the action of disturbed minds

The global electric circuit

The International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space explains the global electric circuit on which we depend for our well-being:

The Earth, the ionosphere and the lower atmosphere form the global electric circuit[xxxiv]in which we live. It is well established that biological rhythms—of humans,[xxxv],[xxxvi] birds,[xxxvii] hamsters,[xxxviii] and spiders[xxxix],[xl]—are controlled by the Earth’s natural electromagnetic environment and that the well-being of all organisms depends on the stability of this environment, including the electrical properties of the atmosphere.[xli],[xlii],[xliii],[xliv] Cherry, in a groundbreaking paper,[xlv] explained the importance of the Schumann resonances[xlvi] and why ionospheric disturbances can alter blood pressure and melatonin and cause “cancer, reproductive, cardiac and neurological disease and death”.

These elements of our electromagnetic environment have already been altered by radiation from power lines. Power line harmonic radiation[xlvii] reaches the Earth’s ionosphere and magnetosphere, where it is amplified by wave-particle interactions.[xlviii],[xlix] In 1985, Dr. Robert O. Becker warned that power line harmonic radiation had already changed the structure of the magnetosphere, and that the continued expansion of this effect “threatens the viability of all life on Earth”.[l] The placement of tens of thousands of satellites directly in both the ionosphere and magnetosphere, emitting modulated signals at millions of watts and millions of frequencies, is likely to alter our electromagnetic environment beyond our ability to adapt.[li]

Informal monitoring has already provided evidence indicating serious effects on humans and animals from the approximately 100 satellites that have provided 2G and 3G phone service from low orbit since 1998. Such effects cannot be understood only from consideration of the low levels of radiation on the ground. Knowledge from other relevant scientific disciplines must be taken into account, including the fields of atmospheric physics and acupuncture.[lii],[liii],[liv],[lv] Adding 20,000 5G satellites will further pollute the global electric circuit[lvi],[lvii] and could alter the Schumann resonances,[lviii] with which all life on Earth has evolved. The effects will be universal and may be profoundly damaging.

Are decision-makers fit to make decisions permitting 5G on Earth and in space?

Having established that the left-brain imbalance in the West is undoubtedly greatly exacerbated by massive exposure to electromagnetic radiation, it is pertinent to ask if under these circumstances our decision-makers possess the mental capacity to permit the rollout of 5G, including in space, especially given that they are aware that not a single test of health or safety has been carried out prior to this planned blanket coverage of the Earth with 5G.

It is intended to “blanket” the Earth with artificial electromagnetic radiation ostensibly for the purpose of providing Internet access to all. The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has already given permission for 23,000 5G satellites to be put into space, with SpaceX now having submitted paperwork for 30,000 more. These will operate in low-Earth orbit (1,200 miles (2,000 kms)) and very low Earth orbit (between 208 and 215 miles (335 to 346 kms)). In addition to these 53,000 satellites, it is planned to place High Altitude Pseudo Satellites (HAPS; solar-powered giant wings, airships or balloons)in the stratosphere, and to network civil aviation to provide Internet access on the ground. According to the UN’s Online Index of Objects Launched into Outer Space, there are currently 5,294 satellites in Earth orbit (as of 21 October 2019). The proposed satellites would increase that number by a factor of 10.

SpaceX has also requested permission to operate 1 million Earth stations. These will transmit in the range of 14.0-14.5 GHz (part of the ‘Ku band’) and receive in the range of 10.7-12.7 GHz (part of the ‘X band’). For comparison, current LTE networks operate at 600MHz to 2.5GHz.

Existing threats in space: space debris and weaponization

A major long-term concern among all space-faring nations and the UN is orbital congestion, which currently includes more than 500,000 pieces of debris and is projected to reach over 2 billion by 2025.[lix] The Kessler syndrome posits a cascade of space debris collisions that could make the Earth orbits unusable for many generations.[lx] Some satellites are nuclear-powered, and there have been accidents that have allowed nuclear material to reach Earth (both land and sea) and to load radionuclides in the upper atmosphere, which can in time spiral down to sea-level. With radioistopes having a half-life of thousands of years, it is possible that eventual harm was caused to the public and environment.[lxi]

Project West Ford in 1961 involved placing in orbit 480 million copper dipole antennas (needles) in orbit to facilitate global radio communication during the Cold War. These needles continue to contribute to the space debris problem. In November 2018, the FCC initiated a comprehensive review of its orbital-debris mitigation rules – after granting permission for several thousand satellites.  We are told that more technology to combat technology is being tested, such as ion beams or harpoon nets to capture space debris.

In March this year, India destroyed its own satellite and created debris that was considered a threat to the International space station.

The second major issue of long-term concern is the weaponization of space. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 enshrined the principle of outer space being preserved as a common heritage of humankind, forbids the stationing of weapons in outer space (art. IV) and binds States parties to conducting all their activities in outer space with due regard for the interests of all other States.[lxii] It also bans the use of nuclear weapons, but was not signed by the US or North Korea. It has long been recognized that the weaponization of outer space for any purpose—whether offensive or defensive, against any space/celestial body or against an Earth-bound target—would effectively turn space objects into potential targets and turn outer space into a potential conflict zone.”[lxiii] Conflict in space is particularly dangerous because the cause of anomalies would be unclear.

Despite this, in February this year, President Trump determined to create a military space force. NATO intends to declare space a “war-fighting domain” this December. France has just announced its own space command to protect French satellites, which will be equipped with machine guns and laser weapons. Sabotage and warfare would target the satellites of other countries.[lxiv] One attack technique would involve deliberately directing broadband radio transmissions to disrupt the communications of the target satellite.

Has the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP) system morphed into 5G?

The capabilities of the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP) system bear a remarkable resemblance to those of 5G. HAARP is an ionospheric heater that uses banks of antennas arranged in phased arrays with a beam-forming ability. Like 5G, HAARP can be used as a communications system; it has mental-disruption possibilities; it can seriously impair the brain performance of very large populations; it can do voice to skull; it can heat the skin; it can change people’s emotional state, and perhaps even change and manipulate thought and behaviour; and it can create a lethargic or highly energized response as described in the interview below with Dr. Nick Begich, who has written several books on HAARP.[lxv]

Begich is the eldest son of the late United States Congressman from Alaska, Nick Begich Sr. and political activist Pegge Begich. He was twice elected President of both the Alaska Federation of Teachers and the Anchorage Council of Education. He is the author of Angels don’t play this HAARP: Advances in Tesla technology and other books.

A European Union report published on 14 January 1999 refers to the Alaska-based High-frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP) system as a weapon involving environmental manipulation and asked for information from the US on its risk to public health. HAARP was described as a research project using a ground-based apparatus, an array of antennae each powered by its own transmitter, to heat up portions of the ionosphere with powerful radio beams. The energy generated heats up parts of, and makes holes in, the ionosphere, which is what protects us from incoming cosmic radiation. It had links with 50 years of intensive space research for military purposes, including the Star Wars project, to control the upper atmosphere and communications. The report described HAARP as a serious threat to the environment, with an incalculable impact on human life. It described HAARP as being in breach of Convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, the Antarctic Treaty, the Outer Space Treaty, and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.[lxvi] (Documentary on HAARP with Dr. Nick Begich.Documentary on HAARP from the History Channel.)

Highlights of interview with Dr. Nick Begich about HAARP, 10 June 2016

Interviewer: [Zbigniew] Brzezinski: his book which he wrote in the 1970s for Columbia University when he was a professor there at Columbia, with regard to the research on the brain and human behaviour. And I’ll just begin with that. “Political strategists are tempted to exploit research on the brain and human behaviour. Geophysicist Gordon McDonald, specialist in problems of warfare, says accurately timed artificially excited electronic strokes could lead to a pattern of oscillations that produce relatively high power levels over certain regions of the Earth. in this way one could develop a system that would seriously impair the brain performance of very large populations in selected regions over an extended period. No matter how deeply disturbing the thought of using the environment to manipulate behaviour for national advantages to some, the technology permitting such use will very probably develop within the next few decades.

06:55

Begich: Brzezinski was really working for the big guys on the planet. His book called Between Two Ageswritten in the early 1970s, really gets into — if you read it and if you can find it. It really reads as a forecast of what would happen technologically and economically to every major country in the world and that forecast actually became the reality. What he was talking about was the idea of manipulating human behaviour for government advantage, In other words, changing people’s emotional state, maybe even changing and manipulating thought. And so HAARP is where kind of some of this started coming out. When we initially published back in the mid 90s, since that time we’ve done a lot of work on the mind effects side of this technology. And I can say is this: HAARP is just one system that could deliver on an altering emotional states.

07:59

And it gets right back to what J F Gordon MacDonald was saying, and that was the quote by Brzezinski, that if we can ever figure out how to electronically stroke the ionosphere in just the right way — and I’m paraphrasing a bit — we could return a signal to the Earth that would manipulate the behaviour of the people within the reach of that signal. That is exactly what HAARP does. HAARP is a high-frequency transmitter that, if you pulse it or send the energy up in such a way as — you could think about that high-energy signal as a hammer. And then you’re literally slamming that hammer down. With each hammer slam, you get a pulse and the ionosphere then begins to mirror that pulse. And the consequence is an ELF – an extremely low frequency signal then comes back to the Earth. And this is used for a number of different military applications, but it also just so happens to cross the threshold for predominant brain activity between 1 and 20 Hertz or pulses per second for simplicity. So that kind of signal, according to J F Gordon McDonald and later research done at Laurentian University by Persinger, that if you could ever electronically stroke the ionosphere in just the right way, which is what HAARP can do now, you can create an emotional change in a vast segment of the population, creating a lethargic sort of response or a highly energized, riotous kind of response. And it would affect a large number, maybe as many as 70 per cent of the population within the region where that signal was being generated.

11.35

Begich: it doesn’t matter whether it’s radio, TV, the Internet, the power grid itself can be modulated in such a way to affect people in this way. In fact, there’s an excellent article published by the US Army War College called The Mind Has No Firewall, which gets into all of the various forms of delivery on these kinds of technologies and that was actually taken originally from a Russian military journal discussing the very same technologies. And the fact is HAARP is just one delivery system, but any electromagnetic system, including just a radio broadcast, where you’re listening to your normal broadcast, you can piggyback a signal on that. You won’t even detect on that can influence behaviour. In fact, during the first Gulf War back during Bush senior’s time in the White House, there were Scottish press reports after the war trying to explain the mass surrenderings of Iraqis, where a few people were able to get hundreds to surrender and they couldn’t figure it out. And the Iraqis were just gripped with fear and panic. And what we found out was the US military, through a project called Project Solo, actually embedded signals on the broadcasts taking in the normal Moslem music and prayers that our adversaries were listening to, and creating that environment where they actually felt the emotions of fear and panic. So when asked to surrender, the inclination was to do so. And that’s the kind of thing that’s intended with theselarge systems is to sort of push the crowd or push the herd in a certain way and then everyone else kind of falls in line.

13:23

Interviewer: It’s so evil. It’s just so evil. So you mentioned, besides HAARP, that there were other technologies that you just talked about — radio and various other things that could be piggybacked. But there are other large-scale technologies that we don’t know about like HAARP that are doing the same thing. Or were you just referring to what you just explained — well – the ones in plain view?

Begich: I mean from cell towers and cell systems to landline phone systems, to standard AM/FM radio broadcasts, to Internet traffic, and just being on the Internet. All of these things can be utilized in that way you can also utilize visual effects and this is done often through television, where you don’t really have it embedded so much in the sound carrier, but you do in the light, and by flickering the light at a specific flicker rate, you can create a frequency following response that the brain will mirror and then fall into the state. And that one gets into some really needy material when you think about how people are when they come home from work at the end of the day. They turn on the news or watch TV, and their spouse is yelling “Come on, it’s dinnertime, it’s dinnertime.” And they’re totally oblivious — they don’t hear it because they’re actually in a light trance-like state while watching the programme. That is actually programming you — it’s the same state you would be in, in sort of a light hypnotic trance where information is being fed in and not very well discriminated as it feeds into the subconscious. And this is where the risk comes in and most advertisers and most people who study psychology understand frequency following responses and when applied to mass media can make for very effective propaganda or very effective advertising.

50:00

Interviewer: Why would the barium be in the patent, the chemtails? Are these two phenomena [HAARP & chemtrails] deeply enmeshed and connected or not? And it sounds like you’re saying maybe they’re not.

Begich: Well, barium is used. What they do is, they launch it up into where the magnetic field lines of the Earth are expected to be. And the magnetic field lines — if you can imagine them — if you remember in high school they had the old bar magnets that show you how the magnetic field lines kind of surround it. You throw some little metal filings you can see those lines of magnetic force. Well, the Earth has very defined magnetic field lines that flow from the South Pole to the North Pole and intersect at the poles. And so by injecting barium into the upper atmosphere and into the lower ionosphere where these magnetic field lines are, they literally light up. And then when you turn on HAARP, one of the things that you try and do is accelerate electrons, create an energetic effect within the magnetic field lines that, if you could see it, it would look like kind of a corkscrewing motion surrounding those magnetic field lines. And the bariumcreates what’s called “air glow” so that when you throw the HAARP system on top of the magnetic field lines and the barium is present, you can actually see if you’re creating those accelerated electrons that are surrounding the magnetic field lines. So it gives them a way to visually see what otherwise theoretically they’re trying to model. And they’ve done that here in Alaska. In fact, I believe they’ve done that also at Tromsø, Norway, although this is speculation on my part. You’ll remember a number of years ago this very weird corkscrewing kind of glow perceived in northern Norway and they said it was a Russian missile that went bad or some crazy nonsense, but actually that would be pretty much what you would expect to see during a barium-HAARP/magnetic-field-line interaction. And the reason they wanted to accelerate those electrons is — if the magnetic field lines a natural part of the Earth acts as a waveguide. So the energy pumped up from HAARP encircles that waveguide and in the corkscrewing kind of motion goes from the North Pole to the South Pole and then any object passing through that has electronics on board, like an ICBM missile or satellite, their electronics become disrupted and they crash. So it was originally designed for the purpose of an anti-satellite/anti-missile technology. And that’s where that barium comes in.

65:28

Caller: … the weather modification aspect was to microwave the moisture right. Could HAARP do that as well?

Begich: Yes, Absolutely. And you know where that satellite-based system technology came from was actually a paper that Dr. Eastland had written for the European Space Agency. And it was dealing with utilizing microwave energy for knocking out tornados. And what they envisioned was either satellite-based or potentially ground-based. You could actually – when a cold front and a warm front come together is where you get the shearing action that forms the twister. If you could heat up the cold front to some degree so that, when they came together, you would not create that energy differential, you could effectively knock out the potential of a tornado forming. And so Eastland took that theme and went a little further with it. And certainly, the idea of heating up certain areas for specific effect is there, whether it’s for tornado mitigation or, in another instance, just above HAARP or in the direction which you slew the beam, you can literally push the ionosphere out several hundred kilometers from its normal position. And what happens then is the lower atmosphere moves in to fill that space. And as a consequence local pressure systems are changed or the flow of jet stream directionally is altered. Andso that’s another way to manipulate huge weather fronts on a mass scale utilizing the heating components of HAARP.

80:30

Begich: Short wavelengths like microwaves can’t penetrate the Earth and see very deep so you need these long wavelengths to signal submarines at depth. And we create those signals — at least as far as the public knows — through antennas that are up to 26 miles long buried in the Aleutian chain, buried in Michigan and other places around the world that are used for signal generation. What we have with HAARP is the ability to take an instrument on the ground locate it in Alaska, create a pulse in the ionosphere that makes the ionosphere that big antenna system. In other words, it changes it from DC, which is what it normally is, to an AC alternating current acting as a giant broadcast antenna in the sky manipulated by the HAARP signal on the ground. So think about it as plug-and-play. You’re plugging HAARP into the ionosphere — now the ionosphere is acting as your antenna system.

81:46

Begich: We cover directed energy weapons in two books, Controlling The Human Mind and and more particularly in Earth Rising: The Revolution, vol. 2. This idea of directed-energy weapons, it’s getting away from the idea of bullets, bombs, and ordnance and drifting towards utilizing energy in its raw form and manipulating energy for weapons applications. Things like American Technology Corporation developed through a guy named Woody Norris — you could look up Woody Norris — he won the Lemelson prize at MIT for this technology — but using acoustic heterodyning — two invisible signals bouncing towards an individual. You can actually transmit voice information and people hear this proverbial voice in their head. That technology was contracted and sold to the military for, supposedly, security applications. Some of the other directed-energy kind of weapons: some of you might remember the microwave dish mounted on a Humvee that they were bragging about about a decade ago. And this creates a energy direct about an individual for riot control purposes that create the sensation of heat of up to 130 degrees on the surface of the skin, and as a consequence, you kind of run away from that source! But that’s a directed-energy weapon as well. But directed energy is really on three levels: (1) to disrupt on board avionics or computers that control equipment. So by creating energy surges that disrupt the flow of information through circuitry, you can cause equipment to malfunction. At a higher energy level, directed energy weapons can be used to literally burn circuits or cause things to melt and at other energy levels, in a more directed way, can be targeting the individual operator, causing mental confusion and disorientation, which means that the weapons system that individual’s controlling is essentially worthless if it can’t be controlled by the operator. So those kinds of directed energy systems have been developed, they are available and they are well documented within the literature.

87:02

Begich: When you get resonance or harmony between the transmitter and the receiver is when you get the nice clear signal and you can hear our voice over radio. The same is true with everything. There are resonant frequencies that correspond to everything: every cell in your body, every element, every organ. And so, if you can manipulate very specific frequencies like tuning a radio, where you get nothing but static between the stations, but when you hit the right signal frequency, waveform, pulse rate, then you get all the action. And I think that’s what JJ Thompson was really referring to — was this kind of fine-tuning, where you could discover where the instabilities occur, which is a lot of what HAARP and other systems have been about, so that you could then trigger those instabilities, not so much with a big hammer of energy but with just the right frequency to tune that radio to get just the right effect. And that would be the analogy I would use and I believe that’s probably what JJ Thompson was talking about. Around the same time, Nikola Tesla was talking about huge weapon systems being designed, utilizing energy as the root — alternating energy particularly. And he viewed the earth as a big giant dynamo, a big alternating motor spinning and creating current and field. And this is where the action is and so what we’re doing now in the 21st century is learning how to tune.

88:43

Caller: I was reading something from a guy called David Sarnoff who was the director of RCA labs, which is a sister company of General Electric. And in 1946, he was stating that they would be able to control the weather with radio waves. Which I feel must be related. And one of his co-directors was a man called Vladimir Zworykin. And he was tasked by the United States Air Force to develop a program for weather control. The weird thing was about this particular man Vladimir Zworykin was that he was an expert in telecommunications. He was one of the people behind television so he was an expert in was sending energy through the atmosphere.

89:37

Begich: When you look at the whole revolution military affairs, the RMA that the military is talking about, is a recognition that energy manipulation of energy allows you a vastly a larger array of capability. And weather modification, earthquake generation. All of these things become possible. As we gain thishigher understanding of how to literally interfere with the global electric circuit and that’s what these systems are about.

90:10

Caller: I’m so glad you mentioned that because JJ Thompson was overseeing the work of CTR Wilson. And that’s what he was working on — understanding the global electric circuit. And he was using cloud chambers, looking at cosmic rays and how they were forming clouds in his cloud chamber. And that was in the 1890s! So they have a very long-term understanding — or at least a scientific premise to develop further, to get to the stage where we are all this time later, to modify and control the weather and climate.

Begich: And what we’re talking about today is what’s in the open literature. It’s the tip of the iceberg. I can assure everyone that our government and other governments do not just release things until they’re compelled to or when they, sort of discovered independently.

92:10

Begich: Three years ago, the Air Force announced HAARP was shutting down and everyone interviewed me and I said they’re never going to shut it down. The next year, DARPA was funding it and then a year later, DARPA said we’re all done. We’re shutting it down. I was again hit by media and I said no it’s not going to shut down and this year, the Congress a week ago transferred back over the University of Alaska, and now all those federal agencies and other governmental agencies can contract with the university to get the same thing done, which is exactly what they’re doing. All they’ve done is shuffle the deck and throw it under somebody else’s funding and then funded it under other line items. And this is so typical of bureaucracy so the public they think, okay, we finally shut down all the debate on this thing. When all they’ve done is change the players on the front end of the project and this is very traditional in all military projects across the world.

95:19

Begich: One of the other systems is operated in Europe is EISCAT (European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association) system which is operated through Norway and Tromsø and this is again an ionospheric heater that was developed for this type of experimental purpose. And they use it in conjunction with HAARP. You can see it in the original planning documents on HAARP and it shows up throughout the literature.

96:03

Caller: I’ve looked at the EISCAT (European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association) ionospheric heater and realized that in 2014 they had a 16 million pound upgrade to make it a digital system with omnidirectional antennas so that they can do multiple experiments in milliseconds.

Begich: That happened a few years ago. Some new patents got released and now they’re applying them to ionospheric heaters, which made them much more potent within a smaller footprint. So the old idea that you needed kilometre by kilometre arrays – you don’t need that anymore. The digital technology and the new antenna technologies means you can do it in a very compact way. So HAARP and Tromsø today can do all of those things that were speculated on by Eastland in his original patents that required kilometres of arrays. That is not necessary. What is on the planet today will realize all of the things that Eastland projected back in the 90s when he first originated these patents.

Caller: Would it be feasible to use mobile phone or cell towers in coordination to create fields of energy in the lower atmosphere or the ionosphere for weather modification?

Begich: It may be but I just don’t have specific information to comment on it.

Further information about HAARP is available here.

  1. Further proof of insanity: rolling out 5G is catastrophic for public health

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology ― Carl Sagan

So many different fields of science are required to understand the global electric circuit that its workings remain a mystery. But never mind, let’s ignore the warning of Olle Johansson that these rollouts may stand in opposition to life on this planet and his advice that we should proceed with the utmost caution. Let’s not bother with any health or safety testing of 5G technologies.

Let’s just throw caution to the winds. Let’s forget all the space law such as the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which enshrined the principle of outer space being preserved as a common heritage of humankind.After all, it “lacks any provisions that would regulate the methods of the settlement of eventual disputes, which usually appear in law-making treaties, such as the 1959 Antarctic Treaty”.2

Let’s go right ahead and place 53,000 5G satellites in the Earth orbits to join the hundreds of millions of bits of space debris and the nuclear power sources we have already put up there. Let’s put thousands of pseudosatellites in the stratosphere. Let’s network civil aircraft to transmit broadband to the ground. And let’s hope for the best. We might just get lucky and avoid a Kessler syndrome. If not, we could always jump ship and shoot off to trash another planet somewhere else.

The MadFest knows no bounds:

  1. Liability: the 5G chickens are coming home to roost

You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality― Ayn Rand

The law that should be protecting us from 5G but isn’t because it’s being ignored

A legal opinion given by a Danish law firm states that rolling out 5G is illegal under EU and international law (75 pages):

It is the conclusion of this legal opinion that establishing and activating a 5G-network, as it is currently described, would be in contravention of current human and environmental laws enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, EU regulations, and the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats and the Convention on Migratory Species (Bern- and Bonn-conventions. … This also applies when the radiation remains within the limits recommended by ICNIRP and currently used in Denmark as well as broadly within the EU.

A renowned Swiss law firm provides legal opinion stating that the Swiss Federal government’s modification of its ordinance to privilege directional antennas is not legally admissible because it would undermine health protection.

The International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space provides a full list of international instruments breached by the illegal rollout of 5G technologies.

Warnings about the 5G rollout

In an impassioned speech before the United Nations General Assembly on 24 September 2019, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson stated that digital authoritarianism is not the stuff of dystopian fantasy but of an emerging reality. He described the Internet of Things, “smart” cities and AI as a giant, dark thundercloud lowering ever more oppressively over the human race, a gathering force reshaping the future of humanity over which the human race has no control and from which, in future, there may be nowhere to hide.

He asked if algorithms could be trusted with our lives and hopes and whether machines should be allowed to doom us to a cold and heartless future in an Orwellian world designed for censorship, repression and control. He recalled the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and endorsed its ideals of upholding freedom of opinion and expression, the privacy of home and correspondence, and the right to seek and impart information and ideas.

He exhorted the academic committees, company boards and industry standards groups who are writing the rulebooks of the future, making ethical judgements, and choosing what will or will not be rendered possible to find the right balance between freedom and control, between innovation and regulation, between private enterprise and government oversight. He insisted that the ethical judgements inherent in the design of new technology must be made transparent to all and that joint efforts must be made to agree a common set of global principles to shape the norms and standards that will guide the development of emerging technology.

Prof. Em. Martin L. Pall believes that 5G effects will take months, not years, and he expects a breakdown in mental function, sterility, damaged heart function and societal collapse.

In July 2019, President Putin emphasized the environmental risks of new technologies, saying “Hopes that the new technologies themselves will save the planet from the growing anthropogenic influence turned out to be illusions. Nature and climate degradation continues.”

An EU report published in April 2019 admitted that 5G is a massive experiment, lamenting that “it is not possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world” and stating that “complex interference effects … may result, especially in dense urban areas.”

In April 2019, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA clashed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which oversees US wireless networks, saying that next-generation mobile technology could interfere with crucial satellite-based Earth observations. In May, Meteorologists warned that the introduction of 5G mobile phone networks could seriously affect weather forecasters’ ability to predict major storms by disrupting the delicate satellite instruments they use to monitor changes in the atmosphere. They said that the result would be impaired forecasts, poorer warnings about major storms, and loss of life.

The French National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES) warned in a 400-page report that LED lights in your house can cause irreversible damage to the eyes and lead to a vision-robbing condition. In October 2019, ANSES called upon the public authorities and industry to take their responsibilities for public health seriously.

Let us never forget that a minimum of 5 per cent of the world’s population are already tortured by microwave sickness through involuntary exposure to the environmental toxin that is artificial electromagnetic radiation emitted by wireless technologies. They are called “electro-hypersensitive”, as if it is their fault that they are sick, when in fact it is the fault of the companies and cell phone users choosing to irradiate them. If 5G were to be fully rolled out, they would have nowhere to hide. And 5G is likely to make everyone “electro-hypersensitive”, i.e. torture them. They have been abandoned by the authorities in almost every country but Sweden. After the rollout of 5G in Switzerland, a courageous Swiss mainstream magazine, L’Illustré, reported on the injuries of Geneva’s first 5G victims: “With 5G, we feel like guinea pigs“.

In August 2019, the Oregon state legislative assembly declared a health emergency in Senate Bill 283 and directed the state health authority to review studies of the health effects of exposure to RF-radiation in schools and to recommend how to reduce children’s exposure in schools and to report back not later than 2 January 2021.

The precautionary principle must be invoked

Austria, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland have all called for health reports or recommended that testing of 5G be carried out for health and safety. These actions provide grounds for the invocation of the precautionary principle. “Weight of evidence” is not required, as even a single scientific showing adverse health effects is enough to show doubt and trigger the invocation of precautionary principle.

Regulatory agencies: the fox is guarding the hen-house

Eric Van Rongen, Chair of ICNIRP [self-proclaimed international commission on non-ionizing radiation protection, but actually just a German NGO], the organization whose non-transparent pronouncements on the international limits at which phones can emit radiofrequency are strangely adopted by UN bodies, called 5G “a public health experiment”, stating that “It will be necessary to gain more information about the exposure and any health problems that might come from an effect of that exposure”. In September 2019, when asked in an interview, “Why does everyone takes icnirp’s position on EMF as a gold standard?”, he replied “Er, I don’t know. They choose to do so“.

In January 2019, journalist group Investigate Europe published “The ICNIRP Cartel: Who’s Who in the EMF Research World, an interactive graphic”, exposing conflicts of interest among ICNIRP members. Another article explains how icnirp and other agencies and a 30-year-old political decision created and then covered up a global public health scandal.

In March 2019, US New Jersey Congressman Andy Kim sent a letter, noting that, “Current regulations governing radiofrequency (RF) safety were put in place in 1996 and have not yet been reassessed for newer generation technologies.”

Based on data from a 2017 survey of a 6th floor apartment in Östermalm in Stockholm with a GSM/3G/4G LTE base station just 12 metres away, it was extrapolated that 666,000 such base stations would be needed before ICNIRP’s ludicrously high so-called safety guidelines were breached.

The Sept-Oct 2019 issue of the journal Municipal Lawyer published an article entitled Putting the Cart Before the Horse – The FCC’s ‘5G First, Safety Second’ Policy, which stated that the FCC should have completed the review of its RF standards before opening the floodgates for the deployment of hundreds of thousands of small cell transmitters for 5G. The rules adopted by the FCC in 1996 were designed to protect only against the thermal effects of RF exposure and not against biological effects, which icnirp dismisses wholesale.

The authors of 5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects—A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz, funded by Deutsche Telekom, stated that “The available studies do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment, or for the question about non-thermal effects and conclude that, “In summary, the majority of studies with MMW exposures show biological responses”.

In June 2019, EMFOff! published an exposé of corruption at the World Health Organization: The WHO Cover-Up That is Costing Us the Earth. Video and PDF document. 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. (Slide show.)

Legal cases against the 5G rollout or cell phones have been launched in various countries

Liability actions are now multiplying

Revisions to a Portuguese decree regarding liability insurance clearly demonstrates that the Portuguese government has no intention of requiring satellite companies to obtain sufficient insurance to meet their obligations under the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (Liability Convention), which elaborates on Article 7 of the Outer Space Treaty and provides that a launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space objects on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft, and liable for damage due to its faults in space. The Convention also provides for procedures for the settlement of claims for damages.

The definition of the term “launching State” under the Liability Convention is:

  • A State which launches or procures the launching of a space object;
  • A State from whose territory or facility a space object is launched.

Given that space objects, especially 5G satellites which may devastate public health and the environment, could prompt gigantic compensation claims involving large territories and populations, valuable property on Earth or in space, and damage to the environment, launching states and commercial companies must be required to take out sufficient liability insurance. It is noted that many small spaceports are being rapidly constructed to cater to the planned rollout of in excess of 50,000 5G satellites.

The Portuguese Space Agency will be legally created at the beginning of 2020 and will be based in the Azores, on the island of Santa Maria, where it intends to install a base to launch small satellites. It is noted that Portugal is not a party to the Liability Convention. If it intends to profit from this at the expense of the rest of the world, the individuals involved will be identified and held individually liable. Diplomatic immunity provides no immunity against prosecution for attempted crimes against humanity.

It is further noted that commercial companies have no business launching satellites without adequate insurance. The Earth is not for sale to the lowest bidder or eager start-up.

We must also note that the insurance companies and reinsurers will not insure against electromagnetic radiation. They are clearly invoking their own version of the precautionary principle to protect their profits. Who, then, must take the risk? We, the people, do not accept this risk. We do not agree with this insane 5G rollout and we do not consent to it. We require all commercial companies launching satellites to take out adequate insurance, which means in the billions of dollars at least, given what is at stake and given the laws requiring responsibility and accountability. How would you expect a commercial company to take care about causing more space debris, for example? A company is by law required to make a profit for its shareholders. Companies do not have a moral compass and even if they did, their fiduciary duty would forbid actions that resulted in reduced profits motivated by ethical reasoning.

Portuguese fines for infractions to its decree regarding satellite operations are set at between only €250 and €2.2 million. Under article 19 of Portugal’s Decree-Law 16/2019 of 22 January 2019, satellite operators are required to have a liability insurance, which must be shown each January, but this requirement may be waived in the case of space objects of small dimensions, and spatial operations pursued exclusively for scientific purposes, research and development, or education and training. This action by the government of Portugal is illegal under the Liability Convention.

A number of groups have launched liability actions against the parties rolling out 5G. Below is a selection.

Companies should take note that the tide is turning and people are beginning to win very big lawsuits against major criminality. Bayer was ordered to pay $2 billion in damages in a third Roundup-cancer trial and may be facing bankruptcy. Having taken over Monsanto, Bayer discovered a Monsanto “black ops” division that had been engaged in building and maintaining “hit lists” of journalists, lawmakers and regulators to be taken out if they opposed the evil agenda of GMOs and toxic glyphosate weed killer chemicals that now inundate the world food supply.

In part because of liability claims from victims of past fires, $8.4 billion worth, California electric utility PG&E is in the midst of bankruptcy.

A group known as the Irregulators is challenging an FCC decision that has facilitated one of the largest accounting scandals in American history. They are accusing the FCC of allowing the nation’s telecommunications companies to engage in a book-keeping sleight-of-hand scam that cost telecom users, states and taxpayers an estimated $50-$60 billion a year over the last decade.

Telecommunications companies are warning their shareholders about liability arising from injuries from cell phones. Liability is companies’ and organizations’ Achilles heel.

  1. Stand up! Take action!

To be, or not to be: that is the question. Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles ― Shakespeare

The Earth is our home. It nurtures us and all our fellow creatures who live here with us. If you are like me, you may often stand before a tree feeling desolated at the idea of its senseless destruction for someone else’s monetary profit. It is hard for most of us to believe that the psychopaths who think it is possible to own this planet feel nothing as yet another majestic tree that has sheltered generations of people is chainsawed to the ground.

Our Earth is not for sale

It is time for every single one of us individually to stand up and say a resounding “No!” to the demented plan to fill the Earth orbits with many tens of thousands of satellites intended to irradiate every square centimetre of our beautiful planet.  Say it now, out loud: “No!”  Say it again: “No!”And again: “No!”

Say it every day, all day until we have seen off the danger that now faces all of us. It is all right to be outraged. It is normal to be angry. Feel those emotions. Let them rise. Embrace them. Let them fire you up with righteous anger. Let them fill you with the energy you need to protect the Earth from this madness. But please fill your heart with love and not hatred or fear because Mother Earth needs you this day, and every day until she – and we – are safe again.

Take up your pen or keyboard and write!

At this website you will find steps to prepare evidence for litigation and potential remedies to protect yourself from manmade non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, whether in the form of mobile phone base station, communications tower, 5G (4G) small cell, “smart” meter, WiFi router, HAPS drone, satellite or any other device: EMR Legal Education.

From 28 October to 22 November 2019, the International Telecommunication Union will hold its World Radio Conferencein Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt, where delegates will make decisions about regulating the 5G satellites. All of this takes place behind closed doors, where you cannot participate in decisions that affect your life.

I invite you to write to the ITU delegates and tell them to refuse to allow the 5G satellites because you believe that they put all life on Earth at risk. Below you will find a link to a documentwhere you can pick up all the addresses and write to the delegates. You may wish to send them the evidence provided in this article, or you may wish to send them the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space. Please write and tell them to stop the madness of 5G in space.

You may want to tell them that the Vienna Convention provides no immunity for crimes against humanity and that their families are put at risk by 5G as well. If they do not listen to us, we may have to consider new Nuremberg trials to prosecute 5G crimes against humanity.

Message to the ITU delegates and others

Maria Sargent killed herself on 12 March 2019 because she was “electro-hypersensitive”. She left a message to humanity where she said that she hoped that her death would help to usher in a new era on Earth. Please read it to understand what it is like to be tortured by electromagnetic radiation. This might happen to all of us if these 5G satellites are allowed to go into operation.

On March 12, I chose to end my Earth Walk and reunite with the Mother of All Things. I wanted to free myself from the straightjacket of electrifying and neurological debilitation of Electro-Hypersensitivity (EHS) and Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV). These hidden modern-day epidemics humbled me and connected me to the great sufferings of others. Yet, they also shattered and dehumanized me. The constant tension of strange symptoms and crushing pain left me cut off from a life of embodied prayer and active altruism; I felt alienated from my true nature and impotent to be of service. I decided the greater good was to give my life with the aspiration to raise awareness and help others. As Thomas Merton said, “Man has no greater love than that he lay down his life for his friend.”

If anyone asks, you can say I ended my own life. But it would be more accurate to say I died from Electromagnetic Field (EMF) poisoning. I am not ashamed of my actions. They were based on compassion for my own suffering and the desire to prevent more people from becoming sick.

I’m not the first person with Electro-Hypersensitivity (EHS) to die by their own hand, but perhaps the first to publicize it. And that’s my whole intention. Let me be the poster child for this 21st century plague. Let me be the impetus for positive change. What sends a stronger message than death? The message is: seek the truth and learn how to protect yourselves. The message is: create housing opportunities for people with EHS. I chose to die so you would know the importance of reducing your exposure to toxic EMFs. I chose to die so the world would see that safe camps for EMF refugees are urgently needed.

I do not want a funeral, memorial service, or life celebration. Instead, please help the living by honoring my three final wishes. Thank you and may you be well.

  1. Take simple steps to lower your EMF exposure and stay healthy. Organize housing for people sick with EHS. Everyone deserves a safe home. Resources for this are: the fantastic book The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs and the Safe Haven tab at www.HeartMind.info.
  2. Cleanse your body of radiation, viruses, heavy metals, and pesticides, which cause EHS and other chronic illnesses including Lupus, Lyme, MS, RA, and Cancer. It’s fun and yummy! Read the beautiful book Life Changing Foods by Anthony William.
  3. Take extra good care of each other. Spend time each week in loving service to a sick, injured, or housebound person. Let them know they are not forgotten. This is the true purpose of being human. Resources for the are: the books Everybody Always by Goff, Peace Pilgrim, and the TLC tab at www.HeartMind.info
    May my death usher in a new era, an era in which EHS and EBV are taken seriously, diagnosed correctly, treated immediately, and prevented widely. May this be an era of permaculture eco-villages, bountiful food forests, abundant altruism and safe technologies. I gladly sacrifice my life for that purpose. May it be so!

Visit my blog www.HeartMind.info for more information and continued updates from friends. Look for me in the sun, the moon, and the stars. Pray that I’ve melted into Mother Luminosity and am helping all beings, in all worlds, in all ways. May the bodhichitta flourish!

I call on all those who know what a terrible mistake these satellites are to stand up and condemn Musk and the other companies launching satellites.

I call on the ITU World Radio Conference delegates to take note of what UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said at the United Nations General Assembly about responsibly regulating this technology.

The Earth is not for sale.

Click here to send emails to the ITU delegates.

*

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] R E Nisbett. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently … and Why. London, Boston: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. 2005.  P. 20.

[ii]  Nisbett. P. 221.

[iii]Nisbett. P. 17.

[iv] J Needham. Science and civilisation in China, Physics and Physical Technology, vol. 4. Cambridge, U.K. Cambridge University Press. 1962. Cited in Nisbett. 2005. P. 18.

[v] F Capra. The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, 5th edn. Boston: Shambhala Publications. 2010. P. 152.

[vi] Nisbett. P. 27.

[vii] Nisbett. P. 9-10.

[viii] Capra 1982. P. 18. The Turning Point. New York: Bantam Books. Cited in Kim. 2002.

[ix] M-S Kim. 2002. Non-Western Perspectives on Human Communication: Implications for Theory and Practice. London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. P. 82.

[x] L Abegg. 1952. The Mind of East Asia (translated from the German Ostasien Denkt  Anders, by A. J. Crick and E. E. Thomas). London and New York: Thames and Hudson. P. 325. Available from the Universal Library at http://archive.org/details/mindofeastasia030168mbp. Accessed 22 October 2019.

[xi] Capra. 1982. Cited in Kim 2002. P. 10.

[xii] Wallace Thornhill. The Elegant Simplicity of the Electric Universe. Electric Universe Conference, 2016. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mINsiT70OHE. Accessed 17 October 2019.

[xiii] BBC. The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (parts 1, 2 & 3). Adam Curtis. First broadcast 2004. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyvx5qcn4Rc, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHSsX-_6i9Aand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuNxKDVG1Uk. Accessed 19 October 2019.

[xiv] Straussism: The Philosophy Directing The Age Of Tyranny. 2006. Age Of Tyranny News. http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewcommentary.php?storyid=136. Accessed 19 October 2019.

[xv] Quoted in M Talbot. The Holographic Universe.

[xvi] Sharon Hewitt Rawlette. What If Consciousness Comes First? Bridging the mind-body gap will require a fundamental shift in perspective. Psychology Today. 22 July 2019. Available at https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/201907/what-if-consciousness-comes-first. Accessed 19 October 2019.

[xvii] Bruce Lipton interviewed by Iain McNay. Conscious TV. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYYXq1Ox4sk. Accessed 19 October 2019.

[xviii] Anthony Peake. Cheating the Ferryman Blog Page. How your senses “matrix” you. Available at https://cheatingtheferryman.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-your-senses-matrix-you.html. Accessed 19 October 2019.

[xix] Lipton, Bruce (2008). The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter, & Miracles. Hay House.

[xx] Iain McGilchrist. The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World (e-book). RSA Animation. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFs9WO2B8uI. Accessed 15 October 2019.

[xxi] Wallace Thornhill. The Elegant Simplicity of the Electric Universe. Electric Universe Conference, 2016. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mINsiT70OHE. Accessed 15 October 2019.

[xxii] Arthur Firstenberg. The invisible rainbow: a history of electricity and life. AGB Press. Available at https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/buy-the-invisible-rainbow/. Accessed 21 October 2019.

[xxiii] Arthur Firstenberg. Killing Fields: Electromagnetic Radiation. 1 June 2004. Available at https://theecologist.org/2004/jun/01/killing-fields-electromagnetic-radiation. Accessed 21 October 2019.

[xxiv] Surgical Neurology International. Neurological deaths of American adults (55–74) and the over 75’s by sex compared with 20 Western countries 1989–2010: Cause for concern. Colin Pritchard and Emily Rosenorn-Lanng. Available at http://surgicalneurologyint.com/surgicalint-articles/neurological-deaths-of-american-adults-55-74-and-the-over-75s-by-sex-compared-with-20-western-countries-1989-2010-cause-for-concern/. Accessed 21 October 2019.

[xxv] Arthur Firstenberg. Killing Fields: Electromagnetic Radiation. 1 June 2004. Available at https://theecologist.org/2004/jun/01/killing-fields-electromagnetic-radiation. Accessed 21 October 2019.

[xxvi] Firstenberg. The invisible rainbow. P. 260. See ref. 23.

[xxvii] Arthur Firstenberg. Killing Fields: Electromagnetic Radiation. 1 June 2004. Available at https://theecologist.org/2004/jun/01/killing-fields-electromagnetic-radiation. Accessed 21 October 2019.

[xxviii] Olle Johansson. To bee, or not to bee, that is the five “G” question. Newsvoice. 28 May 2019. Available at https://newsvoice.se/2019/05/5g-question-olle-johansson/. Accessed 21 October 2019.

[xxix] Arthur Firstenberg. Killing Fields: Electromagnetic Radiation. 1 June 2004. Available at https://theecologist.org/2004/jun/01/killing-fields-electromagnetic-radiation. Accessed 21 October 2019.

[xxx] Groundbreaking Study Examines Effects of Screen Time on Kids – They are presenting with the brains of senility-prone senior citizens. 29 March 2019. https://emfrefugee.blogspot.com/2019/03/you-can-dump-your-apple-stocks-where.html.

[xxxi] K H Kim. The Creativity Crisis In America! 10 July 2012. Available at https://www.creativitypost.com/education/yes_there_is_a_creativity_crisis. Accessed 21 October 2019.

[xxxii] B N Frank. CDC: Suicide at crisis level, environment plays role. What about cell phone, WiFi and 5G radiation? 14 July 2019. Available at

https://www.activistpost.com/2019/07/cdc-suicide-at-crisis-level-environment-plays-role-what-about-cell-phone-wifi-and-5g-radiation.html. Accessed 21 October 2019.

[xxxiii] Olga Sheean. The WHO cover-up that is costing us the Earth. Video & PDF: https://www.emfoff.com/cover-up/?fbclid=IwAR0x-VNP6A4UTpCgwasElSJOG_GyuswK3vED7piTY4RWDmAFPq-rlDwNckE. Accessed 21 October 2019.

[xxxiv] Williams ER. The global electrical circuit: a review. Atmos Res. 2009;91(2):140-152. doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2008.05.018.

[xxxv] Wever R. Human circadian rhythms under the influence of weak electric fields and the different aspects of these studies. Int J Biometeorol. 1973;17(3):227-232. www.vitatec.com/docs/referenz-umgebungsstrahlung/wever-1973.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2018.

[xxxvi] Wever R. ELF-effects on human circadian rhythms. In: ELF and VLF Electromagnetic Field Effects. (Persinger M, ed.) New York: Plenum; 1974:101-144.

[xxxvii] Engels S, Schneider N-L, Lefeldt N,  et al. Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird. Nature. 2014;509:353-356. doi:10.1038/nature13290.

[xxxviii] Ludwig W, Mecke R. Wirkung künstlicher Atmospherics auf Säuger. Archiv für Meteorologie, Geophysik und Bioklimatologie Serie B (Archives for Meteorology Geophysics and Bioclimatology Series B Theoretical and Applied Climatology). 1968;16(2-3):251-261. doi:10.1007/BF02243273.

[xxxix] Morley EL, Robert D. Electric fields elicit ballooning in spiders.Current Biology.2018;28:1-7. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(18)30693-6.pdf. Accessed July 14, 2018.

[xl] Weber J. Die Spinnen sind Deuter des kommenden Wetters (Spiders Are Predictors of the Coming Weather).1800; Landshut, Germany. “The electrical material works always in the atmosphere; no season can retard its action. Its effects on the weather are almost undisputed; spiders sense it, and alter their behaviour accordingly.”

[xli] König H. Biological effects of extremely low frequency electrical phenomena in the atmosphere. J Interdiscipl Cycle Res. 2(3):317-323. www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09291017109359276. Accessed June 10, 2018.

[xlii] Sulman F. The Effect of Air Ionization, Electric Fields, Atmospherics, and Other Electric Phenomena On Man and Animal. American lecture series. Vol 1029. Springfield, Ill: Thomas; 1980.

[xliii] König HL, Krüger, AP, Lang S, Sönning, W. Biologic Effects of Environmental Electromagnetism. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1981.  doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-5859-9.

[xliv] Sazanova E, Sazanov A, Sergeenko N, Ionova V, Varakin Y. Influence of near earth electromagnetic resonances on human cerebrovascular system in time of heliogeophysical disturbances. Progress in

Electromagnetics Research Symposium. August 2013:1661-1665.

[xlv] Cherry N. Schumann resonances, a plausible biophysical mechanism for the human health effects of solar/geomagnetic activity. Natural Hazards. 2002;26(3):279-331. doi:10.1023/A:1015637127504.

[xlvi] Polk C. Schumann resonances. In Volland H, ed. CRC Handbook of Atmospherics. Vol. 1. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press; 1982:111-178. https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.132044/2015.132044.Crc-Handbook-Of-Atmospherics-Vol-1#page/n115/mode/2up/search/polk.Accessed June 18, 2018.

[xlvii] Park C, Helliwell R. Magnetospheric effects of power line radiation. Science. 1978;200(4343):727-730. doi:10.1126/science.200.4343.727.

[xlviii] Bullough K, Kaiser TR, Strangeways HJ. Unintentional man-made modification effects in the magnetosphere. J Atm Terr Phys. 1985;47(12):1211-1223.

[xlix] Luette JP, Park CG, Helliwell RA. The control of the magnetosphere by power line radiation. J Geophys Res. 1979;84:2657-2660.

[l] Becker RO, Selden G. The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life. New York: Morrow; 1985:325-326.

[li] Firstenberg A. Planetary Emergency. Cellular Phone Task Force website. www.cellphonetaskforce.org/planetary-emergency. Published 2018. Accessed June 10, 2018.

[lii] Becker RO. The basic biological data transmission and control system influenced by electrical forces. Ann NY Acad Sci.1974;238:236-241. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1974.tb26793.x.

[liii] Maxey ES, Beal JB. The electrophysiology of acupuncture; How terrestrial electric and magnetic fields influence air ion energy exchanges through acupuncture points. International Journal of Biometeorology.1975;19(Supp. 1):124. doi:10.1007/BF01737335.

[liv] Ćosić I, Cvetković D, Fang Q, Jovanov E, Lazoura H. Human electrophysiological signal responses to ELF Schumann resonance and artificial electromagnetic fields. FME Transactions. 2006;34:93-103.http://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/1450-8230/2006/1450-82300602093C.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2018.

[lv] Cohen M, Behrenbruch C, Ćosić I. Is there a link between acupuncture meridians, earth-ionosphere resonances and cerebral activity? Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Bioelectromagnetism, Melbourne, Australia. 1998:173-174. doi: 10.1109/ICBEM.1998.666451.

[lvi] Chevalier G, Mori K, Oschman JL. The effect of earthing (grounding) on human physiology. European Biology and Bioelectromagnetics. January 2006:600-621. http://162.214.7.219/~earthio0/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Effects-of-Earthing-on-Human-Physiology-Part-1.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2018.“Highly significant EEG, EMG and BVP results demonstrate that restoring the natural electrical potential of the earth to the human body (earthing) rapidly affects human electrophysiological and physiological parameters. The extreme rapidity of these changes indicates a physical/bioelectrical mechanism rather than a biochemical change.”

[lvii] Firstenberg A. Earth’s Electric Envelope. In: The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. Santa Fe, NM: AGB Press; 2017: 113-131.

[lviii] Cannon PS, Rycroft MJ. Schumann resonance frequency variations during sudden ionospheric disturbances. J Atmos Sol Terr Phys. 1982;44(2):201-206. doi:10.1016/0021-9169(82)90124-6.

[lix] United Nations. Debating proposals on common principles to ensure outer space security, First Committee delegates call for adoption of legally binding treaty. Press release GA/DIS/3557. October 2016. Available at https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/gadis3557.doc.htm. Accessed 21 October 2019.

[lx] What if we trashed earth’s orbit with space junk? Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyQiWEqPZh0. Accessed 21 October 2019.

[lxi] United Nations. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. 2-13 February 2015. National research on space debris, safety of space objects with nuclear power sources on board and problems relating to their collision with space debris (A/AC.105/C.1/2015/CRP.8). Available at http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/limited/c1/AC105_C1_2015_CRP08E.pdf. Accessed 21 October 2019.

[lxii] United Nations. Treaty Series. 610:8843. Treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies: Art. 1.

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html.

[lxiii] V P Kozin. Militarization of outer space and its impacts on global security environment. Pakistan National University of Sciences and Technology, Global Think Tank Network.  2015.

http://www.space4peace.org/articles/Militarization%20of%20Outer%20Space%20and%20its%20Impacts%20on%20Global%20Security.pdf. Accessed21 October 2019.

[lxiv] G Dorrian and I Whittaker. Space may soon become a war zone – here’s how that would work. The Conversation. 18 October 2019. Available at https://theconversation.com/space-may-soon-become-a-war-zone-heres-how-that-would-work-125460. Accessed 21 October 2019.

[lxv] N. Begich. Angels don’t play this HAARP: advances in Tesla technology. Earthpulse 1995.

[lxvi] European Union. Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy. Report on the environment, security and foreign policy. PE 227.710/fin. 14 January 1999. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A4-1999-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. Accessed 21 October 2019.

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Western Insanity and 5G Electromagnetic Radiation

Displaying a stroke of genius, Russia has once again played the role of a peace-maker in Syria by concluding an agreement with Turkey to enforce a safe zone in northern Syria. According to the terms of the agreement, Turkish forces would have exclusive control over 120 kms. stretch between Tel Abyad and Ras al-Ayn to the depth of 32 kms. in northern Syria.

To the west and east of the aforementioned area of the Turkish Operation Peace Spring, Turkish troops and Russian military police would conduct joint patrols to the depth of 10 kms. and the remaining 20 kms. safe zone would be under the control of the Syrian government which would ensure that the Kurdish forces and weapons are evacuated from Manbij and Tal Rifat to the west and the Kurdish areas to the east excluding the city of Qamishli.

In return for the generous favor of establishing a safe zone along Turkey’s southern border to address its security concerns regarding the Kurds, Turkey would probably allow the Syrian government with the backing of Russia to occupy a few strategic areas in northwestern Idlib Governorate – particularly near the Alawite heartland Latakia, such as Khan Sheikhoun, which the Syrian government has recently liberated from al-Nusra Front, and Marat al-Numan and Jisr al-Shughour – though this hasn’t been stipulated in the agreement and was most likely informally discussed in the Erdogan-Putin meeting.

In order to understand the reason why Donald Trump acquiesced in the face of Turkish onslaught against the Kurds in northern Syria, a Syria analyst Hassan Hassan came up with an intriguing theory in his recent article [1] for The Guardian.

He writes:

“Turkey received a clearance from Russia before intervention, framed by Russia as part of the agreement between Ankara, Moscow and Tehran about the Syrian conflict. According to a well-placed Syrian source, the intervention in the Kurdish areas was part of a Russian-Turkish understanding about the fate of Idlib in the north-west, the last stronghold of the rebels fighting the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

“Idlib is dominated by the group formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra and various stakeholders in the Syrian conflict have struggled to agree on how to deal with the challenge of having jihadists in charge of a significant swath of the country. The source claims that Turkey also reassured the Americans that the intervention would be followed by serious steps to deal with the dilemma in Idlib, by enabling a Russia-led incursion and that any expected mass displacement from Idlib will move to the Turkish zones inside Syria, not to Turkey itself.”

Although far from being its diehard ideologue, Donald Trump has been affiliated with the infamous white supremacist “alt-right” movement, which regards Islamic terrorism as an existential threat to America’s security, unlike the ostensibly “pacifist” Obama administration that nurtured Islamic jihadist masquerading as “moderate rebels” in Syria to topple the government of Bashar al-Assad.

Thus, the presence of al-Nusra Front’s militants in Syria’s Idlib poses an intractable dilemma for the Trump administration, and if the Syrian government could reassert its control over Idlib, it would eliminate a potential terrorist threat to Washington’s security.

Regarding the collusion between the jihadists of al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State, at its peak in 2014, when the Islamic State declared its “caliphate” in Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria, the Islamic State reportedly used to have more than 70,000 jihadists.

Thousands of Islamic State’s jihadists have been killed in airstrikes conducted by the US-led coalition against the Islamic State and the ground offensives by the Iraqi armed forces and allied militias in Iraq and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces in Syria.

And due to frequent desertions, the number of fighters within the Islamic State’s ranks has evidently dwindled. But a question would naturally arise in the minds of perceptive observers of the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria that where did the remaining tens of thousands of Islamic State’s jihadists vanish?

The riddle can be easily solved, though, if we bear in mind the fact that although Idlib Governorate in Syria’s northwest has firmly been under the control of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) led by al-Nusra Front since 2015, its territory was equally divided between Turkey-backed rebels and al-Nusra Front.

In a brazen offensive in January, however, al-Nusra Front’s jihadists completely routed Turkey-backed militants, even though the latter were supported by a professionally trained and highly organized military of a NATO member, Turkey. And al-Nusra Front now reportedly controls more than 70% territory in the Idlib Governorate.

The reason why al-Nusra Front has been easily able to defeat Turkey-backed militants appears to be that the ranks of al-Nusra Front have now been swelled by highly motivated and battle-hardened jihadist deserters from the Islamic State after the fall of the latter’s “caliphate” in Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria.

The merger of al-Nusra Front and Islamic State in Idlib doesn’t come as a surprise, though, since the Islamic State and al-Nusra Front used to be a single organization before a split occurred between the two militant groups in April 2013 over a leadership dispute. In fact, al-Nusra Front’s chief Abu Mohammad al-Jolani was reportedly appointed [2] as the emir of al-Nusra Front by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State, in January 2012.

Regarding the dominant group of Syrian militants in Syria’s northwestern Idlib Governorate, according to a May 2017 report [3] by CBC Canada, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which was formerly known as al-Nusra Front until July 2016 and then as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (JFS) until January 2017, had been removed from the terror watch-lists of the US and Canada after it merged with fighters from Zenki Brigade and hardline jihadists from Ahrar al-Sham and rebranded itself as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in January 2017.

The US State Department was hesitant to label Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) a terror group, despite the group’s links to al-Qaeda, as the US government had directly funded and armed the Zenki Brigade, one of the constituents of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), with sophisticated weaponry including the US-made antitank missiles.

Although after the report was published in CBC News, Canada added the name of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) to its terror watch-list in May 2018, Turkey designated it a terrorist organization in August 2018 and Washington came up with the excuse that since Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is a merger of several militant outfits, and one of those militant groups, al-Nusra Front, was already on the terror watch-list of the US, therefore Washington, too, regards Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) a terrorist organization.

Nevertheless, the purpose behind the rebranding of al-Nusra Front, first as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (JFS) in July 2016 and then as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in January 2017 and purported severing of ties with al-Qaeda, was to legitimize itself and to make it easier for its patrons to send money and arms.

Washington blacklisted al-Nusra Front in December 2012 and persuaded its regional allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey to ban it, too. Although al-Nusra Front’s name had been in the list of proscribed organizations of Saudi Arabia and Turkey since 2014, it kept receiving money and arms from its regional patrons.

It’s worth noting that in a May 2015 interview [4] with Qatar’s state television al-Jazeera, al-Nusra’s chief Abu Mohammad al-Jolani took a public pledge on the behest of his Gulf-based patrons that his organization simply had local ambitions limited to fighting the Syrian government and that it had no intention to mount terror attacks in the Western countries.

Although al-Jolani announced the split from al-Qaeda in a video statement in 2016, the persistent efforts of al-Jolani’s Gulf-based patrons bore fruit in January 2017, when al-Nusra Front once again rebranded itself from Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (JFS) to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which also included militants from Zenki Brigade, Ahrar al-Sham and several other militant groups, and thus the jihadist conglomerate that now goes by the name of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham was able to overrun the northwestern Idlib Governorate in Syria, and it completely routed the Turkey-backed militants in a brazen offensive in Idlib in January.

*

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

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

Notes

[1] Trump and Erdoğan risk a resurgent Isis thanks to their recklessness in Syria:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/13/trump-and-erdogan-risk-a-resurgent-isis-thanks-to-their-recklessness-in-syria

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

http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/16689

[3] Syria’s al-Qaeda affiliate escapes from terror list:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/terror-list-omission-1.4114621

[4] Al-Jolani’s interview to Al-Jazeera: “Our mission is to defeat the Syrian government”:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/05/nusra-front-golani-assad-syria-hezbollah-isil-150528044857528.html

Erdogan quer a Bomba

October 22nd, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

“Alguns países têm mísseis nucleares, mas o Ocidente insiste que não podemos possuí-los. Isto é inaceitável”: esta declaração do Presidente Erdogan revela, que a crise vai além daquela iniciada com a ofensiva turca na Síria.

Na Turquia, durante a Guerra Fria, os USA instalaram armas nucleares contra a União Soviética. Em 1962, nos acordos com a URSS para a solução da crise dos mísseis em Cuba, o Presidente Kennedy prometeu remover essas armas da Turquia, mas o mesmo não foi feito. Após a Guerra Fria, permaneceram na Turquia, na base aérea de Incirlik, cerca de 50 bombas nucleares USA B61 (as mesmas inseridas em Aviano e Ghedi, em Itália), direccionadas principalmente contra a Rússia.

Deste modo, seja os EUA ou a Turquia, ambos violam o Tratado de Não Proliferação. Os pilotos turcos, no âmbito da NATO, são treinados (como os pilotos italianos da base de Ghedi) ao ataque com bombas nucleares B61, sob o comando USA. Dentro de pouco tempo, as B61 devem ser substituídas pelos USA, também na Turquia (como será feito em Itália e noutros países europeus) pelas novas bombas nucleares B61-12, também direccionadas principalmente contra a Rússia.

Enquanto isso, porém, após a aquisição turca de mísseis antiaéreos russos S-400, os USA retiraram a Turquia do programa F-35, principal transportador das B61-12: o caça do qual a Turquia deveria ter comprado 100 exemplares e do qual era co-produtora. “O F-35 – declarou a Casa Branca – não pode coexistir com o sistema antiaéreo S-400, que pode ser usado para conhecer as capacidades do caça”, ou seja, pode ser usado pela Rússia para reforçar as defesas contra o F- 35. Ao fornecer a Ankara os mísseis anti-aéreos S-400, Moscovo conseguiu impedir (pelo menos, por agora) que sejam instalados no território turco 100 F-35, prontos para o ataque com as novas bombas nucleares USA, B61-12.

Parece, nesta altura, provável que, entre as opções consideradas em Washington, exista a transferência de armas nucleares USA da Turquia para outro país mais confiável. Segundo o conceituado  Boletim dos Cientistas Atómicos (USA), “a base aérea de Aviano pode ser a melhor opção europeia do ponto de vista político, mas, provavelmente, não tem espaço suficiente para receber todas as armas nucleares de Incirlik”. No entanto, o espaço poderia ser obtido, dado que, em Aviano, já se iniciaram os trabalhos de reestruturação para receber as bombas nucleares B61-12.

Sobre este fundo coloca-se a declaração de Erdogan que, apostando também na presença ameaçadora do arsenal nuclear de Israel, anuncia a intenção turca de ter as suas próprias armas nucleares. O projecto não é fácil, mas não é irrealizável. A Turquia possui tecnologias militares avançadas, fornecidas em particular por empresas italianas, especialmente a Leonardo. Possui depósitos de urânio. Tem experiência no campo de reactores de pesquisa, fornecidos em particular pelos USA. Iniciou a construção de sua própria indústria de energia nuclear, adquirindo alguns reactores da Rússia, do Japão, da França e da China. Segundo algumas fontes, a Turquia já pode ter adquirido no “mercado negro nuclear”, centrifugadoras de enriquecimento de urânio.

O anúncio de Erdogan de que a Turquia se quer tornar uma potência nuclear, interpretado por alguns como um simples jogo a termo, a fim de ter mais peso na NATO, não deve, portanto, ser de subestimar. Ele descobre o que geralmente está oculto no debate mediático: o facto de que, na situação turbulenta causada pelas políticas de guerra, desempenha um papel cada vez mais importante, a posse de armas nucleares, pressionando os que não as possuem a procurá-las.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Artigo original em italiano :

Erdogan vuole la Bomba

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Erdogan quer a Bomba

Author’s preface:

About 18 months ago the distinguished American historian and scientist, Noam Chomsky, directed my attention through emails to Otto Skorzeny’s ‘My Commando Operations’, a book on which the below article is largely based upon – and, a little later, Chomsky specifically pointed this author towards the material featured in Chapter 12 of Skorzeny’s book, ‘Why Hitler didn’t build the atomic bomb’.

***

Seventy-five years ago, on 22 October 1944, SS lieutenant-colonel Otto Skorzeny was summoned once more to the Wolf’s Lair headquarters in East Prussia, Adolf Hitler’s secret compound buried deep in the Masurian woodlands.

Skorzeny’s presence at the Wolf’s Lair was requested by Hitler in order to discuss assignments for the Ardennes Offensive, which was designed to cut the Allied armies in two, and force them to negotiate a peace treaty in the Nazis’ favour. This was not an entirely impossible hope, considering the poor performance and sluggish advances made by American and British divisions in France, against the outnumbered Germans.

Contrary to myth, on those occasions that Allied soldiers met German forces on a level playing field, the outcome was not in doubt. The English historian Max Hastings noted of the Germans,

“Their tactics were masterly… Their junior leadership was much superior to that of the Americans, perhaps also to that of the British. Throughout the Second World War, wherever British or American troops met the Germans in anything like equal strength, the Germans prevailed”.

Hastings’ observations are supported by other scholars, and even by political figures like Winston Churchill, who wrote that,

“The superiority of the Germans in design, management and energy were plain… At Narvik a mixed and improvised German force, barely 6,000 strong, held at bay for six weeks some 20,000 Allied troops… some of our finest troops, the Scots and Irish Guards, were baffled by the vigour, enterprise and training of Hitler’s young men”.

Otto Skorzeny

The 6 feet 4 inch Skorzeny was among the most heavily decorated of Nazi Germany’s soldiers. Allied leadership and Western media were labelling this scarred commando as “the most dangerous man in Europe”. Come the autumn of 1944, Skorzeny’s reputation had reached legendary status within the Third Reich itself, and by this date he had become perhaps Hitler’s favourite soldier.

It is no exaggeration to note that Skorzeny’s operations had a direct impact upon the Second World War. His leading of the 1943 mission – to secure Benito Mussolini from a mountain top prison in central Italy – allowed a Nazi puppet government, led ostensibly by Il Duce, to remain firmly on Italian soil until almost the end of the war in Europe.

Mussolini’s rescuing was a factor in preventing a fascist collapse in Italy; but the Nazi cause was aided yet again, it must be said, by the underwhelming display of Allied soldiers on this separate front – though the Germans were assisted in their skilful defensive manoeuvres in Italy, by the particularly mountainous and muddy terrain of that country.

The significance of Mussolini’s safeguarding from Allied hands was a major propaganda coup for the Nazis. Having been informed immediately of the news at the Wolf’s Lair on 12 September 1943, an overjoyed Hitler rang Skorzeny at the Hotel Imperial in Vienna, where the latter had just arrived and said to him,

“Today, you have carried out a mission that will go down in history. You have given me back my old friend Mussolini. I have awarded you the Knight’s Cross and promoted you to Sturmbannführer. Heartiest congratulations!”

Skorzeny then passed the telephone to Mussolini so that he could speak to Hitler. Mussolini thanked sincerely his German counterpart, telling Hitler that he was feeling exhausted and needed to go to bed right away “for a long sleep”.

Later that evening, Skorzeny also received phone calls from the notorious Heinrich Himmler and Hermann Goering – while even Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel dusted off his old monocle to ring him.

Skorzeny again performed a central role in influencing the fighting in World War II when, on the 15th and 16th of October 1944, he engineered the operation to institute an ardent pro-Nazi cabinet in Hungary, the Arrow Cross Party. As a consequence, the Hungarians continued fighting desperately alongside the Germans, enjoying local victories against the Red Army, and holding up their advance westwards. The Arrow Cross Party, with Nazi assistance, subsequently hunted down much of Hungary’s remaining Jewish population, sending them on death marches and off to concentration camps; an all too familiar scene witnessed in Europe over preceding years.

By 1944, rumours were rife among German soldiers that gravity-defying secret weapons were undergoing production by Nazi scientists, that would come to their ultimate rescue; and somehow grant a disintegrating Third Reich the most unlikely of victories.

In the war’s final months, Hitler retained a fervent wish to wipe from the planet’s surface not only Moscow and London with unheralded weapons, but also to bring ruin upon New York City. As we know from his diatribes, Hitler desired to exact vengeance on the Western powers for their systematic destruction of German cities.

He had form in this regard. During early September 1941, Hitler issued orders to German generals of his decision “to erase the city of Petersburg from the face of the earth. There is no reason for the future existence of this large town”. From September 1941, enormous German railway guns were lining up outside Petersburg (Leningrad), whose 30 inch shells could reach every street and district of the city. By January 1944 Leningrad was still just about standing, as hundreds of thousands of her residents lay dead.

In mid-August 1944, with Allied soldiers at last approaching Paris’s outskirts, Hitler ordered that the city be razed to the ground, screaming into the telephone “Is Paris burning?” Fortunately, these half-crazed demands were ignored by General Dietrich von Choltitz, Nazi Germany’s military governor of Paris. The French capital continued existing in all of its glory.

Meanwhile, London was experiencing a new terror as, from 13 June 1944, unmanned Nazi V-1 cruise missiles were careering across the sky and down upon that vast metropolis. The United States was soon to be targeted too, it was hoped. English author Geoffrey Michael Brooks outlined that,

“Hauptsturmführer Otto Skorzeny argued energetically for the immediate implementation of the V-1 project against New York”.

During a meeting in November 1944 with Himmler and other Nazi dignitaries at Hohenlychen Sanatorium (Himmler’s new headquarters), Skorzeny mentioned the possibility too of equipping U-boats lurking off America’s eastern coastline with V-1 missiles – that could then be fired unmolested at New York City, from launching ramps attached to German submarines. Skorzeny was told of such a possibility by Admiral Hellmuth Heye, who had formed an opinion that the plan was feasible.

On hearing this revelation Himmler, convulsed with excitement, “leapt from his armchair and ran to the map which covered a large part of the wall”, before crying out,

“Then we must bombard New York! Lay it in ruins! The Americans will also get a taste of the war. We must inform the Führer at once and telephone the Grand Admiral [Karl Dönitz]… I am convinced that the Americans could not bear being attacked in their own country. Their fighting morale would sink to zero”.

The American mainland had not undergone attack by a foreign power for well over a century, since the War of 1812 against the British Empire. It was felt that the spectacle of German missiles, smashing into New York’s shining spires and skyscrapers, could inflict severe psychological damage upon the Americans. It would no doubt have come as a real shock to the world, had the United States’ landmark city been attacked by revolutionary German weaponry, which the Americans themselves did not possess – and it may have given the Roosevelt administration food for thought. Yet it is not realistic to suggest that such actions as striking New York could have altered the course of the war.

Front Cover

Even so, Skorzeny wrote that,

“Included in the V-weapons program was the construction of a rocket capable of bombarding New York or Moscow [from Germany]. This rocket was practically finished at the end of March 1945, and could have gone into series production in the beginning of July”.

The speculation surrounding Nazi wonder weapons was being disseminated far and wide by Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda ministry. Many among the Germans believed what they heard, perhaps out of desperation or with some reason, as ingenious rocket engineers – like Wernher von Braun and Arthur Rudolph – were at the time producing miracles with their discoveries.

However, dialogue among the Germans had largely centred on a different, more sinister implement. Skorzeny remembers that “most talk was about another terrible weapon that was supposed to be based on artificially produced radioactivity. Without being an atomic physicist, I knew that it was possible to make an explosive device using the fission energy of uranium. The English sabotage mission against the heavy water factory in Norway at the beginning of 1943 drew my attention, as did the bombing raid which followed the next autumn, which damaged the plant heavily”.

Groundbreaking news regarding unusually powerful bombs was even enjoying exposure in the Nazi press. During the first hours of August 1944 the German agency, TranSozean Innendienst, relayed a report that,

“In the United States, scientific experiments are being carried out on a new bomb. Its explosive substance is uranium, and when the elements within its structure are liberated, a force of hitherto undreamed-of violence is generated”.

Leslie Groves.jpg

This disclosure we can assume spread among the SS and Wehrmacht hierarchy, quickly reaching Hitler’s ears. This leak was also known in America and caused much embarrassment to those like Major General Leslie Groves, who was directing America’s nuclear program, the Manhattan Project.

Hardly by coincidence, a few days after the German newspaper account Hitler had “enlarged upon his fears” regarding “this new explosive” with the Romanian dictator Ion Antonescu at the Wolf’s Lair (on 5 August 1944).

Hitler’s knowledge of the potential of atomic weapons is very likely to have predated August 1944. Skorzeny writes that in the autumn of 1940 Hitler had “a long discussion on the subject” of nuclear fission with Fritz Todt, the German armaments minister. Following his meeting with Todt, the Nazi leader “thought that the use of atomic energy for military purposes would mean the end of humanity”.

Skorzeny claims that Hitler read a lengthy paper on nuclear fission produced in 1942 by Werner Heisenberg, Germany’s Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicist. Furthermore, in late February 1942 Heisenberg conducted a lecture in front of Third Reich government officials at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics in Berlin. The subject matter included the awesome potential of nuclear fission, and at this lecture he spoke in layman’s language that any ordinary citizen could grasp. Among what Heisenberg said was, “Pure uranium-235 is thus seen to be an explosive of quite unimagineable force”. U-235 is one of the common isotopes used in nuclear weapons production.

Heisenberg’s comments were most probably relayed to Hitler in some form. Among those in attendance at the Heisenberg lecture was Bernhard Rust, an incorrigible Nazi and the Reich minister “for science, education and national culture”. Rust was well known to Hitler for many years, and his membership of the Nazi Party dated as far back as 1922. Hitler was acquainted with Heisenberg too, and the dictator had repeatedly met other eminent scientists like Nobel Prize winners Philipp Lenard and Max Planck, while he also had discussions on rocket technology with Von Braun, such as in early 1943.

Skorzeny recalls, “As well I might describe a personal experience”, which comprises his meeting with Hitler of 22 October 1944. He recounts that Hitler said to him,

“Even if the radioactivity were controlled and then nuclear fission used as a weapon, the effects would still be horrible. When Dr. Todt was with me, I read that such a device with controlled radioactivity would release energy that would leave behind devastation which could only be compared with the meteors that fell in Arizona and near Lake Baikal in Siberia… That would be the Apocalypse”.

On the morning of 30 June 1908, an asteroid hundreds of feet in diameter blew up in mid-air about 600 miles north-west of Lake Baikal. Its explosive impact is often estimated to have been the equivalent of 10 to 15 megatons of force, making it possibly 1,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima atomic bomb. This Siberian asteroid, known as the “Tunguska event”, flattened an area of around 2,000 square kilometres. Today, New York and its boroughs consist of less than 800 square kilometres, meaning that New York would have been annihilated more than twice over by this asteroid.

Nearly 50,000 years ago, a meteor slammed into the northern Arizona desert, leaving behind a crater more than one kilometre wide and just shy of 600 feet deep. This meteor impact zone remains almost perfectly preserved to current times, and is visible from space. It seems plausible that these events can only be compared to a nuclear conflict.

Such is the nature of an all-powerful dictatorship like Hitler’s, that information resembling anything of importance, sometimes even trivial details, are very often forwarded to the autocrat in charge. Those working under the dictator fear, quite reasonably, that their failure to pass on vital material may rebound upon them through severe retribution, should their silence or withholding of information be discovered. There may also be the need to score points and win Hitler’s personal favour, which was greatly sought after.

This is not the case in a democracy to the same degree, where occasionally the most critical developments have been concealed from the president, such as in America. Harry Truman was unaware of the possibility of our earth’s atmosphere igniting, following the fateful atomic test of 16 July 1945. Enrico Fermi, America’s chief nuclear physicist, estimated a 10% chance that the earth would be destroyed after the atomic blast. Fermi was not joking as is sometimes thought, and he feared that the intense heat released from the bomb could cause ignition with our planet’s elements, spreading globally and wiping out everything.

This was all kept secret from the blissfully unaware president Truman, who was present in Germany at the time for the Potsdam Conference, and impatiently awaiting news of what he hoped would be a successful atomic test. Scientists working on the US nuclear program, and also military personnel like Major General Groves, had kept their fears secret from Truman relating to the detonation.

In a democracy those working in the background can obscure details from their leader, knowing that they could never be put to death for their misdemeanours, or even endure imprisonment and scrutiny. Moreover, before long a president is either voted out of office, or departs at the end of his or her tenure. A dictatorship lasts indefinitely, and this ever-lasting spectre induces further psychological effects.

As Albert Speer notes in his postwar writings, Hitler was made aware in June 1942 of the possibility of an uncontrollable chain reaction occurring following an atomic blast. Heisenberg also informed Speer, who subsequently told Hitler, that the German scientist was unable to rule out with complete certainty the feared chain reaction, in the aftermath of exploding such a device.

Hitler was “plainly not delighted” with the risks involved in taking that hazardous route, and the Nazi A-bomb program was disbanded forever in the autumn of 1942, as Speer revealed. The chance of it ever succeeding was highly unlikely anyway, due to enemy bombing raids, lack of funding and time constraints.

*

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

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

The Trump administration has failed to make protection decisions for dozens of imperiled species as promised in a workplan developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in late 2016. The plan aims to address a backlog of more than 500 species awaiting protection, including the wolverine and the Sierra Nevada Red Fox.

In total, the administration failed to designate protected critical habitat or to make decisions about whether species should be added to the threatened or endangered lists for 46 species in fiscal year 2019, which ended Sept. 30. This is the third straight year the administration has fallen behind on the backlog of wildlife needing protection.

“Scientists across the world are sounding the alarm over the extinction crisis, yet the Trump administration won’t even let the fire trucks out of the station,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “To have any chance at survival, these species need protection, not more delay.”

Overall, the Trump administration has only protected 19 species and only three in all of fiscal year 2019. This is the lowest of any administration at this point in their term.

The 46 species occur in more than 20 states from Florida to Washington and face a plethora of threats.

The secretive black rail, for example, is rapidly losing coastal marshes along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts to sea level rise and development. Whitebark pine is losing its high mountain habitats across the west to climate change and being decimated by an introduced disease. And the yellow-billed cuckoo has lost the streamside cottonwood forests where it lives to the multitude of threats to western rivers, from dams to cows to overuse.

“The double whammy of habitat destruction and climate change is putting species across the country in jeopardy,” said Greenwald. “The Endangered Species Act has saved 99 percent of species under its protection and it can save these plants and animals too, but only if they get the protection they need.”

Scientists recently determined that North America has lost as many as three billion birds in the last 50 years, with many common species having undergone severe declines. One interesting finding of this study is that waterfowl, which have strong regulatory protections for their habitat, actually increased. Likewise, most birds protected under the Endangered Species Act are also stable or improving.

“Despite claims to the contrary from the Trump administration and its polluting industry benefactors, strong laws to protect our land, air, water and wildlife work, particularly if enforced,” said Greenwald. “We’ll definitely go to court to make sure these species get the protection they’re due.”

Table 1. Forty-six species that didn’t get protection decisions in fiscal year 2019.


Key    

  • 12M: 12-month finding determining if species warrants listing
  • PL: Proposed listing
  • FL: Final listing
  • PCH: Proposed critical habitat
  • FCH: Final critical habitat
  • Candidate species: A species that has been found to warrant protection, but is waitlisted
  • 4(d): A rule defining prohibited activities for a threatened species

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Animal Rights and Imperiled Species: Trump Administration Delays Lifesaving Protections
  • Tags: ,

Victoire Ingabire was born in Rwanda in 1968, is an economist and mother of 3 children. She leads the opposition party to the dictatorship of her home country, the Unified Democratic Forces (FDU-Inkingi) since 2006. Violence in the African Great Lakes region prevented her return to Rwanda from the Netherlands and remained exiled since 1994 to 2010.

Her courage and concerns led her to create various organizations for the promotion of human and women’s rights. She was a founding member of various civil society initiatives in the Netherlands as an NGO CODAC (whose objective is to morally, legally and materially support exiled persons from the Great Lakes region and create spaces for coexistence and relationship through sport and culture); URAHO NGO (gathers Rwandan women living in the Netherlands and helps them integrate into their new environment, takes care of orphans and asylum procedures); PROJUSTITIA FUNDACIÓ RWANDA (fight for justice for all victims of the Rwandan tragedy); HARAMBE (platform of associations of African women committed to promotion and development in the Netherlands). In addition, she is a member of the board of ZWALU (platform of women’s associations fighting for their emancipation).

Among the actions that bear their mark, the conference in Amsterdam (2004) that brought together all political organizations and all representative structures of civil society in the African Great Lakes region should be highlighted. Along the same lines, in 2005 she promoted a series of meetings between Rwandan civil society organizations and opposition organizations to design a common front against Paul Kagame, the current Rwandan president accused of crimes against humanity.

Since its inception, Ingabire is committed to the Inter-Rwandan Dialogue (DIR) that has been developing over ten editions, held in locations such as El Masnou, (Barcelona), Palma de Mallorca, Amsterdam (Netherlands), Washignton (USA) or Kinshasa (DR Congo). She has actively participated in the Barcelona edition, facilitated by Aequitas-Center for Mediation and Peaceful Conflict Resolution, under the auspices of Adolfo Pérez-Esquivel, Nobel Peace Prize. She promoted and participated in the women’s edition held in El Masnou (2008) as well as in the one held in Mallorca (2009). Ingabire advocates the role of women in the peace and reconciliation processes to heal the aftermath of the Rwandan genocides.

In 2010, Ingabire returned to Rwanda to run for presidential elections. Upon arrival, she appealed for the recognition of all the victims and asked the perpetrators of the massacres to report to the courts. The Kigali government accused her of treason and denial of genocide and was imprisoned. After a trial without guarantees – condemned by Human Rights Watch and the European Commission – she was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Her case was seen in the African Court of Human Rights, who in November 2017 acknowledged that Ingabire had not had a fair trial in Rwanda and demanded that the Rwandan government release it and repair the damage caused to its person within a period of 6 months from the date of the trial. The Court ruled that Ingabire had not denied or minimized the genocide and that her criticism of the government should have been allowed under the freedom of expression that Rwandan justice observes. President Paul Kagame pardoned her in September 2018 but has not taken any reparation measures.

During the first months of imprisonment in Kigali, Ingabire wrote a book in which she recounts her return to Rwanda, the trial and her subsequent imprisonment as well as her thoughts and convictions. We reproduce below some quotes from the Spanish version of Rwanda. Between the four walls of the 1930 (Ediciones Trabe, Oviedo 2016):

“I decide to return to my beloved homeland, not out of ambition, but out of conviction […] We must work alongside those who seek to end the cycles of violence that have always accompanied the struggle for power in Rwanda.”

“I come for peace and it is this peace that will guide my political action to eradicate injustice and to break all the chains that are imprisoning us.”

“We want a peaceful liberation, without a new bloodshed.”

“Wake up, give up fear and let us free peacefully. Together we will win! ”

Victoire Ingabire, known as the “Rwandan Mandela” is not allowed to incur the elections nor can any opposition party. The current president fulfills his fifth term, and modified the constitution to perpetuate himself in power. We believe that Ingabire deserves international public recognition and we are convinced that the award would contribute to honoring their struggle, to persevere in their cause, to protect their integrity and that of their alliance. Making your case visible would open up new possibilities for reconciliation and peace reconstruction of a new Rwanda and would be a relevant example for other open peace processes. It would also give hope to the Rwandan groups that remain in exile in Europe and America.

Her link with Spain was born with the action of justice presented by associations before the National Court for crimes against humanity that include victims such as Quim Vallmajó, and eight other cooperators and missionaries. The relationship is deepened with the celebration in El Masnou and Mallorca of two editions of the Inter-Rwandan Dialogue facilitated by Spanish entities. We believe that the fight against impunity and the search for objective truth are fundamental to lay the foundations for reconciliation and the contribution of peace, objectives for which Victoire Ingabire has committed politically but also personally.

*

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 Friends of Victoire website

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Historic Role of Rwanda’s Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza. Designing a Common Front against Paul Kagame
  • Tags:

Turkey began on October 9 its illegal offensive in northern Syria to expel terrorist organizations, primarily the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and the Islamic State according to Ankara, away from the Turkish border and to establish a safe zone in the northeast of the country to accommodate some of the millions of Syrian refugees currently in Turkey. However, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has raised some interesting questions and warned of the danger of “reverse migration” of foreign terrorists to their home countries as Turkey has completely ignored prisons and camps holding the jihadists.  

Shoigu revealed at the Beijing Xiangshan Forum yesterday that 12 jails and eight camps holding Islamic State terrorists and their family members have been left unattended by the Turkish military which “can lead to a surge of so-called reverse migration of terrorists back to their homeland.” In this context, he called on the international community to join forces to “face the challenges posed by terrorists, their ideology and propaganda.”

Shoigu then revealed that the Islamic State is now expanding into Southeast Asia after their defeat in Syria, specifically mentioning Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines and partly Thailand as part of their so-called ‘caliphate.’ Although just a few years ago terrorism “was not considered a major threat” to the countries of Asia-Pacific, “today in the region there is the activity of numerous extremist groups of which about 60 are classified as terrorists.”

“The Russian Ministry of Defense has enormous experience in this area, which we are willing to share with our partners in the Asia-Pacific region,” the Russian minister said, before he cited terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka in April 2019 as an example of the revived threat in the region, which had been relatively dormant for several years. “High activity of extremist organizations is now registered in the region, around 60 of such have been designated as terrorist groups,” the minister added.

Southeast Asia has been directly targeted by the Islamic State’s global strategy, with the number of fighters, suicide bombers, organized training programs, and propaganda videos originating from the region growing steadily over the years, despite not having a claim to physical territory anymore, explained Foreign Affairs magazine. With widespread reports that thousands of imprisoned Islamic State fighters are being ignored by Turkish-backed forces when they drive out the SDF from a certain area, Shoigu is correct to show concern that these fighters will flock to Southeast Asia when they escape from Syria.

Along with the devastating attack in Sri Lanka, in the Catholic-majority Philippines, the Islamic State has shown boldness and willingness to take on the Filipino military when it invaded the Muslim-majority southern city of Marawi on May 23, 2017 with government forces not taking the city back until exactly five months later. With this attack, along with vast network and experience terrorist organizations based in Indonesia and elsewhere in Southeast Asia have, Shoigu is not incorrect to assume that Southeast Asia will become a terrorist hotspot because of Turkey’s irresponsible behaviour with the imprisoned Islamic State fighters who have gained vast experience in Syria.

The Russian Defense Minister declared that Russia is willing to dialogue with the U.S. to ensure strategic stability as the current level of relations between the two major nuclear powers is unacceptably low, and although Washington are yet to respond to his expression of dialogue, addressing the security threat that released Islamic State fighters can have in Asia-Pacific must be a priority.

Although Turkey insists it is also fighting against the Islamic State in northeast Syria, there is little evidence it has done so, and rather its operation has been proven to be against primarily the SDF, led by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) that Ankara recognizes as a terrorist organization. This is especially apparent as the Islamic State do not have an active presence in the northeast of Syria, and rather the only presence were the fighters and their families interned by the Kurdish forces.

The Russian Defense Ministry released information in December 2015 that alleges the Erdogan family was engaging in blood oil deals with the Islamic State. This would not be too far away in the mind of Shoigu. With it known that Turkey has maintained close links with the Islamic State, it must be rejected that they have a concern on the status of Islamic State fighters considering the country was the main gateway for foreign jihadists to enter Syria. An Islamic State commander told The Washington Post on August 12, 2014 that “Most of the fighters who joined us in the beginning of the war came via Turkey, and so did our equipment and supplies,” along with high-level members of the Islamic State getting treatment in Turkish hospitals. This is just one such example of Turkey providing support for the Islamic State that also includes providing intelligence, weapons, training, organization, finance, transportation and others.

With these deep relations between Islamic State and Turkey, there is little chance that Turkey will prevent terrorists from escaping prisons formerly controlled by the YPG. These radical fighters would be seeking a new jihad, and with over 60 jihadist groups in Southeast Asia, and showing a lot of potential as the Sri Lanka attacks and the invasion of Marawi demonstrates, this could be the next location for the international terrorists to conduct their jihad. This would not be an inevitable consequence of Turkey’s operation in northern Syria, but rather a known fact by the Turkish leadership. To what purpose Turkey is doing this is unknown, but there is little doubt it will have devastating affects on Southeast Asia as these Islamic State fighters bring with them a vast wealth of knowledge and experience from fighting in Syria that can embolden jihadists across 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.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

October 1, 2019, was the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. We were interested in visiting China during a time when there was a huge national celebration of what we consider an unprecedented accomplishment in human history: China has met the basic material needs of its 1.4 billion population. The lives and expectations of the average person have been transformed. This revolutionary accomplishment deserves to be applauded.

The 100 prior years of colonial-style looting, unequal treaties and military occupation — a national humiliation — had reduced China to a country of staggering poverty, famines, social chaos, enforced underdevelopment and constant wars.

The first thing we took note of was that countless signs, parade themes, TV programs and most of the messaging for the anniversary reminded people that it was the firm leadership of the Chinese Communist Party that made the transformation into a united, well-organized and modern but still developing society possible. That was the core message.

Another message was of China’s 5,000-year history. For millennia it was one of the most advanced societies in culture, art and technology. This was continually raised to promote self-reliance and build modern socialism with Chinese characteristics.

We experienced two weeks of tremendous national pride. There was a great deal of discussion, everywhere that we could see, of what needed to be strengthened, what were the challenges and how to cope with still uneven development.

Siu Hin Lee, a Chinese activist who has taken several solidarity delegations to China, was tireless in personally explaining and translating so much of this experience. Lee is national coordinator of the Action LA/National Immigrant Solidarity Network and the China-US Solidarity Network.

Communicating in China

Information technology has transformed China even faster than our internet links in the West. The great majority of people seem to always have their phones in hand.

In China everyone uses the app WeChat for texting, calls, photos, videos, calling cabs, grocery shopping, metro fares and schedules, movie listings, exchanging contact information and discussion groups. Literally every social and financial transaction needs only a phone tap. Huawei centers look much like Apple centers in the U.S. Large display tables of telecommunications equipment and consumer electronics, including the newest smartphones, are surrounded by hundreds of young shoppers comparing equipment.

Since China’s hosting of the 2008 Olympic Games, street signs, subway maps and numerous restaurant menus are also in English. More than 300 million people have studied and are English-language learners. English classes are now mandatory for all Chinese K-12 students.

By comparison, there are only 200,000 K-12 students learning Mandarin in the U.S., less than 0.4 percent. Only 20 percent of U.S. students study any world language. (U.S. News & World Report, Oct. 16, 2016)

We found lots of discussion groups and genuine interest in talking with U.S. leftists, especially now as U.S. corporate and political hostility increases everyday.

It was not difficult to meet with people who have studied and traveled in the U.S. and have some grasp of its technological development, but have also seen first hand the inequality and racism.

More than 4.5 million Chinese students have studied in Western universities. Currently there are 360,000 Chinese students studying in the U.S., although China graduates more students in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) from their own universities than the rest of the world combined. This sharp rise in educational standards and expertise in a country where the overwhelming majority of the population was formerly illiterate is another source of national pride.

We met with a group of left cyberactivists who are interested in more left-generated material from the U.S. and want to share some of their journals and views. It is not easy to figure out good translations that go both ways, but there is interest in making that happen.

A lot is going on in environmental arenas. We talked with the editor of a green living journal and with a turbine mechanic who works at a wind farm. Some of the most interesting environmental efforts are happening in newly designed second-tier cities, not only in the older megacities of Beijing and  Shanghai.

We met with the Beijing City Friendship Association that has worked for decades to build friendly relations and exchanges. We had an evening discussion with a group of youth involved in the finance field, educated in the U.S. and working for big investment firms because they are expert math and software techies. But they are also socially aware.

In order to better understand China’s revolutionary history we visited the site of the 1921 founding convention of the Chinese Communist Party in Shanghai; the Yuhua Revolutionary Martyrs Cemetery and Museum at Nanjing that highlighted the thousands of youth, aged 15 to 26, who died in the liberation struggle; and the Military and Revolution Museum in Beijing. All these sites were packed with large, excited delegations of the Communist Youth League. These were not stuffy or ignored museums.

Fundamental shift in U.S./China relations

There have been countless exchanges with China for the last four decades, with U.S. corporate investors, government agencies, scientific researchers and think-tank academics. China wants to continue these exchanges. But powerful forces in the U.S., both Republicans and Democrats, are determined to exert heavy political, military and economic pressures on China to undermine state planning and state-owned industries.

However, U.S. hostility appears to most sharply undercut Chinese capitalists, who have benefited disproportionately from the past four decades of opening to Western investment. This is the one grouping who, in their own self-interest, might have been most willing to concede to U.S. trade demands.

Many people we met in China raised the significance of meeting us now. The new U.S. sanctions on the state-owned Chinese freight fleet Cosco — the largest in the world with more than 1,000 cargo ships and 100 super tankers — hit just after we arrived.

These far-reaching sanctions, along with the escalating military threats going back to Obama’s military Asia Pivot, and now Trump’s trade war, confirm that U.S.-China relations are fundamentally shifting. The increasingly violent U.S.-backed Hong Kong protests confirm this.

The arrests of Chinese executives, and the purging of Chinese cancer researchers and other scientists working in U.S. universities, have sent out shock waves. The FBI “visits” to many Chinese students in the U.S. are dampening interest in studying here.

China’s 21st-century Shanghai

Shanghai — three times the size of New York City — is almost surreal and unbelievably modern on a grand scale. There is spectacular architecture. But what was most impressive was to be in such a dense city and see no litter or graffiti. We did see miles of new high-rise housing in every direction, always surrounded by parks.

Sixteen new subway lines, with hundreds of connecting stations, have been built in the last 20 years. The stations are beautifully designed, with escalators and elevators, clear signage, well-marked and clean connecting lines, staffed bathrooms in every station. In fact there were clean public bathrooms everywhere, usually within close walking distance, in the three cities we visited.

There were lots of funny videos on the metro trains, reinforcing passenger etiquette and safe conduct. We traveled mainly on the metro and quiet, smooth electric buses.

Being accustomed to seeing homeless and desperate people on almost every block in U.S. cities, this was not our experience in the streets, subways, plazas or many neighborhoods in China. We did find a huge variety of food shops, fruit stands, snack bars and coffee shops.

Unfortunately, there seem to be almost as many Starbucks here as in New York City. There are a total of 4,000 Starbucks in China and lots of other U.S. fast food chains.

Contradictions abound! Every corporate brand of clothes, shoes and designer items in the world seems to have flagship stores in big shopping malls and big ads in Shanghai and Beijing streets. Probably most of these goods are made in Chinese factories.

Consumerism on a grand scale is actually part of the national plan to raise the standard of living and consumption. Electric bikes are available everywhere with the tap of a phone. The stores, kiosks, markets, bakeries, cafes, local artisans, music venues and hangout places for youth are all socially encouraged and seem to have increased faster than subway lines.

But red flags and the red signs of the Revolution’s 70th anniversary were also everywhere.

In this new period, the strong focus is on totally ending poverty and providing a “moderately prosperous society for all.” At this stage of development this does not mean equality. There are extremely wealthy multimillionaires in China. They are protected, even though they are monitored, along with a sustained policy of encouraging as much Western investment as possible. Yet Maoism is still a strong undercurrent of political life here. People often express a healthy suspicion about the current level of privilege.

China’s leaders are very careful to continually say this is not yet socialism, but they are building toward socialism and still face very uneven development. The focus is on improving interconnected and harmonious national planning.

On our way to Beijing for the Revolution’s anniversary

On Sept. 28, we took a high-speed train from Shanghai to Nanjing and a Sept. 29 overnight to Beijing. Nothing in our U.S. experience had prepared us for these enormous modern stations or trains. U.S. transportation seems a century behind.

From the windows, we saw many construction projects. In every town we zipped past there was older two, three, even five-story housing as well as tall modern apartment blocks, almost all with balconies and big windows. A forest of construction cranes showed that far more buildings are still under construction.

Tree planting is happening on a vast scale, both in cities and in open spaces between cities and towns. Judging from the size of the trees, much has taken place in the past two to four years. These plantings will be green forests in a few more years.

When we arrived in Beijing, we could see that China’s capital had been transformed by preparations for the Revolution’s anniversary. The city was awash in red flags that adorn every building.

With most stores closing for the national holiday, people are rushing to do last-minute shopping as we walk around for a last-minute personal look.

Red slogans were all over billboards and subways: “Listen to the Party, win every fight! Keep good moral character! Serve the People, train hard, keep a positive manner” were just a few. The characters for the 24 core Chinese socialist values were repeated on thousands of street flags.

Along with police, there were 78,000 proud young volunteers organized by the Communist Youth League wearing red armbands. They helped direct metro crowds and were vigilant at public buildings. There were lots of senior volunteers, also with red armbands, comfortably seated in chairs in front of buildings.

News coverage of Hong Kong protesters setting fires at metro station entrances and platforms heightened transportation precautions. Security was a high priority. Bag checks and scans, like at airports, were at every metro entrance. But the checks go seamlessly fast. There was a collective determination not to let this celebration be disrupted.

The zone for the parade and the evening’s spectacle was cordoned off for blocks, as equipment and units moved into place in Tian’anmen Square.

Later we and over a billion people watched the military and civilian parades and the evening celebration on TV. Access and participation in the actual parade was of course limited and a highly sought honor. But even on TV, on millions of handheld devices and on big screens, as people watched in big crowds, it was a long day of incredible pageantry and patriotism. Our guide Siu Hin Lee translated and explained what we were viewing. There was lots of commentary on WeChat discussion groups of the meaning and significance of different parade contingents.

Parades, fireworks, history and patriotism

Patriotism has a repugnant feel in the center of U.S. imperialism. It is coated in layers of chauvinism, jingoism and racism. It is embraced by right-wing and white supremacist forces and dragged out with fervor as part of war mobilizations.

But patriotism has an entirely different dimension in an oppressed country where a people’s movement has struggled to break free and resist domination. The 70th anniversary celebration on Oct. 1 was clearly intended to send a strong political message to the people of China and to the imperialist forces demanding that China change course.

The celebration opened with a short talk by President Xi Jinping, who encouraged the Chinese people to stay true to the “original mission” of the party and continue the revolutionary struggle. Xi made a political point to visit Chairman Mao Zedong’s tomb the day before the celebration. Xi has increasingly invoked Mao and the spirit of the Long March and the revolutionary victory of 1949.

Xi did not specifically mention any country by name, but he defiantly declared: “There is no force that can shake the foundation of this great nation. … No force can stop the Chinese people and the Chinese nation forging ahead.” He emphasized that China would continue to pursue peaceful development.

The purpose of the military parade that followed was clearly to send a message of determined and well-prepared defense. Chinese media said the review showcased 160 aircraft and 580 pieces of new military technology, including drones and missiles. Some 40 percent of the armaments were displayed in public for the first time.

On display were units with ground-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, long-range and short-range missiles on trucks, sea-to-air missiles and tactical nuclear missiles. There were tanks and helicopter units, radar, info warfare and telecommunications divisions, a unit with mini-submarines and a unit with drones of every size. After logistics units and medical support units, finally came soldiers marching in military units; 15,000 military personnel participated.

The civilian part of the parade was far larger and longer, although it received no attention in Western media. It had 18 different contingents with themes, each with over 1,000 people, highlighting an event of the last 70 years. The civilian section opened with thousands, dressed in red, carrying a giant picture of Mao and enormous signs: “Firmly support Mao ideology.”

The next units were listed as “People, rise up and become masters of the land” and “Praise to the youth, liberate choice and love.”

This was followed by a smaller contingent in yellow (not red) with a big picture of Deng Xiaoping, the 1979 reforms and the opening to Western investment, followed by a unit in praise of reforms. This placement seemed intended to give a harmonious sweep to tumultuous historical eras.

That sequence ended with thematic groups, such as One Country, Two Systems, with people from Hong Kong and Macau, and one on President Xi and his theme of Rejuvenation by strengthening socialist planning.

Next was a section titled Forward Thinking, with separate contingents emphasizing innovation, scientific progress, development of rural areas, lifting rural areas from poverty, unifying ethnic minorities and Chinese cultural pride. The unit titled “A beautiful life” included people with disabilities and buses of seniors.

Then came giant floats from many cities and regions. At the very end was a contingent of the future — 5,000 Communist Young Pioneers.

‘Me and My Country’

As the parade finished at noon, we were fortunate to get tickets to a new patriotic movie made for the 70th anniversary and playing in theaters across China, “Me and My Country.” This moving film consisted of six personal vignettes of ordinary individuals and their participation in key accomplishments since the 1949 Revolution.

We watched the movie at a packed film center in a huge five-level megamall in downtown Beijing. Every global brand name in cosmetics, clothing, shoes and fast foods seemed to have a shop there. Contradictions again!

We rushed from the movie with huge crowds all trying to get close enough to the evening program in Tian’anmen Square to see the fireworks. All around us people were using phones to watch the elaborate celebration at the square.

This program involved tens of thousands of people in a choreographed extravaganza with sparkling flash cards, a huge orchestra and firework displays between sets. The theme was “New sky, new land, new era!” A favorite old song, with the same name as the film we saw, “Me and My Country,” was the background music.

The day’s program ended with “Praise for the People!” written in fireworks of Chinese characters.

The next day, Oct. 2, Tian’anmen Square was opened to the general public. Though the parade was finished, the celebration continued.

It was a holiday, and we walked to the square with hundreds of thousands of people, many dressed in red, waving flags. Thousands of young people had their faces painted or stickered with PRC red flags. People were cheering and waving and had children on their shoulders and in strollers. Of course, everyone was taking pictures and watching videos of the previous day.

We have so much to process and think about since our return. The U.S. attacks on China are not likely to recede. China is determined to reinforce its core values and its revolutionary gains.

We all need to learn much more.

*

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

Politicians are more likely than people in the general population to be sociopaths. I think you would find no expert in the field of sociopathy/psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder who would dispute this… That a small minority of human beings literally have no conscience was and is a bitter pill for our society to swallow — but it does explain a great many things, shamelessly deceitful political behavior being one.”—Dr. Martha Stout, clinical psychologist and former instructor at Harvard Medical School

Twenty years ago, a newspaper headline asked the question: “What’s the difference between a politician and a psychopath?

The answer, then and now, remains the same: None.

There is no difference between psychopaths and politicians.

Nor is there much of a difference between the havoc wreaked on innocent lives by uncaring, unfeeling, selfish, irresponsible, parasitic criminals and elected officials who lie to their constituents, trade political favors for campaign contributions, turn a blind eye to the wishes of the electorate, cheat taxpayers out of hard-earned dollars, favor the corporate elite, entrench the military industrial complex, and spare little thought for the impact their thoughtless actions and hastily passed legislation might have on defenseless citizens.

Psychopaths and politicians both have a tendency to be selfish, callous, remorseless users of others, irresponsible, pathological liars, glib, con artists, lacking in remorse and shallow.

Charismatic politicians, like criminal psychopaths, exhibit a failure to accept responsibility for their actions, have a high sense of self-worth, are chronically unstable, have socially deviant lifestyles, need constant stimulation, have parasitic lifestyles and possess unrealistic goals.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about Democrats or Republicans.

Political psychopaths are all largely cut from the same pathological cloth, brimming with seemingly easy charm and boasting calculating minds. Such leaders eventually create pathocracies: totalitarian societies bent on power, control, and destruction of both freedom in general and those who exercise their freedoms.

Once psychopaths gain power, the result is usually some form of totalitarian government or a pathocracy.

“At that point, the government operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups,” author James G. Long notes. “We are currently witnessing deliberate polarizations of American citizens, illegal actions, and massive and needless acquisition of debt. This is typical of psychopathic systems, and very similar things happened in the Soviet Union as it overextended and collapsed.”

In other words, electing a psychopath to public office is tantamount to national hara-kiri, the ritualized act of self-annihilation, self-destruction and suicide. It signals the demise of democratic government and lays the groundwork for a totalitarian regime that is legalistic, militaristic, inflexible, intolerant and inhuman.

Incredibly, despite clear evidence of the damage that has already been inflicted on our nation and its citizens by a psychopathic government, voters continue to elect psychopaths to positions of power and influence.

According to investigative journalist Zack Beauchamp,

“In 2012, a group of psychologists evaluated every President from Washington to Bush II using ‘psychopathy trait estimates derived from personality data completed by historical experts on each president.’ They found that presidents tended to have the psychopath’s characteristic fearlessness and low anxiety levels — traits that appear to help Presidents, but also might cause them to make reckless decisions that hurt other people’s lives.”

The willingness to prioritize power above all else, including the welfare of their fellow human beings, ruthlessness, callousness and an utter lack of conscience are among the defining traits of the sociopath.

When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, jailed if we dare step out of line, and then punished unjustly without remorse—all the while refusing to own up to its failings—we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic.

Instead, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which “operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups.”

Worse, psychopathology is not confined to those in high positions of government. It can spread like a virusamong the populace. As an academic study into pathocracy concluded, “[T]yranny does not flourish because perpetuators are helpless and ignorant of their actions. It flourishes because they actively identify with those who promote vicious acts as virtuous.”

People don’t simply line up and salute. It is through one’s own personal identification with a given leader, party or social order that they become agents of good or evil.

Much depends on how leaders “cultivate a sense of identification with their followers,” says Professor Alex Haslam.

“I mean one pretty obvious thing is that leaders talk about ‘we’ rather than ‘I,’ and actually what leadership is about is cultivating this sense of shared identity about ‘we-ness’ and then getting people to want to act in terms of that ‘we-ness,’ to promote our collective interests. . . . [We] is the single word that has increased in the inaugural addresses over the last century . . . and the other one is ‘America.’”

The goal of the modern corporate state is obvious: to promote, cultivate, and embed a sense of shared identification among its citizens. To this end, “we the people” have become “we the police state.”

We are fast becoming slaves in thrall to a faceless, nameless, bureaucratic totalitarian government machine that relentlessly erodes our freedoms through countless laws, statutes, and prohibitions.

Any resistance to such regimes depends on the strength of opinions in the minds of those who choose to fight back. What this means is that we the citizenry must be very careful that we are not manipulated into marching in lockstep with an oppressive regime.

Writing for ThinkProgress, Beauchamp suggests that “one of the best cures to bad leaders may very well be political democracy.”

But what does this really mean in practical terms?

It means holding politicians accountable for their actions and the actions of their staff using every available means at our disposal: through investigative journalism (what used to be referred to as the Fourth Estate) that enlightens and informs, through whistleblower complaints that expose corruption, through lawsuits that challenge misconduct, and through protests and mass political action that remind the powers-that-be that “we the people” are the ones that call the shots.

Remember, education precedes action. Citizens need to the do the hard work of educating themselves about what the government is doing and how to hold it accountable. Don’t allow yourselves to exist exclusively in an echo chamber that is restricted to views with which you agree. Expose yourself to multiple media sources, independent and mainstream, and think for yourself.

For that matter, no matter what your political leanings might be, don’t allow your partisan bias to trump the principles that serve as the basis for our constitutional republic. As Beauchamp notes, “A system that actually holds people accountable to the broader conscience of society may be one of the best ways to keep conscienceless people in check.”

That said, if we allow the ballot box to become our only means of pushing back against the police state, the battle is already lost.

Resistance will require a citizenry willing to be active at the local level.

Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, if you wait to act until the SWAT team is crashing through your door, until your name is placed on a terror watch list, until you are reported for such outlawed activities as collecting rainwater or letting your children play outside unsupervised, then it will be too late.

This much I know: we are not faceless numbers. We are not cogs in the machine. We are not slaves.

We are human beings, and for the moment, we have the opportunity to remain free—that is, if we tirelessly advocate for our rights and resist at every turn attempts by the government to place us in chains.

The Founders understood that our freedoms do not flow from the government. They were not given to us only to be taken away by the will of the State. They are inherently ours. In the same way, the government’s appointed purpose is not to threaten or undermine our freedoms, but to safeguard them.

Until we can get back to this way of thinking, until we can remind our fellow Americans what it really means to be free, and until we can stand firm in the face of threats to our freedoms, we will continue to be treated like slaves in thrall to a bureaucratic police state run by political psychopaths.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Pathocracy of the Deep State: Tyranny at the Hands of a Psychopathic Government
  • Tags: ,

Erdogan vuole la Bomba

October 22nd, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

«Alcuni paesi hanno missili nucleari, ma l’Occidente insiste che noi non possiamo averli. Ciò è inaccettabile»: questa dichiarazione del presidente Erdogan rivela che la crisi va al di là di quella apertasi con l’offensiva turca in Siria.

In Turchia, durante la guerra fredda, gli Usa schierarono armi nucleari contro l’Unione Sovietica. Nel 1962, negli accordi con l’Urss per la soluzione della crisi dei missili a Cuba, il presidente Kennedy promise di rimuovere tali armi dalla Turchia, ma ciò non fu fatto. Finita la guerra fredda, sono rimaste in Turchia, nella base aerea di Incirlik, circa 50 bombe nucleari Usa B61 (le stesse schierate in Italia ad Aviano e Ghedi), dirette principalmente contro la Russia.

In tal modo sia gli Usa che la Turchia violano il Trattato di non-proliferazione. Piloti turchi, nel quadro della Nato, sono addestrati (come i piloti italiani della base di Ghedi) all’attacco con bombe nucleari B61 sotto comando Usa. Tra non molto, le B61 dovrebbero essere sostituite dagli Usa anche in Turchia (come sarà fatto in Italia e altri paesi europei) con le nuove bombe nucleari B61-12, anch’esse dirette principalmente contro la Russia.

Nel frattempo però, dopo l’acquisto turco di missili antiaerei russi S-400, gli Usa hanno rimosso la Turchia dal programma dell’F-35, principale vettore delle B61-12: il caccia di cui la Turchia avrebbe dovuto acquistare 100 esemplari e di cui era coproduttrice. «L’F-35 – ha dichiarato la Casa Bianca – non può coesistere col sistema antiaereo S-400, che può essere utilizzato per conoscere le capacità del caccia», ossia può essere usato dalla Russia per rafforzare le difese contro l’F-35. Fornendo  ad Ankara i missili antiaerei S-400, Mosca è riuscita a impedire  (almeno per ora) che sul territorio turco siano schierati 100 F-35 pronti all’attacco con le nuove bombe nucleari Usa B61-12.

Appare a questo punto probabile che, tra le opzioni considerate a Washington, vi sia quella del trasferimento delle armi nucleari Usa dalla Turchia in un altro paese più affidabile. Secondo l’autorevole Bollettino degli Scienziati Atomici (Usa), «la base aerea di Aviano può essere la migliore opzione europea dal punto di vista politico, ma probabilmente non ha abbastanza spazio per ricevere tutte le armi nucleari di Incirlik». Lo spazio si potrebbe però ricavare, dato che ad Aviano sono già iniziati lavori di ristrutturazione per accogliere le bombe nucleari B61-12.

Su questo sfondo si colloca la dichiarazione di Erdogan che, facendo leva anche sulla presenza minacciosa dell’arsenale nucleare israeliano, annuncia l’intenzione turca di avere proprie armi nucleari. Progetto non facile, ma non irrealizzabile. La Turchia dispone di avanzate  tecnologie militari, fornite in particolare da aziende italiane, soprattutto la Leonardo.  Possiede depositi di uranio. Ha esperienza nel campo dei reattori di ricerca, forniti in particolare dagli Usa. Ha avviato la realizzazione di una propria industria elettronucleare, acquistando alcuni reattori da Russia, Giappone, Francia e Cina. Secondo alcune fonti, la Turchia potrebbe essersi già procurata, sul «mercato nero nucleare», centrifughe per l’arricchimento dell’uranio.

L’annuncio di Erdogan che la Turchia vuole divenire una potenza nucleare, interpretato da alcuni come un semplice gioco al rialzo per avere maggiore peso nella Nato, non è quindi da sottovalutare. Esso scopre ciò che in genere viene nascosto nel dibattito mediatico: il fatto che, nella turbolenta situazione provocata dalle politiche di guerra, svolge un ruolo sempre più importante il possesso di armi nucleari, spingendo chi non le possiede a procurarsele.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Erdogan vuole la Bomba

Slow-Motion US/UK Killing of Julian Assange

October 22nd, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Establishment media are in cahoots with US/UK ruling regimes against Assange for the “crime” of truth-telling journalism abhorred in the West — totalitarian rule where these societies are heading.

In mid-October, UN special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer denounced Assange’s judicial lynching and egregious mistreatment, saying the following:

“What has the man done? He has disclosed an enormous amount of information that governments want to remain secret, most infamously the ‘Collateral Murder’ video, which, in my view, is evidence for war crimes.”

“What is the scandal in this case is that everyone focuses on Julian Assange. Here is someone who exposes evidence for war crimes, including torture and murder, and he is under this constant pressure.”

“I am absolutely convinced he will not receive a fair trial in Virginia, and he will remain in prison under inhumane conditions for the rest of his life.”

Tulsi Gabbard is the only US presidential aspirant expressing support for journalist Assange, as well as whistleblowers Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, and others like them, opposing their “prosecution like criminals.”

If elected president, she’d drop charges against them, she said, calling for greater “protect(ion) (of) our civil liberties,” adding:

Assange’s arrest in Britain “poses a great threat to our freedom of the press and to our freedom of speech” — the same true about how Chelsea Manning, Snowden, and other whistleblowers are mistreated.

What happened to them “could happen to you. It could happen to any of us,” she stressed.

Bipartisan politicians in the US and UK, along with establishment media, refuse to support Assange’s struggle for justice.

On Monday, he appeared in London’s Westminster Magistrates Court. Showing the effects of egregious mistreatment since unlawfully dragged from the city’s Ecuadorian embassy and imprisoned under harsh conditions, he was too physically and emotionally shattered to participate in his defense.

He’s an investigative journalist/whistleblower, publishing material supplied by sources believed to be credible, unidentified for their protection.

WikiLeaks is not an intelligence operation. Nor it it connected to Russia or any other country. Claims otherwise are fabricated.

Assange earlier explained that WikiLeaks has the right “to publish newsworthy content. Consistent with the US Constitution, we publish material that we can confirm to be true,” he stressed.

US charges against him are fabricated and malicious, what no legitimate tribunal would accept.

Justice Department lawyer James Lewis falsely accused him of “spying,” lied saying he’s “not a journalist,” turned truth on its head claiming his actions were “criminal in both the US and UK” — the above Big Lies how all fascist police states operate.

Assange attorney Mark Summers called for dismissal of Washington’s illegitimate extradition request, saying:

According to the 2003 UK/US extradition treaty, it “shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense,” adding:

The unjustifiable persecution of Assange and Chelsea Manning is “part of an avowed war on whistleblowers to include investigative journalists and publishers.”

Summers requested a three-month delay of Assange’s February 25 extradition hearing because “we need more time” to prepare a proper defense, given the “enormity” of issues involved, requiring “evidence gathering that would test most lawyers.”

Operating as an imperial tool, judge Vanessa Baraitser denied the request, saying the extradition hearing will proceed as schedule on February 25 at Woolwich Magistrates Court near Belmarsh Prison.

Its public gallery has three seats, assuring Assange’s judicial lynching will be virtually closed to public scrutiny.

Barely able to stand and speak after months of barbaric mistreatment, when asked if there’s “anything (he) would like to say, he replied barely audibly that he doesn’t “understand how this is equitable,” adding:

Imperial USA “had 10 years to prepare (its judicial lynching). I can’t remember anything. I can’t access any of my written work.”

“It’s very difficult to do anything with such limited resources against a superpower intent on” an illegitimate crucifixion. “I can’t think properly” from the barbaric ordeal he’s endured.

Baraitser dismissively replied that “conditions of your detainment are not the subject of this court.”

Following the hearing, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson called for the case against Assange to “be thrown out immediately,” adding:

“Not only is it illegal on the face of the (extradition) treaty, the US has conducted illegal operations against Assange and his lawyers which are the subject of a major investigation in Spain.”

John Pilger witnessed Monday’s spectacle, saying

“(t)he whole thing is a grotesque absurdity. There is an extradition law between this country and the United States.”

“It states specifically that someone cannot be extradited if the offenses are political.”

“The source of this is a rogue (US) state — a state that ignores its own laws and international laws and the laws of this country.”

Summers called Assange’s crucifixion “a political attempt to signal to journalists the consequences of publishing information” ruling regimes want suppressed.

“It’s legally unprecedented…part of an avowed war on (truth-telling) whistleblowers to include investigative journalists and publishers.”

In cahoots with the Trump regime, police state Britain is killing Assange slowly, wanting him, whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning, and other truth-tellers silenced.

What’s going on is the hallmark of totalitarian rule – controlling the message, eliminating what conflicts with it, notably on major geopolitical issues.

Losing the right of free expression endangers all others. When truth-telling and dissent are considered threats to national security, free and open societies no longer exist – the slippery slope America and other Western societies are heading on.

*

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.

The roughly three dozen African heads of state who will travel to Sochi later this week to attend the first-ever Russia-Africa Summit realize that the comprehensive expansion of relations with the Eurasian Great Power gives them a competitive edge in the New Cold War and can help them thwart the many plots associated with the modern-day “Scramble for Africa”.

***

The first-ever Russia-Africa Summit will take place in Sochi this week from 23-24 October and usher in an entirely new era of relations between the Eurasian Great Power and world’s least-developed continent from which Moscow largely withdrew following the end of the Old Cold War. There’s a lot of nostalgia and heavy symbolism associated with this event, but both Russia and Africa have markedly changed over the past quarter-century, so it isn’t so much a reunion between close friends as it is a meeting between distant ones after growing apart for so long. If anything, this is actually an advantage because it means that Russia has none of the “historical baggage” that its international peers such as the US and France do who have been directly involved in some of the more controversial developments that took place there since 1991 such as the Congo Wars and the so-called “Global War on Terror”. Russia’s “rediscovery” of Africa couldn’t have come at a better time either since the landmass is rapidly becoming a theater of international competition in the New Cold War given its enormous resource wealth, promising economic potential, and geostrategic location, hence why it’s possible to speak about a modern-day “Scramble for Africa” involving players such as the aforementioned three, China, the EU, India, Japan, and even the UAE.

On the surface, it sounds unreal that Russia is even able to compete given the military and economic strength of all the others increasingly involved in Africa at this moment, but the fact of the matter is that Moscow invaluably fills the much-needed niche of providing its partners there with “Democratic Security”, or in other words, the cost-effective and low-commitment capabilities needed to thwart Color Revolutions and resolve Unconventional Wars (collectively referred to as Hybrid War). To simplify, Russia’s “political technologists” have reportedly devised bespoke solutions for confronting incipient and ongoing Color Revolutions, just like its private military contractors (PMCs) have supposedly done the same when it comes to ending insurgencies, the latter of which has been powerfully on display in the Central African Republic (CAR) since the beginning of 2018 and was described at length in the author’s piece last summer concerning the latest “UN Update On Russia’s Military Mission In The Central African Republic“. Basically, Russian military advisors, arms shipments, and PMC trainers succeeded in stopping a civil war that was bordering on genocide despite the rest of the world having lost hope that this could happen.

The other African states looked in awe at what Russia achieved and wanted to learn more about how its “Democratic Security” services could be put to use for stabilize their countries as well in exchange for profitable extraction contracts that function as the gateway for Moscow to maximize its influence in each of its partners through forthcoming political deals afterwards. Before most observers realized it, Russia has pioneered an “African Transversal” through Sudan, CAR, and the Congo Republic that the author raised awareness about in his piece about how “Russia’s Military Deal With The Congo Republic Completes Its African Transversal“. Against the backdrop of the almost ten-year-long “African Spring” that most of the world has been ignoring, Russia’s “Democratic Security” services become more important than ever since no other actor is capable of providing them, especially seeing as how the other two most likely contenders — the US and France — aren’t trusted to do so whatsoever after squandering their “goodwill” there over the decades by actually being the ones largely responsible for most of Africa’s destabilization since independence.

The coordinated and comprehensive expansion of African countries’ relations with Russia also places Moscow in the driver’s seat for leading a new Non-Aligned Movement (Neo-NAM) there which could give states a third credible option between the West and China. Although the author first spoke about the possibly multipolar-modified revival of this Old Cold War-era structure in his March 2018 Sputnik Radio broadcast about how “Russia’s S-400s Are The Key To A Neo-NAM“, it’s since been more formally proposed by two experts at Russia’s top think tank, the Valdai Club. Oleg Barabanov wrote about it in his May 2019 piece about “China’s Rise To Global Leadership: Prospects And Challenges For Russia“, as did Alexey Kupriyanov and Alexander Korolov in their report about “The Eurasian Chord And The Oceanic Ring: Russia And India As The Third Force In A New World Order” which proposes that those two jointly lead this movement. However it ends up playing out in practice, it’s now undeniable that the Neo-NAM is on Russia’s policy-making agenda, and this couldn’t but help serve the interests of African states who are desperate for a “neutral” partner in the New Cold War.

As such, it’s to be expected that the Russia-Africa Summit will result in the signing of many significant economics deals (possibly even involving the creation of logistics facilities in some geostrategic countries), some unreported military ones, and the announcement that this gathering will become a yearly (or at least every 2-5-year) event. The African states crave the credible “Democratic Security” solutions that only Russia can provide for ensuring their continued stability, and they certainly don’t mind trading profitable extraction contracts in exchange for it since selling resources has always been something that most of them have done anyhow except they haven’t hitherto received anything other than financial benefits for the elite from it. Now, however, all of society can eventually (key word) benefit if Russia scales the expansion of its influence in those countries afterwards to positively influence their political and economic models (with the intent of making them more resistant to Color Revolution plots) concurrent with bolstering their security capabilities (against Unconventional War threats), all while elevating their status as (for now) informal members of the Neo-NAM.

*

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

This article was also published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

In the first week of the month of October the US informed Turkey and Russia of its intention to withdraw from north-east Syria (NES). Turkish President Recep Tayyib Erdogan pulled out a plan prepared over a year ago to move forces into NES and take control of cities like Manbij, Ain al-Arab and Ras al-Ayn: an area 440 kilometres long and 35 kilometres wide. The US central command and the Russian military command, as well as other countries including Syria, were informed of the Turkish intention to move forward to fill in the gap. Turkey believes this incursion into the Syrian territory serves its national security and will relocate millions of Syrian refugees living in Turkey, and those who will move out of Idlib once the liberation of the city is in process.  Erdogan considers it necessary to create a safe zone between the Turkish borders and that part of Syria under control of the Syrian branch of the PKK, the YPG, an organisation that figures in the US, Europe, NATO and Turkey lists of terrorism.

The quick reaction by Turkey caused alarm in Washington where President Donald Trump sent a letter – considered humiliating by Turkey – to his Turkish counterpart asking him “not to be a fool” and to wait before acting. Simultaneously, President Putin called a meeting for his National Security Council to discuss the US withdrawal and the Turkish intention to replace US forces in NES. Intelligence sources confirmed US withdrawal preparations. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was consulted and informed about US and Turkish intentions.

Decision-makers in Syria evaluated the situation: preliminary information indicated the seriousness of US intentions to withdraw, notwithstanding President Trump’s record of changing his mind and altering decisions at the last minute. It was agreed that the US move should be taken seriously into consideration, with plans to face it and gather the necessary forces to deploy in NES.

Damascus tried to contact the Syrian Kurds, before the official US announcement of departure from NES, to test their reaction to the game-changer decision of withdrawal. The YPG was dismissive. Damascus understood that the Kurds still placed their hopes in the US, British and French intervention to influence Trump’s withdrawal decision. The Kurdish political leaders were sceptical about the ability of Trump to implement this intention.

Damascus was convinced the Kurds had not learned their lesson and were gambling on the continuing presence of foreign forces – the US, EU (British, French and Italian) and Israel – who had, in fact, decided to withdraw and end their illegal presence in NES. Syrian officials knew the Kurds would be the biggest losers. But for the Syrian government, it was unacceptable to leave all of NES under Turkish control if the US were to pull out its forces.

Decision-makers in Syria understood that Russian and Iranian officials had agreed on the importance of direct contacts with Turkey to coordinate the presence of forces in NES. Their goal was not to increase the tension with Turkey nor to confront the Turkish forces on Syrian soil but rather to organise this presence and limit its advance to allow the US forces to withdraw. It would have been in the apparent interest of US forces to watch a Turkish-Syrian confrontation in NES, an eventuality that Russia and Iran sought to avoid.

Ankara’s motive and concern were the fact that the Syrian Kurds – a branch of the PKK organisation on the list of terrorism – would bet on the support of US forces and their European allies up until the day of withdrawal of these forces. It was imperative to fill in the gap and close the road to any possible future return of these forces in Syria. Turkish forces were assuring the forceful handover of land to the Syrian government. Nevertheless, Damascus would now have to face another occupation in the future– Turkey – that is not likely to withdraw in the near future regardless of all the promises coming from Ankara or Moscow.

Screenshot 2019-10-21 at 17.09.19

When Turkey pushed its proxies and forces into NES, the Syrian Kurds awoke to the danger. Their military commander General Ferhat Abdi Sahin, aka Mazloum Abdi, believed the only solution was to ask protection from Russia and the central government in Damascus. Russia, unlike the Syrian Army, has limited ground troops. The Russian military directed the Kurds to negotiate with Damascus. Negotiations were conducted at the military base of Hmaymeem and in Damascus. Qamishli airport – under Syrian Army control – acted as a hub for the Kurdish delegation to talk with Russian and Syrian government military officials.

General Abdi, who fought with the PKK leader Abdallah Ocalan, notwithstanding the disapproval of the Kurdish political leadership in NES, signed off a petition for intervention, asking the Syrian Army to defend Kurdish-US controlled areas. Damascus is aware of Kurdish-Israeli collaboration and the failed Israeli effort to keep US forces in NES.

There was no time to organise a fast Syrian Army deployment in an area almost five times as large as Lebanon (40,000 – 50,000 sq km). Russia and Iran were working together to slow down President Erdogan and minimise the cost of his invasion. Turkey showed understanding while negotiating with Russia and Iran and said it was ready to negotiate and organise the presence of all forces in the disputed area but would not tolerate any Kurdish armed presence in the area. President Erdogan committed not to attack the Syrian Army in any city where the soldiers of Damascus were present.

Last week, President Bashar al-Assad told a visiting Russian delegation led by President Vladimir Putin’s special envoy to Syria Alexander Lavrentiev that he rejected any occupation of his country and that the US was due to leave the country sooner or later. Assad expressed concern that Turkey might decide to remain in the country for many years before negotiating a withdrawal. The central government in Damascus is prepared to resist such occupation and will no doubt support domestic resistance against such an occupation. Russia confirmed its support for the full integrity of Syrian territory and its goal of ending the war in Syria, terminating the presence of all occupation forces, and its support for constitutional reforms to speed reconciliation.

Russia said it was possible to talk to Turkish President Erdogan and reach a reasonable agreement because, once a clear deal is reached, there are more chances that Turkey keeps its commitments, unlike President Trump who changes his mind daily. Syria and its allies decided to keep monitoring developments, keep the hotline open and prepare more forces to push into NES.

Trump’s soldiers are withdrawing from the main provinces and have completed their withdrawal from Raqqah and the east of Aleppo. US withdrawal from the borders with Turkey triggered a race of the Turkish forces and their proxies who managed to occupy Ras al-Ayn to keep control over the city. The Syrian Kurds – although they are still trying to change Trump’s mind by asking him to stay in Syria- are perhaps more aware they have no foreign allies left but Russia, who can serve as a guarantor to preserve the cities and villages they live in after US withdrawal.

The US President has given his Turkish counterpart President Erdogan what he wanted: a ceasefire to allow the Kurds to pull out from the Syrian zone coveted by Turkey, forcing the Kurds to give up on this territory and move its forces inland., which they did by abandoning the city of Ras al-Ayn over the weekend. This is even worse than a total US withdrawal of the entire area, from the Kurds’ point of view. Turkey’s proxy forces had proven ineffective fighting against ISIS in 2016 and against the Kurds since the beginning of the military operation. By delivering cities without resistance, Turkey has reached its objectives with fewer casualties.

Trump never promised the Kurds a state, nor had he promised to remain indefinitely in Syria to protect them. The departure of the US forces is an inevitable outcome even in countries it has occupied over decades (Afghanistan and Iraq are the best examples). The Syrian Kurds believed in their dream to form their own state because the partition of Iraq and Syria seemed likely to them. Had this happened, northern Iraq would have been the eastern part of the Kurdish state and Rojava (NES) its western part.

Screenshot 2019-10-18 at 07.22.39

But the “new Middle East” plan has failed and the continuous presence of US forces is not only illegal but also serves no US strategic purpose. Trump promised to pull out and he is likely to fulfil this promise. This will benefit his forthcoming electoral 2020 campaign.

President Erdogan is left with a nearby ally, Russia, with whom he will negotiate and organise the presence of his troops in NES. The American forces are leaving in an organised way. Trump has not clarified his intentions towards Syrian oil and gas fields under US control. He wishes to give the control of NES to the Kurds but is keeping no troops in the area, only at al-Tanf borders (150- 200 US servicemen). He is afraid of Iranian control over the oil fields; Tehran has been supplying the Syrian government with oil for the last 8 years. Its last shipment of 2.1 million barrels created a storm between Iran and the UK involving the confiscation of a supertanker and ships of both countries.

The Syrian Kurds have been selling oil to Damascus while they have controlled NES notwithstanding the US requests that they refrain from energy delivery to the Syrian population. The Kurds in Syria now recognise the Syrian army as their only remaining defenders, with the guarantee of Russia. If the US is really concerned about the safety of the Kurds, their only option is to support a stable central government in Damascus to protect the Kurds.

The presence of the Syrian Army in Manbij and Ayn al-Arab has spoiled the Turkish plan to control an area 440 kilometres long and 35 kilometres wide. The two cities are in the middle of the zone Erdogan aims to occupy. This is why the Putin-Erdogan meeting on Tuesday is crucial for the future of Syria. The 1999 Adana agreement between Syria and Turkey will be revised; the reform of the Syrian constitution will likely be discussed to speed up its consent to be implemented and ensure the withdrawal of Turkish forces if indeed that is Turkey’s only motive to stay in Syria.

Much has been achieved to end the war in Syria. A peaceful solution is in sight and the end of the Jihadists control of Idlib is near.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Putin-Erdogan Meeting Aims to Organise Differences and Shorten the Gap Between Allies
  • Tags: , ,

In the magical illusions of the smoke and mirrors ideology behind Brexit, we should be acutely aware of what a trade deal with America means. In our article this week – The MAGA Agenda – it seems that among those on the radical right – the government, their acolytes and corporate donors – there is a widely held belief that a favourable trade deal can easily be negotiated with the United States. But this belief flies in the face of historical evidence as the US has proved on more than one occasion to be a ruthless and exploitative (so-called) partner where its own economic interests are involved. It is naive to think that America will be a cooperative and fair ally or partner in the common interest – it won’t. And being a sycophant of Trump’s America – with his MAGA agenda will prove to be the final nail in Britain’s coffin.

The radical right – members of the ERG, such as – Michael Gove, Iain Duncan-Smith, Priti Patel and Chris Grayling to name a tiny handful are driving Britain into the arms of a country that exploits everyone except the very few. American values are not British values and we should never dismiss the scale of damage that the USA inflicted upon Britain over the decades since the last World War.

For Boris Johnson to use inflammatory language to stoke up nationalism and adopt Churchillian euphemisms as a means to his own ends would make those who lost their lives to save this country from all sorts of evils turn in their graves. The fact is that the Americans exploited our position during the War and especially from 1945 for their own financial and economic gain. They were not just duplicitous, they were shameless about it and Britain should never trust them again – much as the Kurds in Northern Syria have just found out to their horror.

In the background, as the political warfare of Brexit rages on in the mainstream media, various Bill’s that relate to Brexit and future trade deals are being heard. For any politician to say that the latest Brexit deal continues to protect the rights of workers, protects the environment, food and medical supplies is simply lying, blindfolded or doesn’t understand the deceitful machinations of this government.

On the announcement of a new Trade Bill (1), Jean Blaylock, trade campaign manager at Global Justice Now, said:

Parliament needs to have a say on trade deals so that unaccountable government ministers aren’t able to use them to slash regulations, entrench privatisation and block climate action. This should be a simple, basic requirement in any democracy. MPs, Lords, business and civil society have all steadfastly been raising this for the past two years, and earlier this year Parliament introduced a clause in the old Trade Bill to guarantee that trade deals will be voted on. Yet Johnson’s government is so scared of having to answer to Parliament that it plans to have a new Trade Bill that conveniently leaves out all of these democratic provisions.

“We know that Johnson’s government wants to do a trade deal with the US in a hurry. Trump’s administration has already told us what it wants in deal, and it’s very worrying – chlorine chicken, higher prices for medicines, and an end to any attempt to rein in the power of Silicon Valley big tech firms like Google, Amazon and Facebook. A deal like that demonstrates the need for Parliament to be able to review what’s on the table and have a vote.”

The big problem with having made a career out of writing fantasies and falsities as Boris Johnson has done is that no-one believes the promises of habitual liars. And so it is with the one institution that stands heads and shoulders above all others in the UK – the NHS.

Last month, promises made by Boris Johnson that the NHS is “off the table” in negotiations over a post-Brexit trade deal with the US simply cannot be relied upon. As Nick Dearden says:

“Johnson’s promise to protect the NHS should be taken with a very large pinch of salt, because the threat to our health system will be written across a US-UK trade deal, from the new powers it gives big pharmaceutical corporations to charge higher prices for medicines, to restrictions on preventing Big Tech companies from mining the NHS database.

This will go well beyond a US trade deal, however. Johnson’s government is talking to countries across the world who will want to use Brexit to insist on even more damaging environmental policies from the UK. Only last week Malaysia said that reducing regulations on palm oil production would be the price of a post -Brexit free trade deal.”

The other point to remember is this – why would any country rely on America in any deal to play fair and by the rules. They don’t even in their own country. American’s don’t trust the regulatory agencies to do their work properly or professionally when most of them are drenched in corruption or bribery scandals. Take for instance the USDA’s National Organic (food) Program. Described by national media organisations as a ‘feckless agency‘ involving its complicity in what might be the biggest consumer scam in decades: the sale of phoney organic food. It’s a scam that’s been going on for years and years and yet the federal government looks the other way. Millions of American consumers have been — and are still being — duped, buying pricier “organic” products that are imported into the country without the correct licences or country of origin certificates, repackaged and sold on – making huge profits along the way. Food products can arrive from places like China, South America or Africa, be covered in pesticides and ridden with deadly heavy metals and sold as healthy organic produce simply by repackaging with misleading attractive labels.

Corporations all across America consider being fined billions of dollars for fraud and corruption as the cost of doing business. People and consumers are the last consideration. And healthcare companies are some of the worst in America. As the Forbes said at the end of last year – in an article entitled ‘Shame, Scandal Plague Healthcare Providers In 2018′ –  “Unfortunately, the problems (of corruption) are endemic and deeply embedded in medical culture.”

Nowhere are these ill-effects more apparent than in cancer care. A recent report titled “Unintended Consequences of Expensive Cancer Therapeutics” found that the last 71 chemotherapy agents to receive FDA approval extend life by an average of only 2.1 months—time often spent in pain, isolated from friends and family – purely for the purposes of making bigger profits. It’s extortion practices even extend to the heartbreak of a family member dying before your eyes.

In America today – two-thirds (66.5%) of all bankruptcies are caused by not having the right health insurance. Last year, 530,000 families lost everything – homes, savings, assets built for retirement – to save a family member from illness – only for everyone else in the family to be pauperised. A recent studyfound that only 40 per cent of Americans have enough saved to cover a $1,000 emergency expense – and medical care comes with co-pay (percentage of contribution) costs that can roll into thousands depending on the cover.

In 2019, the average price of health insurance rose above $20,000 for families that obtain their coverage through work. They pay just over $6.000 assuming that someone in the family has a good job as they employer stumps up $14,000 per employee – per year. The Keiser Foundation report into American healthcare costs said:

“These numbers are grotesque. Insuring a single family for a year costs almost as much as a Honda Civic. This fact should be a subject of daily outrage, and it probably would be if more workers realized just how much of their compensation is devoured by the cost of health care. After all, every dollar a company pays to Aetna or Cigna is a dollar it might otherwise be able spend on salaries and wages.”

Boris Johnson knows this. He was born in America. From faking his ancestral history to bendy bananas, eurocoffins, and the banning of prawn cocktail crisps. Boris Johnson has been fired more than once for lying and made to apologise for outrageous allegations such as he did about the Hillsborough disaster.  From his philandering and now accusations of corruption with a pole dancing ‘entrepreneur’, Boris Johnson’s honesty and integrity in any area of life mean nothing. He will be as happy selling Britain down a river without a paddle for a bit of personal glory and people will believe him.

Was it Noel Coward who once said – “It’s discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.”

This trade deal cannot be trusted to be in the best interests of Britain if left to the whims and fantasies of this government.

*

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

Featured image is from TP