The Mother of Messes in Syria

October 22nd, 2019 by Eric Margolis

What a mess. The imperial cooks in Washington have turned poor Syria into a poison pit of warring factions, with disastrous results for all.

Henry Kissinger once quipped that it is more dangerous being America’s ally than its enemy. A good example is how Washington used the Kurds in Syria to fight ISIS and then ditched them to face the wrath of the mighty Turkish military alone.

A great hue and cry has gone up from the US corporate media and Congress that the Kurds are being betrayed. The evangelical far right and Israel’s supporters are leading this charge. Israel has secretly been arming and aiding Kurds in Iraq, Iran and Syria since 1975 as a dandy way of splintering the fragile Arab Mideast.

But President Trump was right when he said that the Kurds had been richly paid by Washington for their services, adding ‘they are no angels.’ Some facts ignored by the US media:

  • Kurds, a tribal, non-Semitic people of Persian origin are, like Palestinians, a stateless people who are sand in the eye of the Mideast. They inhabit the uplands of Syria, Iraq, Armenia, and Iran. Kurds are a handsome, warlike people renowned for their fighting abilities and courage. They have long battled neighboring Arab and Iranian tribes over pasture land and water resources.
  • The Obama administration got talked into arming and financing the extremist Islamic State group by the deep state and Israel as a way of overthrowing Syria’s secular government, an ally of Iran. The US-equipped Iraqi Army sent to fight IS ran for their lives. When Islamic State threatened Baghdad, the US Air Force intervened and crushed it. Rogue elements of Islamic State ran amok, creating all sorts of atrocities. Some IS units still receive covert Israeli cross-border support.

The US found it expedient to pay Kurdish militias, known as YPG, to fight remnants of the rag-tag IS, an armed mob whose danger was wildly exaggerated by western media. IS was a perfect excuse to keep US military forces in the Mideast. Turkey helped arm IS.

  • Turkey’s Kurdish minority is 15-20% of its 80 million people. The dangerous Marxist PKK movement has been calling for an independent Kurdish state since the 1980’s. I covered the war in Turkey’s southern Anatolia between the PKK and the Turkish Army, a bloody affair of bombings and massacres that left over 40,000 dead. Turks go ballistic at the very mention of an independent Kurdish state, calling Kurds ‘mountain Turks’ and Marxist `terrorists.’

Kurds were harshly repressed by various Turkish governments and their generals. But when the Ottoman Turks marched tens of thousands of Armenian prisoners to Syria during World War I, Kurdish tribes raped and massacred them in great numbers. In the 1920’s, the sainted Winston Churchill authorized use of poison gas against ‘unruly’ Kurdish and Afghan tribes.

  • US attempts to overthrow Syria’s government created national chaos. The scrubby eastern third of Syria had a mixed tribal population, but the Kurdish YPG militia declared it independent from Syria, declaring a new Kurdish state called Rojava. To no surprise, a confusing melee developed between Syrian forces and Arab tribal fighters, US units, Kurdish militias, IS and tribes aligned to Damascus. Turkey, aghast at the prospects of an independent Kurdish state next door, decided to send in its army which had been demanding action against armed Kurdish groups.

Into this maelstrom strode Donald Trump, who knew nothing about Syria. There were only about 1,000 US troops in Syria, but they could call down the US Air Force based in nearby Qatar. These token troops are being withdrawn to neighboring Iraq, which remain a US-occupied nation with a puppet government, an American garrison of at least 5,000 troops, and oceans of oil.

In short, Syria is being ground up by wars for no good purpose. Turkey made a grave error by joining efforts to overthrow Syria’s Assad regime. The US, France, Britain and Israel have no business at all there. Only Russia has a legitimate geopolitical interest in Syria, which is close to its southern border. So far, Vlad Putin has played a very skillful game of big power chess in Syria while the US has blundered time and again.

*

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.

BREXIT – Yes or No – A Deal Prearranged Three Years Ago

October 22nd, 2019 by Peter Koenig

Prime Minister Boris Johnson came back from Brussels with a deal better than any Theresa May ever achieved, so he says. His talks with the departing European Commissioner, Jean-Claude Juncker, were very fruitful. But precise details are never known. Juncker, emotional about his leaving and handing over the office of EU Commissioner on 1 November to Madame Ursula von der Leyen, from Germany, may have made some special concessions to Johnson – some rumors go. But unlikely. He is not the only one to decide. Besides, deal or no deal, or BREXIT or no BREXIT, had already been decided shortly after the surprise pro-BREXIT public vote on 23 June 2016. And it is clear, not the EU and not the British elite want BREXIT.

In any case, in a first vote on Mr. Johnson’s new and ‘better’ deal, the British Parliament voted 322 to 306 to postpone the vote on whether or not to accept the “new deal”, until the new “ratification law” is voted on. – What ratification law? – A precise date for the vote is not known. All that would point to the need to ask again Brussels for a postponement of the British decision, “deal or no deal”, beyond the current target of 31 October 2019. But, THE Boris says, he will do everything to avoid such a step. How?

The mess and confusion are overwhelming. People go crazy, especially in Britain. They don’t know what will happen when; whether their jobs are at stake, their pensions in question, in case some of them at one point in the past, or now, have been or are working in another EU country. Will ”The Market” ruin their savings? Will sudden border closings – pure speculation – cause enormous shortages of necessary goods, food, medicine – and cause hyper-inflation?

Depression rates run high in Britain, as well as among those Brits who have made themselves a living in an associated EU country. Will they have to leave? Granted, it is not easy to live peacefully and without stress and anxiety under these circumstances.

Why is it so difficult to accept and respect the democratic vote to exit the European Union, never mind the narrow result of a 51.89% ‘yes’ ballot for leaving the EU? – Because this vote, of which we now know was helped by Cambridge Analytica came a as total surprise to the British elite, who never thought that a majority, even a small one, would be so sick and tired of being managed and told what to do by a cumbersome, bureaucratic EU Commission in Brussels.

Now, these behind-the-curtain elites are doing everything to appear keeping ‘democracy’ alive, respecting the vote, but finding any means to circumvent the action linked to the vote – namely BREXIT. The circus has lasted for over three years – and still no definitive decision is made. My hunch is – and I am not alone – that this has all been plotted shortly after the surprise ballot by a small elite that keeps a firm handle on the British Parliament – and of course on the PM.

Besides, Washington is not keen on seeing the UK leave the EU. In more cases than one, the UK has acted as a US mole in the EU. For example, on the decision to accept 13 Eastern European countries in the EU – countries that were economically and socially far from at par with the 15 EU members in 2004, when they were integrated into the EU between 2004 and 2013. No questions asked, no member country’s population was asked for their opinion. It was done like by dictatorship. Most of the population of the 15 members would have said NO.

It was clear that these new, economically weak countries would also weaken the whole of the EU, as they would require special financial aid in the billions of euros, funds that the EU would miss to solidify for eventually forming a solid federal European Union. That’s exactly what Washington wanted, preventing a federal European Union with a common Constitution – an equal or superior to the federal United States of America.

A federal United States of Europe was, of course, squarely against the idea of the US which was the mastermind behind the European Union in the first place; an idea that was borne during or right after WWII, and then implanted by the CIA in willing European politicians, those heading the Club of Rome, for instance.

What if the succession Cameron, May, Johnson was also planned? It helps confusing the public. What if the assertiveness of Johnson to pull BREXIT through come hell or high water, is mere make-believe? – He knows it will not happen, not on 31 October, and most likely not in January 2020. Then he “failed” and will resign? The new PM, whoever he / she may be, will call for a new referendum – as the public outcry in this direction becomes ever louder – democracy will finally be reinstated to bring order to the mess. Or, will a new referendum do that, reinstate “democracy” in the minds of those who have voted for BREXIT in June 2016? – Maybe not. Probably not. The possible consequences are unimaginable at this point.

The new referendum would be very carefully “accompanied” and supervised, so as not to allow any mishaps, or missteps by the voters. This time the votes must be SOLID pro-EU, if possible, by a landslide, so as not to evoke questions and recounts, and – foremost to avoid protests in the streets of London, the financial capital, the city of money, the home turf of capitalism. “Remain” must be achieved with a very comfortable margin. And bingo, democracy has been preserved. And nothing changes. By then, some 4 years will be down the drain, four years of anger, frustration, insecurity, fear, depression, anxiety – and who knows how many suicides?

What would really happen if BREXIT were to take place as the voters decided? – Doomsday-sayers are, of course, paid to spread fear, fear of uncertainty, fear of no-longer belonging, fear of being evicted from wherever in Europe one might live. And we know, fear is the best means to keep people in check, while none of the nefarious Armageddon predictions would occur.

The UK, after the obligatory, speculative, profit-taking fall and rise of the stock and currency markets, would fully recover and within a couple of years would very likely be far better off than under the watchful eye of Brussels. The EU bureaucracy of Brussels is worse than useless, especially the EU Parliament which is completely toothless, and the European Commission that decides over all major issues without consultation of the member countries’ people. It brings only frustration and hardship to most members, as in having to adapt their laws to EU standards, losing their sovereignty. Germany, the tacit EU leader, may be an exception, though a majority of Germans would also like to turn their back to the EU.

So, what good is it to stay in this useless non-Union, that has no sense of solidarity, that allows weak members, like Greece, to be literally slaughtered, by their own brothers, the IMF, the EC and the European Central Bank? Spain, Ireland and Portugal are not much better off – and Italy’s EU fate hovers dreadfully over the Italian public, so much so, that the Italian Government decided on its own on a Plan B, namely association with the east, signing up to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

What is doomed after BREXIT, is most probably not the UK, but the European (non-) Union itself. This construct, with a fiat currency like the dollar, is not sustainable. A single currency for a group of countries that have no declared common goals, like a Constitution, is not sustainable. It is just a question, what will fall first, the EU or the Euro; but fall they will. It’s a matter of time.

BREXIT or no-BREXIT is actually anecdotal. But, hey, let’s not jump the gun. It’s pure speculation. After all chaos is dynamic and unpredictable. Anything can happen.

*

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

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. After working for over 30 years with the World Bank he penned Implosion, an economic thriller, based on his first-hand experience. 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. 

Brexit Impasse Shows No Sign of Ending Soon

October 22nd, 2019 by Johanna Ross

‘Super Saturday’ as it was coined, should have seen perhaps the most significant vote take place in the House of Commons since the drama of Brexit began as MPs prepared to vote on the deal brought back from Brussels by Prime Minister Boris Johnson. But nothing is certain in this Brexit saga, with events changing by the hour. As it happened, MPs voted instead for the so-called Letwin Amendment, which proposed to defer the Brexit vote, compelling Johnson instead to write to the EU to request an extension to the Brexit negotiation period.

Such a letter Boris Johnson did indeed write, although seemingly in protest he did not sign it, prompting Deputy Labour leader John McDonnell to refer to him as a ‘spoilt brat’. More significantly however, Johnson sent a second letter to the EU in which he stressed that his personal view and that of the government is that an extension would in fact be harmful for both Britain and Europe. This of course effectively undermines the first letter sent by Johnson, which have begged some to ask the question if the Prime Minister could face legal repercussions for sending such a letter.

Indeed Monday brought with it fresh developments in the Brexit story, as the Scottish courts heard another case put forward by the Scottish Nationalist Party’s Joanna Cherry and others which seeks to prove that the Prime Minister is ‘frustrating the Benn Act’ by penning a letter to EU leaders urging them to ignore his first letter requesting a Brexit extension. The judges have delayed their ruling on this however, as Scotland’s most senior judge, Lord Carloway, said that they needed to wait to ensure that Johnson did not try to block or sabotage the application he was forced to make on Saturday night asking for an extension.

On Monday it was also decided by John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons, that the much-awaited vote on Johnson’s negotiated Brexit deal expected on Saturday, would not take place, as he cited it would be ‘repetitive and disorderly’ for MPs to debate and vote on the deal, so soon after heated discussions took place on Brexit in the House of Commons at the weekend. He said: “Today’s motion is in substance the same as Saturday’s motion, and the house has decided the matter. Today’s circumstances are in substance the same as Saturday’s circumstances.” This action, together with the passing of the Letwin amendment, means that the EU has to seriously consider Johnson’s letter asking for an extension. Had the Prime Minister won a vote on Monday, the letter could have been rescinded.

In a further blow to Boris Johnson’s ‘do or die’ Brexit on 31st October, the leaders of the Scottish and Welsh governments have compiled a joint letter to both the UK government and European Council President Donald Tusk, asking for a Brexit extension long enough to allow for a Second referendum on Brexit. They stated that “It is simply impossible for us to fulfil our constitutional responsibilities in this timescale, which is dictated by the way in which the Prime Minister delayed tabling formal proposals.” The letter also states that they find the latest deal brokered by Boris Johnson to be even worse than the previous one achieved by Theresa May.

With Boris Johnson’s planned exit on 31st October seemingly being blocked on a variety of fronts, it’s now less obvious how he will achieve his Brexit ‘come what may’ at this end of this month, despite the balky rhetoric coming out of 10 Downing Street. For some time it looked as if the Prime Minister couldn’t be stopped.  His strategy of pushing the UK’s constitution (albeit unwritten) to the limits, initially took everyone by surprise as he dared to enter territory which no PM had dared to enter before. But fairly soon, opposition MPs got wiser at predicting Johnson’s next steps in this fast moving game of political chess. A few court rulings and parliamentary amendments later, and Johnson’s path to No Deal Brexit is facing obstacles at every turn.

But with so many different agendas at play, the alternative path to No Deal is no clearer. A general election, a People’s Vote, a Brexit deal, or no Brexit at all – there is no consensus on what the best choice for the UK’s future is. On Tuesday MPs are due to vote finally on Johnson’s deal, but the numbers indicate that he’s unlikely to get support for it in the House of Commons. All sides may be tired of the stagnation of the last three years of negotiations but there’s no sure sign that the stalemate is likely to end any time soon…

*

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.

Johanna Ross is a journalist.

Featured image is from Pixabay

Vindictive Sentence in Catalan Leaders’ Trial Unleashes Tsunami of Protest

October 22nd, 2019 by Dick Nichols

The gap between the 75%–80% of Catalans who uphold their country’s right to self-determination, and the Spanish elites and parts of Spanish society that do not want to know anything about it, was already very wide before October 14.

But on that day, when the Spanish Supreme Court condemned nine Catalan political and social movement leaders to a total of 99.5 years jail, it most likely became unbridgeable.

Following the sentence of the leaders for their role in the October 1, 2017 independence referendum, popular outrage in Catalonia immediately exploded in mass protests involving tens of thousands of people.

They occupied Barcelona airport, imposed road blocks on major highways, demonstrated in huge numbers outside Spanish government offices and began “Marches for Freedom” on Barcelona from five provincial cities.

Every imaginable Catalan social and sporting organisation, from Barcelona Football Club to chess associations, has issued statements condemning the sentences.

On the nights of October 15–16, police and small groups engaged in running battles in central Barcelona, as smoke rose from burning rubbish bins.

On October 16, Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) acting Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez appeared on television to warn that security forces would act “firmly, serenely and proportionately” in the face of violence.

To his right, People’s Party (PP) leader Pablo Casado demanded the declaration of a state of emergency in Catalonia, while Citizens’ leader Albert Rivera called for an end to Catalan self-rule under article 155 of the Spanish constitution.

One of the main instruments coordinating these responses is the Democratic Tsunami platform, anonymously run by activists from the October 1 referendum, and coordinated via a Telegram channel that, at the time of writing, had attracted 300,000 subscribers.

Punishment without crime

The unanimous verdict of the seven Supreme Court judges that set off this still expanding wave of protest was that nine Catalan leaders — seven former ministers and social movement leaders Jordi Sànchez and Jordi Cuixart — were guilty of “sedition” in preparing the October 1 referendum.

For this 18th century crime, long deleted from the penal codes of many other European states, they were sentenced to jail terms ranging from 9 to 13 years.

The harshest sentence was handed out to former Catalan vice-president Oriol Junqueras as “leader of the sedition”. Former ministers Raül Romeva (foreign affairs), Dolors Bassa (social welfare) and Jordi Turull (minister of state) came next with 12 years: along with Junqueras they were also found guilty of “embezzlement”.

Former Catalan parliament speaker Carme Forcadell incurred 11.5 years jail for allowing the chamber to vote on the referendum’s enabling law, after being instructed by the Spanish Constitutional Court not to do so.

The “sedition” of former Catalan interior minister Joaquim Forn (11.5 years) consisted in undermining the ability of the Catalan police to deliver and enforce Spanish state court orders.

Former territory minister Josep Rull was found guilty of denying a Spanish Civil Guard ship mooring facilities and of making public buildings available as voting centres.

As for Òmnium Cultural president Cuixart and former Catalan National Assembly president Sànchez, their “sedition” was proven by the fact that they had called demonstrations against Civil Guard searches and urged people to defend voting centres against police and Civil Guard attempts to impound ballot boxes.

Along with these nine, who have already been held in preventive detention for up to two years, the court found former ministers Carles Mundó (attorney-general), Santi Vila (business) and Meritxell Borras (education) guilty of “disobedience”, fining each €60,000 and banning them from standing for public office for 18 months.

The nine jailed leaders have been banned from standing for public office for the term of their sentences.

Why this verdict?

The verdict is the predictable result of the pressures operating on the Supreme Court and its chief judge Manuel Marchena.

The chief pressure was for the trial to produce an exemplary punishment of the Catalan leaders. They had humiliated the Spanish state by successfully organising a unilateral independence referendum after 18 failed attempts to negotiate a Scottish-style referendum with successive Spanish governments.

A measure of the viciousness of the sentences is to compare them to those arising from the failed 1981 coup attempt. The average punishment for the military and Civil Guards who tried to reimpose the Francisco Franco dictatorship then was six years jail: the sentences of the Catalan leaders average 8.3 years.

The Supreme Court judges were doing the work set out for them by the previous PP government of Mariano Rajoy.

According to a leaked WhatsApp message by PP Senate spokesperson Ignacio Cosidó, its Second Chamber, which heard the case, was controlled “via the back door”.

There was no way its judges, even their “progressive” minority, were going to find the Catalan leaders innocent, or guilty only of disobedience (which carries no jail sentence).

There was no ‘rebellion’

However, the heavy sentences the court was always going to impose have to be defensible in law, not only within Spain but especially before a European Court of Human Rights — which in 2018 upheld nine out of ten appeals against Spanish court decisions.

This pressure to find a plausible legal foundation for their decision meant the judges had to discard the “rebellion” charge against the Catalan leaders.

This indictment was originally brought by the investigating magistrate Pablo Llarena and was backed by the Spanish prosecutor-general’s office and the “popular prosecution”, the ultra-right party Vox.

(The “popular prosecution” is a Spanish institution originally designed to allow the representation of community or public interest.)

Dropping the charge of “rebellion”, which a majority of Spanish jurists had already declared inapplicable, was also probably the price of a unanimous verdict between judges of different political temperaments.

It was also a political imperative. It will help Pedro Sánchez maintain the myth that Spain is a “law-governed state” with an independent judiciary and it will also help the European Union and its member states, fearful of any Catalan threat to the EU status quo, sustain the same fiction.

In the days after the verdict, spokespeople for the European Commission and the British government robotically repeated the line from Madrid.

Caught in contradiction

The dropping of “rebellion” comes at a price, however, because the whole Spanish-patriotic view of the October 1 referendum, from King Philip down, is that it was a deliberate, rebellious assault on the Constitution.

Sensitive to the angst their appeal-proofed verdict would cause, the judges devoted about 200 pages of the 493-page judgement to arguments against the “rebellion”.

Yet, in adopting the “sedition theory”, the judges fall into a painful contradiction.

Their decision says, for example, that October 1 did not involve “preconceived, deliberate and functional” violence aimed at achieving Catalonia’s separation from the Spanish state, but was rather an attempt to pressure it into negotiations.

“The over-excited citizens who believed that the positive result of the so-called referendum would lead to the hoped-for horizon of a sovereign republic were unaware that the right to decide had changed into an atypical right to bring pressure.”

But if that argument is valid against “rebellion”, how is it not also valid against “sedition”? The only difference in Spanish law is that “rebellion” is a crime against the constitution and “sedition” a crime against public order.

The judges’ answer was to smother the contradiction in lurid fictional accounts of the events of 2017. These are based on the well-rehearsed evidence of Spanish National Police and Civil Guard officers, whom Marchena “spared” from defence cross-examination, backed by visual evidence, during the trial.

In their decision, it is the huge peaceful demonstrations and non-violent protests of 2017 that become “sedition”. This ruling opens the door to any protest activity, like trade union pickets or organised attempts to stop evictions, being regarded as “seditious”.

In an October 16 interview in the Catalan daily Ara, Jordi Sànchez said:

“The sentence unequivocally lies. It doesn’t specify any detail of the supposed strategy of sedition. Not one confirmed meeting, not one email, only declarations in public ANC [Catalan National Assembly] events and the calling of demonstrations.

“The Supreme Court judges’ hostility towards us has betrayed them. Their animosity towards us has leaked out in the sentence in the form of false statements to justify the prison terms.”

Offensives launched

The verdict has also been the signal for new offensives from both sides of the Catalan-Spanish State struggle.

The Spanish judiciary immediately banned convicted Catalan leaders from standing in the November 10 Spanish general election and judge Llarena reissued a European arrest warrant for the extradition of former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont from Belgium.

The PSOE government went on an offensive to persuade other countries of the immaculate character of the Spanish legal system. Cabinet members with foreign languages made themselves available for interviews on whatever international channels would have them.

On the Catalan side, the enormous, growing tsunami of mass protest started to roll.

All this is taking place three weeks out from the Spanish general election, in which Catalonia will dominate as never before. In Jordi Sànchez’s words: “They believe that they will terminate people’s sentiments by beheading those they think are leaders of the process.

“They are having the opposite 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.

Dick Nichols is Green Left Weekly’s European correspondent, based in Barcelona. A detailed update of this article will soon appear on the web site of Links — International Journal of Socialist Renewal.

Featured image: Protesters blockade El Prat airport in Barcelona on October 14, after Catalan leaders were sentenced to almost 100 years in jail. (Source: GLW)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vindictive Sentence in Catalan Leaders’ Trial Unleashes Tsunami of Protest
  • Tags:

Violence Against Indigenous Peoples Explodes in Brazil

October 22nd, 2019 by Clarissa Beretz

On the same day that President Jair Bolsonaro made his anti-indigenous speech at the U.N. General Assembly in New York, Brazil’s Indigenous Missionary Council (CIMI) released its annual report, “Violence Against Indigenous Peoples in Brazil.” The data collected are from 2018, but the report also includes preliminary information for 2019, and the findings are alarming.

In the first nine months of the Bolsonaro government, which took office at the start of 2019, there have already been reports of 160 cases of land invasion, illegal exploitation of natural resources, and damage to property in 153 indigenous territories. This is a significant increase from 2018, both in number and scope: according to CIMI’s report, 111 incidents of this type were reported in 76 indigenous territories last year. With 2019 not yet over, the total area that has come under attack is already double last year’s.

The report does not include homicide data for 2019, but reveals that 135 indigenous people were murdered in 2018 — an increase of almost 23 percent from 2017, when 110 indigenous people were murdered. The state of Roraima stands out as the most violent, with 62 homicides, followed by Mato Grosso do Sul, with 38. Combined with data provided by Sesai (the Special Indigenous Health Secretariat) and state health departments, CIMI recorded violent deaths of indigenous peoples in 12 Brazilian states.

“This is the result of the policy of genocide initiated under the Temer government, with stripping of agencies that provide assistance and protection, like INCRA and Funai, emphasizing the idea that indigenous territories should be exploited,” said Roberto Liebgott, CIMI’s southern region coordinator and one of those responsible for producing the report.

According to Liebgott, Bolsonaro’s statement as presidential candidate that “not a centimeter will be demarcated either as an indigenous reserve or as a quilombola” — land owned by descendants of runaway slaves — was the “trigger that authorized a criminal state, allowing that land to be pillaged for the benefit of the sectors who elected him.”

CIMI’s report also draws attention to other cases of deaths resulting from state negligence, including suicides and infant mortality. In 2018, 101 indigenous people took their own lives in Brazil, 44 of them in Mato Grosso do Sul.

“The situation there clearly reflects a failed model. Far from their native lands, confined to overpopulated reserves or on the sides of big motorways, faced with extreme vulnerability, isolation and lack of opportunities, many opt to take their own lives, often by hanging themselves,” Liebgott said.

The infant mortality rate is also high. Last year, according to data collected by Sesai, 591 indigenous children aged five and below died as a result of state negligence. Almost 40 percent (219 children) lived in the state of Amazonas, which has the highest infant mortality rate in the country. According to Sesai, deaths in infancy are directly linked to a lack of medical assistance, which is even more urgent in the areas of extreme vulnerability where many indigenous peoples live. It is common for many villages to lack basic sanitation and even access to clean drinking water.

Guarani Kaiowá indigenous people in the Guapo’y Guasu community, in the Dourados Amambai Peguá Indigenous Reserve, in Mato Grosso do Sul. Image by Tiago Miotto/CIMI.

Return to the past

CIMI’s report also features details of other forms of violence carried out against indigenous peoples, including deforestation, gold and diamond mining, the contamination of rivers, illegal hunting and fishing, the opening of drug-trafficking routes, and even the systematic implementation of burning in forest areas.

“Before, the invaders would take the wood and leave. Now they take the wood and set the rest on fire. They destroy everything. The only thing left is ashes. The state, whose job it is to protect, endorses this destruction, supported by the bancadas ruralistas [the Ruralist Block in Congress] and evangelicals,” Liebgott said.

The increase in the illegal practice of dividing indigenous land into lots and selling it, especially in the northern region, is concerning. The indigenous lands of the Arariboia (in Maranhão state), Karipuna and Uru Eu Wau Wau (both in Rondônia) are some examples of ancestral territories that have been divided up by land grabbers with the criminal intent to sell them. Another serious case of violation of the original rights of indigenous peoples is that of the lands of the Munduruku (in Pará state), where it is estimated that more than 500 miners have now settled.

“It is the worst it has been since the redemocratization of Brazil. The attitude now is to return to the past, to the end of the 1970s, when megaprojects in indigenous territories — construction of motorways, hydroelectric dams and mines — were very damaging to the lives of indigenous peoples,” Liebgott said.

“Over the past few years, indigenous peoples, by demanding the demarcation of their territories, have become the target for attacks,” the report says. This has not only been reinforced in the rhetoric of officials opposed to the demarcation of indigenous lands, including Bolsonaro, but has also driven repeated invasions of these traditionally occupied areas. CIMI reports that out of the 1,290 indigenous lands that have been claimed in Brazil, 821 (63 percent of the total) are still pending finalization of the demarcation process. Of these, 528 have not seen any measures at all taken by the state.

“If we get too caught up on Bolsonaro, we will lose hope,” Liebgott said. “We need to remember that he is not the government, he is not able to do everything. Bolsonaro is part of an idiotic, fascist, hypocritical and dishonest government that invents data and twists reality. However, the rights acquired by indigenous peoples must be maintained. It is fundamental that international bodies ask the Brazilian government to take measures to stop this barbarity from taking place and that those responsible be punished.”

Dom Roque Paloschi, the CIMI president and archbishop of Porto Velho in Rondônia state, said “violence against indigenous peoples has become an institutionalized disease” in Brazil. In his introduction to the report, he painted a very grim picture for the future of these communities:

“If this predatory cycle of global dimensions is not contained, their forests will be destroyed, and their lands will be divided and subjected to indiscriminate exploitation. After the fences have been put up, the indigenous peoples that remain will be left, like those in the South, at the edges of farms and on the sides of roads; or will have to abandon their traditional ways of life and become manual laborers at the service of the accumulation of capital”.

*

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 first published by Mongabay Brasil.

Featured image: Guarani Kaiowá indigenous people in the Guapo’y Guasu community, in the Dourados Amambai Peguá Indigenous Reserve, Mato Grosso do Sul, by Tiago Miotto/CIMI.

Haiti’s Endless Sorrows

October 22nd, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Few people anywhere have suffered as long and egregiously as Haitians.

No strangers to adversity and anguish, for over 500 years, they endured severe oppression, slavery, despotism, colonization, reparations, embargoes, sanctions, deep poverty, starvation, unrepayable debt, and natural calamities.

Except for brief interregnum periods, most recently under priest, educator, man of the people-turned politician Jean-Bertrand Aristide in the 1990s and early new millennium years, Haitian misery continues unabated.

Toppled twice by US regimes — by Bush I in 1991, again in 2004  Bush II/Cheney, Aristide no longer is involved in Haitian politics. Widespread suffering has gone on for time immemorial.

Today Haitians are enduring some of their worst ever oppression, misrule, and deprivation under US puppet Jovenel Moise since installed in February 2017.

Protests for his removal raged almost daily since July 2018. Countless thousands of long-suffering Haitians have demonstrated in the capital Port-au-Prince and other cities nationwide.

They demand Moise’s resignation, installation of a transitional government, repeal of increased gasoline and other punitive taxes, as well as against regime corruption and oppression.

On Monday, Liberation News called Haiti’s landscape “apocalyptic, reflecting the fierce class war that has been waged since (summer 2018), if not for decades,” adding:

“The huge crowds are heroically taking to the streets to defend Haitian sovereignty from the murderous military forces and corrupt, corporate interests that dominate the Haitian government.”

“With each passing day and week, the movement only continues to grow in size and strength” — despite brutal regime violence, other human rights abuses, and indifference to popular needs and rights.

Police consistently attack protesters with tear gas, water cannons, beatings, and live fire, killing around 20 in recent weeks, arresting and injuring countless others.

Brutality failed to deter justifiable public rage over intolerable conditions, including deep poverty, lack of vital public services, unaffordability of food and other essentials to life, along with grand theft by Moise, other regime officials and cronies.

Haiti is indebted to the IMF and World Bank loan sharks of last resort, demanding their pound of flesh, compelling indebted nations to erode social services so they, private bankers and other corporate predators are paid, ordinary people exploited to serve them.

Haitians mostly suffer from longstanding US imperial control, plundering the country and exploiting its people for profit, no matter the human toll.

It’s what Chicago School fundamentalism is all about, featuring free-wheeling capitalism, unrestrained profit-making, public wealth in private hands, minimal (if any) social services, government serving powerful interests exclusively, human rights and needs ignored, along with harsh crackdowns on critics.

Haiti is the region’s poorest country, most of its people struggling on less than $2 a day to survive, enduring hunger, malnutrition, overall deprivation, and repressive rule.

Moise is Washington’s man in Port-au-Prince. Reviled by Haitians, protests continue to replace him.

Opposition elements formed so-called transition commissions, wanting him replaced with provisional rule, possibly a new constitution.

Falsely claiming it would be “irresponsible” for him to resign, his days may be numbered, dark forces in Washington perhaps wanting a clean slate with new puppet rule to try assuaging public rage.

No matter who’s in charge internally, US grip on the country is firm. Earlier in October, Haiti Liberte reported that anti-Moise protests continue with no signs of abating.

They’ve partially or entirely shut down Port-au-Prince, burning barricades, disrupting commerce, and weakening Moise’s hold on power.

Millions of Haitians won’t be deterred until he’s gone — what replaces him likely to be continued dirty business as usual like most always before.

Last week, Haiti Liberte editor Kim Ives reported that UN blue helmet MINUSTAH forces ended 15 years of repressive post-Aristide occupation on October 15.

They’re replaced by the so-called UN Integrated Office in Haiti (UNHIN), headed by Helen La Lime, a career State Department official, serving US imperial interests.

Ives explained that

“UNHIN has a one-year mandate to advise the Haitian government on ways to ‘promote and strengthen stability and good governance (and) support the government in the areas of elections, police, human rights, prison administration, and justice system reform.”

Like nearly always before, when things change in Haiti and other US-controlled countries, everything stays the same under new faces, continuing exploitation and repression.

*

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.

US Syria Pullout Leaves Troops in North and South

October 22nd, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

US aggression, occupation and control of Syrian territory is a flagrant UN Charter breach — a hard truth establishment media ignore, falsely blaming Bashar al-Assad for US-led imperial high crimes committed against his country. 

The same goes for US actions in other war theaters — nations smashed for not subordinating their sovereign rights to Washington’s interests.

Endless US-orchestrated and/or led aggression rages in Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen, as well as intermittently in Iraq and Libya.

There’s no near-term resolution in these countries because restoration of peace and stability to active war theaters defeats Washington’s imperial aims, served by endless wars and chaos.

In the Middle East, US-led aggression also serves Israel’s aim to become the second leading regional power as junior partner to Washington’s dominant presence.

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.

The highly publicized withdrawal of US troops from northern Syria was partial, unknown numbers remaining in control of Syrian oil producing areas on the phony pretext of protecting them from the scourge of ISIS the US created and supports.

Bipartisan hardliners in Washington want Syrian ruling authorities prevented from earning vitally needed revenues for the country’s oil fields.

On Monday, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) cited a Times of London report about Turkey using banned white phosphorous, able to burn flesh to the bone on contact, in its northern Syria aggression against Kurdish YPG fighters.

On the same day, Czech MP Tomio Okamura accused Turkish forces of committing war crimes in northern Syria, adding evidence shows its military’s use of jihadist proxies in its offensive.

Deputy head of the Czech parliament’s defense committee Radovan Feikh condemned Turkish aggression — OK’d by the Trump regime, a scheme by Washington and Ankara to partition and control Syria.

Separately, Fars News reported that “US army helicopters have been sighted in heavy operation in Syria’s northern province of Hasaka since Sunday morning as eyewitness accounts said the choppers are taking large groups of (ISIS) takfiri terrorists away.”

In Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, the Pentagon and CIA use ISIS, al-Qaeda, and likeminded jihadists as imperial foot soldiers — arming, funding, training, directing, and transporting them to areas where the US wants them used.

On Tuesday, Turkey’s Erdogan and Vladimir Putin are meeting in Sochi to discuss the situation in Syria, a Kremlin statement saying both leaders will address “normalization” of the country’s northeast, along with “countering international terrorist groups and promoting the political settlement process.”

Ankara is part of the problem, not the solution in Syria, because of Erdogan’s revanchist aim to control northern territory bordering Turkey, especially oil-producing areas — putting him at odds with similar US aims and Russia wanting Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity preserved and protected.

On Saturday, Erdogan said if “promises to Turkey are not fulfilled, we won’t be waiting as before. We will be going ahead with the operation and will keep on” combatting Kurds for control of northern Syrian territory.

His so-called “Operation Peace Spring” has nothing to do with peace, nothing to do with combatting terrorism, nothing to do with Turkish security, everything to do with wanting northern Syrian territory annexed.

The situation in the country’s north and elsewhere remains fluid, resolving years of US-launched aggression unattainable because bipartisan hardliners in Washington reject it.

*

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.

Syrian Journalist: The West, Led by the US, Knows Erdogan Has Been Supporting ISIS for Years, Yet Chooses to Ignore this

October 22nd, 2019 by MEMRI - Middle East Media Research Institute

In an article titled “Erdogan’s Terror, Which the West Ignores” in the London-based daily Al-Arab, ‘Ali Qassem, a Syrian journalist residing in Tunisia, castigated the West for its stance towards Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He argued that the West, led by the U.S., knows that Erdogan has been directly and personally supporting ISIS and other terror organizations for years, yet chooses to ignore this fact and the extensive evidence that proves it. He also called out Erdogan for his hypocrisy, noting that he condemns the “terror” and “terrorists,” meaning the Kurds who fight ISIS, while he himself has been sheltering ISIS, enabling its activity and providing it with resources and financial support since 2012. When it comes to spreading lies, said Qassem, Erdogan is “a faithful disciple of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels” because he just “keeps lying, in hope that people will believe him even though the lie is obvious.”

The following are translated excerpts from his article:[1]

“When Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks about terror, what terror is he referring to? The terrorists he speaks about, are they the terrorists of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, or does he consider ISIS and Al-Qaeda to be saints? Erdogan says that whoever arms the terrorists… is party to [their] crimes and bears [responsibility] for the sin of shedding Muslim blood. That is what he stressed in his meeting with representatives of the Turkish diaspora and with [other] Muslims in New York, when he came there to attend the UN General Assembly. [But] the terrorists he hinted at, are they [actually] the people who are fighting ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the other jihadi groups [i.e., the Kurds]?

“Erdogan, who personally helped ignite flames inside Syria, [and] who opened the Turkish borders to masses of refugees and then threatened to expel them from Turkey in order to pressure and blackmail Europe… is [now] wondering how it is possible to remain silent in the face of the Islamophobia, antisemitism and growing antagonism to immigrants and foreigners that prevail in the West. Anyone listening to Erdogan… might think he is Mother Theresa, rather than a dictator who is determined to fill Turkey’s prisons with journalists and oppositionists…

“The West, and especially the U.S., are well aware that Erdogan has been sheltering ISIS and proving it with financial assistance and [other] means since 2012. On orders from Turkish intelligence, Turkish customs officers help this organization’s fighters cross the border to Syria and Iraq in droves…

“Politicians are often forced to lie, [but] they are careful to keep their lies logical and therefore credible. Erdogan is different. When it comes to lying, he is a faithful disciple of Nazi propaganda minister [Joseph] Goebbels. He [just] keeps lying, in hope that people will believe him even though the lie is obvious.  Most of the ISIS fighters who crossed into Syria and Iraq and declared the Islamic Caliphate there passed through Turkey. Proof of this is the fact that dozens of the fighters who were captured by the American Kurdish forces who helped the Americans were found to have Turkish stamps on their passports…

“Another characteristic of Erdogan, in addition to lying, is mixing things up. According to him, these terror organizations serve only the interests of the imperialists, and he expresses sorrow that countries that purport to be democracies and to defend human rights ignore the crimes perpetrated by these organizations. Erdogan cannot say, ‘I was misled,’ because Turkey’s sheltering of ISIS starts at the very top echelons of the Turkish leadership. In 2016, Wikileaks published 58,000 emails proving that Erdogan’s son-in-law, Berat Albayrak, was involved in marketing stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil for the benefit of ISIS. Sümeyye Erdogan, the daughter of the Turkish president, established well-equipped medical centers in Urfa in southeastern Turkey, near the Syrian border, to care for wounded ISIS soldiers. There is extensive proof of Erdogan’s direct and indirect support of ISIS and its affiliated terror groups. Why then does Western media insist on ignoring this?”

*

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.

Note

[1] Al-Arab (London), September 26, 2019. 

Featured image: Ali Qassem (Source: Al-Arab, London)

USAID Funds Salaries of Venezuelan Opposition Politicians as It Doubles Down on the Coup

October 22nd, 2019 by Leonardo Flores

American taxpayers are now paying the salaries and expenses of dozens of Venezuelan opposition figures who have created a “shadow government” inside Venezuela and abroad. On October 8, USAID signed a bilateral agreement with the faction of the Venezuelan opposition led by National Assembly president Juan Guaidó (whom the Trump administration recognizes as the “interim president” of Venezuela) that includes $98 million in assistance for Venezuelans. A memo obtained by the L.A. Times reveals that USAID is diverting $41.9 million from aid for Central America and instead sending it “to Guaidó and his faction… to pay for their salaries, airfare, ‘good governance’ training, propaganda, technical assistance for holding elections and other ‘democracy-building’ projects.”

Elliott Abrams, the White House’s special envoy to Venezuela, said in an interview that the Trump administration wants to “pay for embassies, ambassadors [and] a National Assembly office in Caracas” for Guaidó’s team. At the signing of the USAID agreement, Carlos Vecchio, Mr. Guaidó’s representative in Washington, praised the agency for helping to “enhance our capabilities… in increasing our foreign service,” confirming that funds are going to the Guaidó team. With this public admission of financing, there is now no denying that the coup is orchestrated from Washington and that whatever authority Mr. Guaidó may have is only a function of his serving as a U.S. proxy.

To date, no information has been made public as to whose salaries are being paid and how much they are being paid. What we do know is that the hard-earned dollars of American citizens are lining the pockets of Venezuelan politicians who have demanded an increasingly harder line against the Maduro government. This harder line includes brutal economic sanctions that amount to the collective punishment of ordinary Venezuelans and have led to the death of at least 40,000 people.

Mr. Guaidó has been taking the Trump administration for a ride, and now he and his followers are cashing in. Nearly nine months after his coup began, he is no closer to being in power than he was when he swore himself into office on a street corner in Caracas. There has been no increase in the number of countries that support the coup (54 have followed the U.S. lead); in fact, after initially shunning the Maduro government, several European countries are now working with him. Mr. Guaidó’s promises of mass military desertions, numerous defections of high-profile officials and a splitting of chavismo (the base of the Maduro government) have not come to fruition. His own base has actually gotten smaller, perhaps because members of his team were caught embezzling humanitarian aid in Colombia. Or it could be because Mr. Guaidó was photographed with drug traffickers and allegedly received logistical support from a nefarious Colombian cartel.

The coup has not only failed, it has backfired. The left in Venezuela is now more unified and the opposition has splintered: parties representing nearly three million voters recently signed an agreement with the Maduro government and have declared that dialogue is the only way forward. Moreover, the USAID deal with the Guaidó faction is coming at a tricky time for the opposition. Venezuela is reportedly on the verge of losing Citgo, a U.S. based subsidiary of state oil company Pdvsa, to creditors as the Trump administration’s sanctions are preventing Pdvsa from paying bondholders. How will ordinary Venezuelans react if Citgo is lost while opposition leaders are getting paid in dollars and flying around the world on the backs of American taxpayers?

The issue of opposition leaders having the funds to travel is an unfolding scandal in Venezuela, as the second Vice President of the National Assembly, Stalin González – a Guaidó ally, was filmed at Game 4 of the National League Championship Series in Washington, D.C. on the same day that he missed a session in the National Assembly. One wonders whether U.S. tax dollars paid for Mr. González’s airfare or his front-row ticket to the ballgame. Venezuelans are wondering how a Vice President of the National Assembly could afford to fly to Washington and attend a Washington Nationals playoff game, as they themselves feel the stress of inflation and making ends meet.

On October 3, Vecchio flew to Florida for a political event with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other representatives from the Miami area. He travelled to Florida at least twice earlier in the year for similar events with Vice President Pence. Venezuelan coup supporters are being paid by to lobby both parties under the pretext that they are diplomats. This pretext does not extend to every Guaidó supporting country in Europe, where Spain and Germany, among others, have not granted diplomatic privileges to his representatives.

The payment of Mr. Guaidó’s representatives is a serious conflict of interest that is generating concern among Venezuelans. Do Vecchio and other members of the Guaidó team represent the Venezuelan people or the interests of the government that is paying their salaries?  It is a point worth reiterating: a foreign politician is being paid by the United States to influence policy in the United States.

The subsidies to the Venezuelan opposition have never been so blatant, but they are also nothing new. USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives began the indirect financing of the opposition in 2002. It began by funding opposition affiliated non-governmental organizations, students and parties; now it has progressed to paying politicians directly. The goal has always been the same: regime change. President Trump should recall his words as candidate Trump: “We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn’t be involved with.” Instead, he is doubling down on the coup, keeping it on life support at the expense of taxpayers but also making it harder to support dialogue and a policy that helps solve the crisis. The voices of the moderate Venezuelan opposition and representatives of the Maduro government – who are currently engaging in dialogue in Caracas – are drowned out in Washington, in no small part because of the financial and logistical support offered to the coup supporters.

*

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

Leonardo Flores is a Latin American policy expert and campaigner with CODEPINK.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on USAID Funds Salaries of Venezuelan Opposition Politicians as It Doubles Down on the Coup
  • Tags: , ,

Game of Thrones: Olde-Style Catharsis or Bloody Good Counsel?

October 22nd, 2019 by Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin

Introduction

Game of Thrones is a television series based on the storylines of A Song of Ice and Fire, set in the fictional Seven Kingdoms of Westeros and the continent of Essos. The series chronicles the violent dynastic struggles among the realm’s noble families for the Iron Throne, while other families fight for independence from it. The final season depicts the culmination of the series’ two primary conflicts: the Great War against the Army of the Dead, and the Last War for control of the Iron Throne. Game of Thrones is not typical of contemporary fantasy, with more emphasis on battles and political intrigue and less emphasis on magic and sorcery.

Battle of the Goldroad from Game of Thrones – Season 7 Episode 4 on the official tapestry produced in Northern Ireland. 

As the series drew to a close many fans of the show complained bitterly about the final season and finale. As Ien Ang wrote in Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination, another show with a huge worldwide viewership in the 1970s:

“It is wrong, however, to pretend that the ideology of mass culture exercises dictatorial powers. The discourses of this ideology are very important, culturally legitimized organizers of the way in which the social meaning of Dallas is constructed, but alternative discourses do exist which offer alternative points of identification for lovers of Dallas.” [2]

People construct their own meanings that the show’s producers have no control over. They may agree or disagree with the decisions of the producers but they will still find a meaning that is satisfactory for them. Even the violence and bleakness of the show can be interpreted in a positive way. I will take Game of Thrones at face value and look at what was actually produced and transmitted and examine possible meanings. I will argue that the series has subconscious elements which satisfy audiences frustrated with modern society, and even though good forces generally prevail, ultimately the moral of the tale is that one should not hand one’s destiny over to ‘great’ leaders.

In this essay I will examine three questions: why do people watch Game of Thrones, is Game of Thrones an historical allegory? and, does Game of Thrones rise above being pure fantasy?

Why do people watch Game of Thrones?

Image on the right: Emilia Clarke as Daenerys Targaryen

One friend with the Game of Thrones box set revealed to me that she cried after watching the first episode of Season one because of its unremitting bleakness and didn’t watch any more episodes after that. She couldn’t find anything positive in the show, yet millions of people all over the world watched the show apparently finding it a worthwhile experience. The interest in Game of Thrones is similar to the interest in Romanticism in the mid nineteenth century. Disillusionment with society, a desire for a simpler life and a closer relationship with nature became the basis of a new Romantic culture and philosophy that spread across Europe.

What could a modern audience find positive in Game of Thrones in an era of mass production and international trade, alienation, disillusionment, ennui, gender confusion, and general dissatisfaction with governments, politicians and legal systems? In other words, in a world which is depressing enough already.

While the dramatic and sometimes very violent narrative holds the audience’s attention, there are subconscious elements that add to the fascination with the show. These are taken-for-granted elements which add to the background authenticity of the drama. And authenticity seems to have been high up in the objectives of the show runners. There is an earthiness in the production values that make one constantly aware of faeces, dung, dirt, urine, blood and mud. Indeed some scenes seem to try and incorporate all these aspects in to one scene (like when Jaime is tied to a pole in captivity). These elements I will look at under the headings of (1) small scale production, (2) gender roles, and (3) justice and politics.

Small scale production – (‘yesterday’s bread and a “bowl o’ brown”‘)

We are slowly drawn in and made aware that nothing in Game of Thrones can be taken for granted. There are no supermarkets or hardware stores. Small scale production is everywhere. Everything is made, grown, baked, forged, sewn, cooked, brewed or built before our eyes. This produces joy when made well and disgust when done badly (wine, bread, clothes, swords etc.) in the characters in the drama. However, when the characters are used to something bad they appreciate when something is good. In modern society the skills necessary to make things is taken out of our hands as production becomes more complex, standardised and automated.

We are alienated from production and are becoming more and more distant from the harvesting, gathering and production of our food and manufacture of our goods. It is really only at Christmas time that some of that sense of medieval production operates with baking, setting the fire, decorating the tree, wrapping presents and family games. Even then, consumption still plays a much larger role than production. However, the Romantic desire for a closer relationship with Nature and indigenous production is still strong and reveals itself in the burgeoning interest in nationalist ideas and politics.

Gender roles – (“I’m no Lady” – Brienne)

While the World Health Organization (WHO) defines gender roles as “socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women”, we live in a society where traditional roles have been breaking down and definitions of masculinity and femininity are constantly changing. In Game of Thrones we follow the actions of men training, fighting and dying for ’causes’. We see women training and fighting too (Brienne and Arya), as exceptions, but in the main women are there to be protected, or in particular, through oaths taken by knights.

Again a simple and Romantic notion but one that is obviously appealing on a subconscious level as it is a consistent theme throughout all eight seasons. The main characters also have a sense of destiny, objectives and direction in their lives. In our society unemployment, alienation and high suicide rates among men, show that at the very least something is broken and people do not have the same sense of control over their own lives.

Justice and politics – (serving up oats and oaths)

Oaths are a big thing in the Game of Thrones. The taking and breaking of oaths will get you lauded (Brienne of Tarth) or hated by everyone (Jaime the Kingslayer). The seriousness with which oaths are taken is a sign of the importance given to personal integrity in the show. In real life oaths are also taken, e.g. in the USA members of parliament ‘solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States’ and in the UK members ‘swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty’. However, we live in a society where MPs, committees, and task forces, do not take oaths seriously and are constantly found to be diluting bills, lying, and abusing the political system for self gain. This breeds much cynicism with politics and politicians especially as the justice system also seems to be loaded in their favour.

Not so, however, in the Game of Thrones, were justice is often meted out deftly and swiftly at the pointy end of a sword. Instant justice here may seem refreshing and satisfying compared to the real world of procrastinating judicial systems which breed cynicism regarding the ‘lack of a death penalty’, sentences perceived to be ‘too light’, or never-ending court cases.

Thus, Game of Thrones has many pared down and simplified aspects that give a temporary relief from complex, modern society. In Game of Thrones everyone is an artisan because everything has to be done or learned directly (swordsmanship, horse riding, copying books) or got from somebody with the necessary skills (wine, bread, smith).

Is Game of Thrones an historical allegory?

While it is known that Martin takes examples from history such as “Hadrian’s Wall (which becomes Martin’s Wall), the Roman Empire, and the legend of Atlantis (ancient Valyria), Byzantine Greek fire (“wildfire”), Icelandic sagas of the Viking Age (the Ironborn), the Mongol hordes (the Dothraki), the Hundred Years’ War, and the Italian Renaissance”, Game of Thrones is not a mish-mash of historical dramatic incidents. A certain logic is imposed on the narrative which is similar to a broad overview of human history. At first we have primitive society, then a combination of feudalism and slavery, then Enlightenment and bourgeois concepts of freedom and democracy with the future being left open to speculation.

Primitive society – (“We don’t kneel for anyone beyond the Wall.”  – Mance Rayder)

Image below: Martin at LoneStarCon 3 (the 71st World Science Fiction Convention), 2013

The people who live north of the wall, called Wildlings, worship the Old Gods of the Forest which consist of nature spirits. Their sacred places were ‘weirwood’ trees, a deciduous tree similar in shape to the Oak tree. In Game of Thrones many of the weirwood trees were cut down during the violent invasion of the Andals who killed and replaced the First Men. These ideas are similar to the ancient traditions of the Celtic and Germanic people who worshipped sacred oaks, and also the modern concepts of the Kurgan peoples who are believed to have expanded throughout the Pontic–Caspian steppe and into Eastern Europe by the early 3rd millennium BC. These expansions are believed to have been violent military incursions that imposed a patriarchal warrior society on what were essentially peaceful matriarchal, egalitarian, nature-based communities. This resulted in slavery, extractivism and eventually the appearance of fortified settlements and hillforts and the graves of warrior-chieftains.

These early communities were destroyed but their culture survived down the centuries in remnants of nature-based traditions, stories and mythology. One story focuses on Saint Boniface, an Anglo-Saxon missionary, who cut down a sacred tree of the Germanic pagans, Donar’s Oak. To add insult to injury the wood from the oak was then used to build a church at the site dedicated to Saint Peter.  In Game of Thrones, the awareness of the Old Gods survives as an active religion (“I swear it by the old gods and the new”) whereas in real life the old gods are relegated to mythology, but their nature-based rites have survived until today as traditions (e.g. wassailing the apple trees, the Christmas tree, festivals of light, Easter eggs, bonfires etc.).

Feudalism and slavery – (“No man wants to be owned” – Daenerys Targaryen)

The Wildlings described themselves as free folk, not bound by the oaths and loyalties of the feudal hierarchical structure of society in the Seven Kingdoms. The ‘turreted walls’ described by Ovid above became associated with ideas of honourable monarchies and chivalry throughout feudal Europe. Yet they were essentially the descendants of the earlier hostile invaders. Bronn breaks this Romantic vision with more than a touch of historical realism when Jaime reacts to his request for Highgarden castle:

“Jaime Lannister: Highgarden will never belong to a cutthroat. Bronn: No? Who were your ancestors, the ones who made your family rich? Fancy lads in silk? They were fucking cutthroats. That’s how all the great houses started, isn’t it? With a hard bastard who was good at killing people. Kill a few hundred people, they make you a lord. Kill a few thousand, they make you king. And then all your cocksucking grandsons can ruin the family with their cocksucking ways.” [4]

Bronn’s view of the rich echoes Jean Jacques Rousseau’s Enlightenment analysis on the origins of inequality in society. In Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau writes:

“The rich, in particular, must have felt how much they suffered by a constant state of war, of which they bore all the expense; and in which, though all risked their lives, they alone risked their property. Besides, however speciously they might disguise their usurpations, they knew that they were founded on precarious and false titles; so that, if others took from them by force what they themselves had gained by force, they would have no reason to complain.” [3]

Rousseau (1755), Discourse on Inequality, Holland, frontispiece and title page

The Game of Thrones essentially echoes the medieval battles of different families in Europe for power and supremacy: forming alliances and borrowing money, as well as risking the perils of getting the church involved, as the Inquisition-like ‘sparrow’ movement demonstrated, working its way up the hierarchy to the very top. Having the Iron Bank, ‘the most powerful financial institution in the Known World’, backing you is also extremely important for survival. As Tywin Lannister states:

“One stone crumbles and another takes its place and the temple holds its form for a thousand years or more. And that’s what the Iron Bank is, a temple. We all live in its shadow and almost none of us know it. You can’t run from them, you can’t cheat them, you can’t sway them with excuses. If you owe them money and you don’t want to crumble yourself, you pay it back.”

The Iron Bank always gets its due by switching sides to new kings who pay back the previous debt as well as the new loans given to them when claiming power. Similarly the central banks and the BIS (Bank for International Settlements) are looked after with bail-outs and bail-ins by generation after generation of politicians.

Image on the right: John Bradley as Samwell Tarly

Like the rise of humanism through the Renaissance and groups like the Florentine Camerata, Samwell Tarly goes to the ancient libraries and books for knowledge to solve fundamental problems in the face of dogma and ignorance. While in Europe the Enlightenment came through the ancient Greek texts, in the Game of Thrones, Enlightenment comes literally from the warm light of the south in the form of Daenerys Targaryen (who is known as the Breaker of Chains) as she brings mercy and freedom from slavery northwards, one town at a time. Known also as the Mother of Dragons, she has in her control an awesome source of power which aided her rise to power but was also her undoing: her three fire-breathing dragons. Thus we see the almost socialist continuum of the primitive communal (‘old free’) free folk, slavery, serfdom, and then the newly liberated (‘new free’) freed slaves who scrawled ‘Death to the Masters’ on their city walls.

Enlightenment and democracy – (“Chaos is a ladder” – Petyr Baelish)

Victory comes to Daenerys in the battle for King’s Landing as she uses the dragons to destroy the city and burn the inhabitants alive even though the city had surrendered to her. Her liberated slave army also killed many citizens under her orders. When the war is finished she rallies her troops “proclaiming that they will continue to ‘liberate’ the rest of the world as they did for King’s Landing and “break the wheel” to free all the common folk from their rulers, whom she perceives as tyrants.”

Daenerys Targaryen’s black leather costume and blond hair are reminiscent of the Nazi leaders’ uniforms and Aryan ideology (Targ-Aryan?). After her speech she is confronted by Jon (lover, nephew and competitor for the Iron Throne) about the genocide she has carried out. They disagree on what is good: to build a new world, Daenerys wants to destroy the old one, while Jon argues for mercy and forgiveness. Realising she was not going to change, Jon plunges a knife in her heart and kills her. The burning of the city using overwhelming firepower is reminiscent of Hitler’s bombing campaign against the United Kingdom in 1940 and 1941. However, the ‘democratic’ countries were not immune to similar strategies as the British/American aerial bombing attack on the city of Dresden in 1945 – 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices were dropped on the city killing an estimated 22,700 to 25,000 people. Thus it is shown that even the ‘good’ can be guilty of extreme measures to achieve political aims.

The surviving main leaders of the the Kingdoms gather and Tyrion proposes that all future monarchs be chosen by Westerosi leaders. They elect Bran the Broken to be leader as he cannot have children, thus finally breaking the wheel of hereditary titles and bringing in democracy of the nineteenth century type where only the elites can vote. Samwell Tarly suggests a much broader base for the voting:

“”Maybe the decision about what’s best for everyone should be left to … well, everyone.”
“Maybe we should give the dogs a vote as well,” laughs Bronze Yohn Royce.”

This disrespect for the masses echoes modern democracy whereby the gap between the people’s desires and their elected representatives’ promises always remains very wide.

The series ends with the new cabinet squabbling, while Jon heads north and the Danaerys’ Unsullied army sails away.

So, this historical time track is truncated in the narrative of Game of Thrones, which allows them to work together and learn from each other (e.g. unity in the Great War against the Army of the Dead, the Wildlings slagging off the others as ‘kneelers’).

Does Game of Thrones transcend fantasy?

The constant push for shocking drama in each episode, especially as the series headed for its grand finale could lead one to believe that the overriding mantra of the show was that effect was more important than affect. Much science fiction and fantasy literature stays within the narrow worlds created, and encourages never-ending adolescence and nerd-like awareness of every detail, accompanied by board games and comic cons.

Storytelling – (Stark raven madness)

While effect is an important aspect to the excitement generated by Game of Thrones, Martin believes in the power of story telling. Within the narrative many of the characters tell stories to explain their ideas or situation. There is also a meta element to the narrative as Martin uses the idea of storytelling in three different ways. At first, there is the play-within-a-play, with the medieval retelling of the poisoning of Joffrey and Tyrion’s patricide, called The Bloody Hand. The play is a farce and Arya, who happens upon the play, is disgusted at the humorous portrayal of the beheading of her father. The play allows Martin to have a little bit of fun with his own serious narrative, while at the same time showing how recent elite events can be satirised ‘from below’ by rebellious commoners, or become ‘false news’ propagated by elite competitors. It is also possible he is satirising the po-faced pretentiousness and egoism of many fantasy and science fiction narratives.

Image on the left Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister

Secondly, Martin has Tyrion extol the importance of storytelling as the memory of society itself:

“Tyrion Lannister: What unites people? Armies? Gold? Flags? Stories. There’s nothing more powerful than a good story. Nothing can stop it. No enemy can defeat it. And who has a better story than Bran the Broken? The boy who fell from a high tower and lived. He knew he’d never walk again, so he learned to fly. He crossed beyond the Wall, a crippled boy, and became the Three-Eyed Raven. He is our memory, the keeper of all our stories. The wars, weddings, births, massacres, famines. Our triumphs, our defeats, our past. Who better to lead us into the future?”

Thirdly, the power of storytelling is also demonstrated by the power of inclusion or exclusion in a funny scene where Tyrion is presented with a large book describing recent history (and an ad for the Martin’s book, A Song of Ice and Fire):

“Tyrion Lannister: [sees a large book placed in front of him] What’s this?
Samwell Tarly: A Song of Ice and Fire. Archmaester Ebrose’s history of the wars following the death of King Robert. I helped him with the title.
Tyrion Lannister: [flips through pages] I suppose I come in for some heavy criticism.
Samwell Tarly: Oh, I wouldn’t say that.
Tyrion Lannister: Oh, he’s kind to me. Never would’ve guessed. [Sam doesn’t reply] He’s not kind?
Samwell Tarly: He…
Tyrion Lannister: He what? What does he say about me?
Samwell Tarly: …I don’t believe you’re mentioned, ahem.”

The tragic ending for Daenerys Targaryen, who audiences believed to be good, was an important moment for George R.R. Martin’s views on good storytelling.

Genocide – (“the true horrors of human history”)

Martin talked about fellow fantasy writer Tolkien’s less than critical attitude towards his own characters:

“George RR Martin pointed out that Tolkien believed if there was a good ruler, like King Aragorn at the end of The Lord of the Rings, then things would be okay. However, Martin disagreed saying: “You can be a really decent human being … you can have the noblest of intentions, and your reign can still be horribly screwed up. He did what he wanted to do very brilliantly but … I look at the end and it says Aragorn is the king and he says, ‘And Aragorn ruled wisely and well for 100 years’. It’s easy to write that sentence…but I want to know what was his tax policy and what did he do when famine struck the land. And what did he do with all those Orcs? A lot of Orcs left over. They weren’t all killed, they ran away into the mountains. Did Aragorn carry out a policy of systematic Orc genocide?”

Martin believes that “the true horrors of human history derive not from orcs and Dark Lords, but from ourselves.” He writes in a genre in which there is the constant, predictable battle between good and evil. However, in Game of Thrones we see, among others, the demonisation of (the good) Daenerys and the valorisation of (the bad) Jaime, demonstrating that questions of redemption and character change are an important part of Martin’s stories. The changes we see in the main heroine of the show demonstrate Martin’s reluctance to have only worn-out black and white, good and evil depictions of morality and instead he depicts the human psyche in all its dialectical processes.

Conclusion

This makes the series ending narrative perfectly logical, except for the fans who invested too much in the concept of a ‘good’ leader. Our leaders promise everything from employment and better social welfare to resolving the climate change crisis, yet when elected, continue with economic and political agendas which benefit only a tiny elite. George R.R. Martin’s point is to get the legions of superhero fans to stop looking for a ‘saviour’ and start looking to themselves to solve society’s problems. How much more plainly can it be put?

*

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

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. 

Notes:

[1] Arthur O. Lovejoy and George Boas, Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity (John Hopkins: Baltimore, 1997) p.63

[2] Ien Ang, Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination (Routledge: London, 1991) p.111

[3] Jean Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality (Oxford Uni Press: Oxford, 1994) p.67

[4] Game of Thrones – Season 8 Episode 4: ‘The Last Of The Starks’

All images in this article are from Wikimedia Commons

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Game of Thrones: Olde-Style Catharsis or Bloody Good Counsel?
  • Tags:

Video: Syrian Army Takes Control of Abandoned US Bases

October 22nd, 2019 by South Front

The northeastern Syria ceasefire, agreed by Washington and Ankara, immediately collapsed. Under the terms of the reached agreement, Turkey had to halt its Operation Peace Spring for 120 hours to allow units of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to withdraw from a 32km-deep safe zone. It was supposed that after this Turkey will not resume its offensive. This plan was doomed to failure.

The SDF leadership said that it accepts the ceasefire, but rejected the forces withdrawal. In own turn, the Syrian National Army (SNA), a coalition of Turkish proxies, did not halt attacks on Kurdish fighters. The battle for Ras al-Ayn between the SNA and the SDF continued.

By October 20, the SNA backed up by Turkish Army battle tanks had resumed offensive actions near Ras al-Ayn capturing the villages of Umm al-Asafir, al-Shakariyah, Haji Hisso and Jan Tamir, where an intense fighting erupted. Pro-SDF sources claim that these villages were recaptured by Kurdish forces. Pro-Turkish sources claim that the SDF counter-attack was repelled. In reality, the area remains contested.

Watch the video here.

Additionally, the SDF-affiliated Afrin Liberation Forces attacked SNA positions near Tuways in northern Aleppo. At least 6 SNA members were killed and 9 others were injured in the attack. The SNA confirmed the fact of the attack and revealed that the killed militants were from its Al-Waqas Brigades.

On October 19, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared that his country will officially resume its military operation “a minute after 120 hours” if promises given to Turkey “are not kept as in the past”. Turkish media are counting minutes until the end of the formal ceasefire.

According to an adviser to the Turkish president, Yasin Aktay, the US-Turkish-agreed safe zone should be 444-km long and 32km-deep. With the Syrian Army deployed in the supposed safe zone, and the SDF is not planning to withdraw anywhere, it is hard to imagine how this promise can be kept. Therefore, Operation Peace Spring will soon be resumed.

Aktay also claimed that any efforts by the Damascus government to protect Kurdish militias in northeastern Syria will be seen by Turkey as a declaration of war. However, he added that if Damascus provides Turkey with guarantees that Kurdish forces will not operate in the border area, Turkey may change its attitude towards the deployment of the Syrian Army in northeastern Syria. These remarks are another indication of the unpublicized coordination between Turkey and the Damascus-Moscow alliance. Pro-SDF sources itself admitted that Russia appeared the only power capable to limit the scale of the Turkish offensive and already did it in such areas as Manbij and Ayn al-Arab.

Meanwhile, the US military continued its withdrawal from northern Syria. After bombing own military facility at the Lafarge Cement Factory, the US-led coalition destroyed a radar station at Abdulaziz Mount. US troops abandoned the Robariye facility, one of its largest bases in the region.

On October 19, the Syrian Army got control of the former US military garrison in Qasir Yalda. Government troops were deployed in the nearby villages of Tell Tamir and al-Ahras as a part of the SDF-Damascus security deal. According to Syrian state media, the army even repelled an attack by Turkish-backed militants near al-Ahras and entered the villages of al-Salamas and Umm al-Khair.

On October 22, President Erdogan will visit Russia for talks with his counterpart Vladimir Putin. Besides economic and military cooperation, the sides will discuss the situation in northeastern Syria. These talks may become a turning point in settling the developing crisis.

*

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

Anti-Assange Court Continues Unfair Extradition Hearing to Railroad Assange to US

October 22nd, 2019 by Kevin Zeese

On October 21, 2019, Julian Assange appeared in court for an extradition hearing. Assange is being held in a British jail pending extradition to the United States after having served his sentence for skipping bail when he was given asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid extradition. The court has refused his release pending the extradition hearing and denied him access to computers making it difficult for him to defend himself.

Assange fled to Ecuador’s embassy in 2012 to avoid being sent to Sweden for an investigation of manufactured charges being used to imprison him so he could be extradited to the United Staes. He faced a sex crimes investigation, which is highly suspect and has never resulted in charges despite three investigations. Assange spent seven years in Ecuador’s embassy before he was dragged out with Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno’s consent in April. He now faces 18 counts in the United States.

It is evident from this hearing that Assange is being railroaded and is not receiving due process for an alleged crime that should not exist, i.e. being an editor and publisher that told the truth about US war crimes and other illegal actions, as well as the corporate control of US foreign policy. Assange is facing up to 175 years in prison on more than a dozen charges related to WikiLeaks’ publication of classified documents that exposed American war crimes and its corrupt corporate-dominated foreign policy. Popular Resistance has supported Julian Assange for his journalism and Chelsea Manning for whistleblowing and refusing to testify against Assange. Both need to be released and the charges against Assange dropped.

Assange arrived for the hearing in a van. There were numerous supporters outside as he arrived but he was driven into a garage with0ut people seeing him.

Assange People outisde of court, October 21, 2019 from Ruptly.

His mother commented on her son’s appearance in court and the extradition he is facing on Twitter:

Others expressed rage at the injustice of the court proceedings being used as a weapon against Assange, not an instrument of due process and justice. The court is not even trying to pretend it is being fair.

The silence of corporate media outlets and journalists is being noticed. Their cowardice is suicidal. If the Espionage Act is used against Assange successfully, it will be available for use against all journalists. They will either have to bow down to the government and not report on corruption and war crimes or risk prosecution. The Assange prosecution is an attack on Freedom of the Press and the people’s right to know. The Assange case will define Freedom of Speech and Press in the 21st Century.

Julian Assange turns to the crowd in court on October 21, 2019, raises fist and shows solidarity.

People did get to see Assange in court.

Julian Assange courtroom sketch, October 21, 2019.

His attorney, Mark Summers, told the court that Assange was spied on in the embassy, including conversations with his lawyers. Reuters reports:

Summers said the U.S. government had been listening to conversations between Assange and lawyers while he was in the Ecuadorean embassy in London from 2012 to 2019.

He said there was a criminal case in the Spanish courts allegedly involving Spanish contractors used by the U.S. government and that hooded men broke into offices, without giving details.

“This is part of a concerted and avowed war against whistleblowers including investigative journalists and publishers,” Summers said.

He argued that his team needed more time to gather and provide evidence, saying the challenges in this case would test the limits of most lawyers and citing the difficulty of communicating with Assange who doesn’t have a computer in jail.

Assange is the first publisher or editor charged under the Espionage Act, which was designed for traitors and is being misapplied to a journalist. The charges against him are a political attempt to silence journalists and publishers, and the fake Swedish allegations were part of a plot to incarcerate him for US prosecution.

Summers called the USextradition “a political attempt to signal to journalists the consequences of publishing information.” He described the prosecution as a war on journalis saying “It’s legally unprecedented. This is part of an avowed war on whistleblowers to include investigative journalists and publishers.”

Reuters reported that Assange mumbled and stuttered for several seconds as he gave his name and date of birth at the beginning of the hearing.  When “the judge asked him at the end of the hearing if he knew what was happening, he replied ‘not exactly,’ complained about the conditions in jail, and said he was unable to ‘think properly.’”

Assange understands he is going through an unfair hearing that does not allow him to defend himself saying to the judge: “I don’t understand how this is equitable. I can’t research anything, I can’t access any of my writing. It’s very difficult where I am.”

Amnesty International has called for Assange not to be extradited to the United States.

Assange faces the judge in court on October 21, 2019. Courtroom sketch shows Assange is melancholy, his shoulders heavy, represented behind bars and flanked by police. By Elizabeth Cook.

The judge refused to delay the hearing in the case when Assange’s lawyer, Mark Summers, argued that Assange’s extradition hearing, scheduled for February 2020, should be delayed by three months due to the complexity of the case. The judge showed there is a goal in this courtroom — the rapid extradition to the United States where he will face an unfair trial in Alexandria, VA, known as the ‘rocket docket’, where national security cases are held.

Reuters reports:

The crowd of supporters remained through the hearing and cheered Assange as he left.

*

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

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

Featured image: Julian Assange court sketch, October 21, 2019, supplied by Julia Quenzler.

A Call for a Coup Plus a Week Like No Other for Tulsi Gabbard

October 22nd, 2019 by Philip Giraldi

There was what might be described as an extraordinary amount of nonsense being promoted by last week’s media. Unfortunately, some of it was quite dangerous. Admiral William McRaven, who commanded the Navy Seals when Osama bin Laden was captured and killed and who has been riding that horse ever since, announced that if Donald Trump continues to fail to provide the type of leadership the country needs, he should be replaced by whatever means are necessary. The op-ed entitled “Our Republic is Under Attack by the President” with the subtitle “If President Trump doesn’t demonstrate the leadership that America needs, then it is time for a new person in the Oval Office” was featured in the New York Times, suggesting that the Gray Lady was providing its newspaper of record seal of approval for what might well be regarded as a call for a military coup.

McRaven’s exact words, after some ringing praise for the military and all its glorious deeds in past wars, were that the soldiers, sailors and marines now must respond because “The America that they believed in was under attack, not from without, but from within.”

McRaven then elaborated that

“These men and women, of all political persuasions, have seen the assaults on our institutions: on the intelligence and law enforcement community, the State Department and the press. They have seen our leaders stand beside despots and strongmen, preferring their government narrative to our own. They have seen us abandon our allies and have heard the shouts of betrayal from the battlefield. As I stood on the parade field at Fort Bragg, one retired four-star general, grabbed my arm, shook me and shouted, ‘I don’t like the Democrats, but Trump is destroying the Republic!’”

It is a call to arms if there ever was one. Too bad Trump can’t strip McRaven of his pension and generous health care benefits for starters and McRaven might also consider that he could be recalled to active duty by Trump and court martialed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And the good admiral, who up until 2018 headed the state university system in Texas, might also receive well merited pushback for his assessment of America’s role in the world over the past two decades, in which he was a major player, at least in terms of dealing out punishment. He wrote

“We are the most powerful nation in the world because we try to be the good guys. We are the most powerful nation in the world because our ideals of universal freedom and equality have been backed up by our belief that we were champions of justice, the protectors of the less fortunate.”

Utter bullshit, of course. The United States has been acting as the embodiment of a rogue nation, lashing out pointlessly and delivering death and destruction. If McRaven truly believes what he says he is not only violating his oath to defend the constitution while also toying with treason, he is an idiot and should never have been allowed to run anything more demanding than a hot dog stand. Washington has been systematically blowing people up worldwide for no good reasons, killing possibly as many as 4 million mostly Muslims, while systematically stripping Americans of their Bill of Rights at home. “Good guys” and “champions of justice” indeed!

And then there is the Great Hillary Clinton caper. In an interview last week Hillary claimed predictably that Donald Trump is “Vladimir Putin’s dream,” and then went on to assert that there would be other Russian assets emerging, including nestled in the bosom of her own beloved Democratic Party. She said, clearly suggesting that it would be Tulsi Gabbard, that

“They’re also going to do third-party again. I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

Clinton explained how the third-party designation would work, saying of Jill Stein, who ran for president in 2016 as a Green Party candidate,

“And that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. Yeah, she’s a Russian asset — I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate. So I don’t know who it’s going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most needed.”

Tulsi responded courageously and accurately

“Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. 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.”

Tulsi has in fact been attacked relentless by the Establishment since she announced that she would be running for the Democratic nomination. Shortly before last Tuesday’s Democratic candidate debate the New York Times ran an article suggesting that Gabbard was an isolationist, was being promoted by Russia and was an apologist for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. In reality, Gabbard is the only candidate willing to confront America’s warfare-national security state.

The Hillary Clinton attack on Gabbard and on the completely respectable Jill Stein is to a certain extent incomprehensible unless one lives in the gutter that she and Bill have wallowed in ever since they rose to prominence in Arkansas. Hillary, the creator of the private home server for classified information as well as author of the catastrophic war against Libya and the Benghazi debacle has a lot to answer for but will never be held accountable, any more than her husband Bill for his rapes and molestations. And when it comes to foreign interference, Gabbard is being pilloried because the Russian media regards her favorably while the Clinton Foundation has taken tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments and billionaires seeking quid pro quos, much of which has gone to line the pockets of Hillary, Bill and Chelsea.

Finally, one comment about the Democratic Party obsession with the Russians. The media was enthusing last Friday over a photo of Speaker Nancy Pelosi standing up across a table from President Trump and pointing at him before walking out of the room. The gushing regarding how a powerful, strong woman was defying the horrible chief executive was both predictable and ridiculous. By her own admission Pelosi’s last words before departing were “All roads lead to Putin.” I will leave it up to the reader to interpret what that was supposed to mean.

*

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 Unz Review.

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.

Taking Next Steps Toward Nuclear Abolition

October 22nd, 2019 by Kathy Kelly

My friend Marianne Goldscheider, who is 87, suffered a broken hip in July, 2018 and then, in June 2019, it happened again. When she broke her hip the first time, she was running, with her son, on a football field. After the second break, when she fell in her kitchen, she recalls her only desire as she was placed on a stretcher. “I just wanted ‘the right pill,’” she says. She wished she could end her life. Marianne says her Catholic friends, who live nearby in the New York Catholic Worker community, persuaded her not to give up. They’ve long admired her tenacity, and over the years many have learned from her history as a survivor of the Nazi regime who was forced to flee Germany. Recalling her entry to the United States, Marianne jokes she may have been one of the only displaced persons who arrived in the United States carrying her skis. Yet she also carried deep anxieties, the “angst,” she says, of her generation. She still wonders about German people in the military and the aristocracy who knew Hitler was mad and, yet, didn’t try to stop him. “When and how,” she wonders, “do human beings get beyond all reasoning?”

Marianne is deeply disturbed by the madness of maintaining nuclear weapons arsenals and believes such weapons threaten planetary survival. She worries that, similar to the 1930s, citizens of countries possessing nuclear weapons sleepwalk toward utter disaster.

On April 4, 2018, several of Marianne’s close friends from the New York Catholic Worker community became part of the Kings Bay Plowshares 7 by entering the U.S. Navy Nuclear Submarine base in King’s Bay, GA and performing a traditional Plowshares action. Guided by lines from Scripture urging people to “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks,” they prayed, reflected and then symbolically disarmed the Trident nuclear submarine site. The Kings Bay is home port to six nuclear armed Trident ballistic missile submarines with the combined explosive power of over 1825 Hiroshima bombs. One of the banners  they hung read “The Ultimate Logic of Trident is Omnicide.”

Referring to this sign, Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, said the banner “is exactly right.” In an October 18 endorsement, he called their actions “necessary to avert a much greater evil.”

In late September, the Catholic Bishops of Canada, alarmed over the increasing danger nuclear weapons pose, urged the Government of Canada to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted at the UN in 2017. The Canadian bishops issued their statement on September 26, the United Nations International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. In it, they note the  Vatican has already signed and ratified the Treaty. “The ashes of World War I and the centenary of its armistice,” wrote Pope Francis, “should teach us that future acts of aggression are not deterred by the law of fear, but rather by the power of calm reason that encourages dialogue and mutual understanding as a means of resolving differences.”

The Kings Bay Plowshares 7 activists at oceanfront in Georgia (Photo credit: Kings Bay Plowshares)

The seven defendants, in everyday life, practice nonviolence while serving people who are often the least cared for in our society. Like Marianne, I have known each defendant for close to four decades. They have risked their lives, safety and health in numerous actions of civil disobedience. When imprisoned, they write and speak of the cruel abuse of human beings and the racist, primitive nature of the United States prison-industrial complex. They’ve also chosen to visit or live in war zones, providing witness on behalf of people trapped under bombardment. They live simply, share resources and strive to help build a better world.

Nevertheless, beginning Monday, they will face serious criminal charges and potentially harsh sentences for their action at Kings Bay.

Marianne anxiously awaits their trial. “Why,” she asks, “isn’t there more coverage?”

One of the defendants, Rev. Steve Kelly, SJ, a Jesuit priest, referred to himself in a recent letter as “a tenuous voice in the wilderness.” He further explained that he is among the wilderness of the incarcerated, “two and a quarter million folks comprising the human warehouses in the empire.” Steve has been imprisoned in the Glynn County jail since April 4, 2018.

His letter continues:

And your presence today clearly demonstrates that while you can jail the resisters you cannot destroy the resistance. In this advent of our trial, we have a blue-ribbon legal team to whom I’m sure you’ll show your own gratitude.

This trial and the preliminary process represents the second phase of our witness. It is the Kings Bay Plowshares’ attempt to continue with what began in nonviolence – and hopefully without arrogance – to convert the judiciary according to Prophet Isaiah 2:4. As these judges historically legitimize the nuclear idols, we anticipate the government’s presentation of and the judge’s likely approval of motions preventing the jury from hearing our defense. The mechanism is an in limine – you’ll hear more about that if you don’t know already, but essentially it is, in the words of the late Phil Berrigan, a gag order.

Late in the afternoon of October 18, Judge Woods issued her long-awaited orders regarding testimony allowed in court. She will not allow testimony about the illegality of nuclear weapons, the necessity of civil disobedience, or individual motivations and  personal faith. Fortunately, the many dozens of people filling the Brunswick, GA courtroom on October 21 will help communicate the essential evidence that won’t be shared within the court. In alternative settings, such as over meals, during a Festival of Hope, and as part of a Citizens Tribunal, they’ll discuss and eventually share reasons that motivated our friends to perform the Kings Bay Plowshares 7 action.

A recent op-ed in the New York Times suggests the Kings Bay Plowshares 7 message is entering public discourse. The defendants have clarified that the U.S. nuclear weapon arsenal robs resources desperately needed for food, shelter, health care and education. The New York Times notes if we could reach a total nuclear weapons ban, we could save roughly $43 billion each year on weapons, delivery systems and upgrades. “That’s roughly the same amount we’ve allocated in federal hurricane aid for Puerto Rico.”

Marianne laments the madness which considers nuclear weapons a modern idol deserving of great sacrifice. She is rightfully wary of social and cultural developments that consider such madness normal.

She and I commiserate about recovering from hip fractures, (I’ve been on the mend for the past month), but we both know that Steve Kelly’s invitation deserves our greatest attention.

Tiny postcards are the only means of correspondence allowed to or from the Glynn County jail. On one of these,  Steve wrote a message to a large gathering in New York celebrating the Kings Bay Plowshares 7 action. “I am encouraged by your presence,” he wrote, “to ask that this small effort of ours not be the last word in nuclear abolition.”

*

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.

Kathy Kelly ([email protected]) co-coordinates Voices for Creative Nonviolence (www.vcnv.org), where this article was originally published.

Featured image: The Kings Bay Plowshares 7 activists at oceanfront in Georgia (Photo credit: Kings Bay Plowshares)

The Unflattering Veneer of Trump’s Self-proclaimed Greatness

October 21st, 2019 by Kim Petersen

“It is up to us whether we will lift the world to new heights or let it fall into a valley of disrepair.” — US president Donald Trump addressing the UN General Assembly on 19 September 2017

The U.S. Economy is the envy of the world, as Europe and Asia slide ever toward recession. — Trump tweet from 19 September 2019

To be supreme is, by definition, to be the greatest, to be ultimate, to reach sublimity.

However, to believe yourself to be supreme or the greatest is to belie greatness. [1] Greatness, generally, presupposes recognition; ergo, there is no need to mention, and definitely not flaunt, such a status. To do so would be ostentation and arrogance.

 

Therefore, talk of American greatness, white supremacism, Jewish supremacism, or any kind of self or group-affiliated supremacism is nonsense.

The very act of claiming supreme or chosen stature is to vitiate such a claim. First, braggadocio invites repugnance. Humility is the revered trait. Second, the act of claiming greatness nullifies the claim. Third, it calls for a critical examination of what underlies such the claim.

Donald Trump, who attracts the support of white supremacists, ran on making America great again, ostensibly indicating that America was not great during his electoral campaigning. [2] After all, can a state established through genocide, land theft, and enslaving other human beings be great; especially when the theft continues without apology, atonement, and without reparations made to the impacted parties?

What pretense does America have to greatness subsequent to its foundation on territory violently stolen from Indigenous nations?

The US developed a mighty military capability. Since WWII, in flagrant abnegation of international law, [3] it has wreaked war on several smaller nations, devastating many of them for generations, thus incurring the label of a rogue state. [4] Does a great state not adhere to international law and seek to uphold it? Is resorting to military might not an admission of inability to lead or influence other states? [5]

So it is no surprise that Trump threatens to use US military might to destroy nations that do not obey US dictate.

“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.” — Trump to the UN Genera Assembly on 17 September 2017

“If I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the earth. It would be gone in 10 days.” — Trump on 22 July 2019

“I am fully prepared to swiftly destroy Turkey’s economy…” – Trump on 14 October 2019 [italics added]

US dictate or is it Trump’s dictate? Because in the past year, he talks in the first person, as if it is him, personally, that will be annihilating other nations.

Whether it be personal bluster or commanding a powerful military, resorting to violence is a violation of the United Nations Charter, and it certainly does not set the standard of the behavior desired from the community of nations.

Trump has dubbed himself the “King of Israel” and “the second coming of God.” It, therefore, seems only natural that he would align himself with another scofflaw state. To drive home his status with Israel, he tweeted of his greatness;

 

Israel is a state erected on historical Palestine with the acquiescence of the UN. Israel calls itself the Jewish state. It is guilty of a genocide which continues in slow motion. [6] It is expansionist and continues to annex Arab territory. It does not define its borders; although in the Oded Yinon Plan, Zionist Jews have proposed a state spread far beyond Israel’s borders as currently recognized by the international community.

Israel is criticized as an apartheid state. It practices open racism that only a fool or illusional person would fail to recognize. However, few racists have the fortitude to admit to their racism. [7]

Activist author Gray Zatzman argues “The Notion of the ‘Jewish State’ as an ‘Apartheid Regime’ is a Liberal-Zionist One.” He writes:

The cause of Palestine consists of the restoration of the national rights of the Palestinian people and enabling the Palestinians to exercise their right of self-determination in their own territory…. Enabling the Palestinians to exercise their right of self-determination in their own territory means implementing the Palestinians’ right to return to their lands and to be restored in the property/properties that were taken from them in the course of acts of conquest by the Zionist movement, and in clear cut violation of international law, during 1947-48 and again in June 1967.

… the cause of Palestine entails eliminating the Zionist junta’s so-called “Jewish state” of European-American colonialist privilege and restoring to the Palestinians what the Zionists stole.

Claims of supremacism are elitist. Supremacism and elitism go hand-in-hand with capitalism. It is the capitalists who place themselves above the working classes whose labor they exploit. Billionaires own and control mass media wherein they can preen and grandiosely display their wealth. As justification for the wealth disparity, they conjure the myth that they reached the pinnacle of monetary accumulation through smarts and hard work, [8] whereas they denigrate the poor as being lazy. But they may take pity on the poor masses and set up foundations, often bearing their name, and claim to be philanthropists.

Supremacism is anti-egalitarian. The supremacist posits that he is superior, hence others are posited, by linguistic logic, to be inferior. Capitalism, racism, Zionism, exceptionalism, and nationalism buy into this louche mindset.

The masses have a choice: a) to acquiesce to the elitists and accept subaltern status, b) attempt change through participation in the charade of a democracy bought, paid for, and rigged by the elitists, or c) they can withdraw from the system and strike out on their own. Better yet, d) organize with the masses and through sustained commitment and solidarity bring about a revolution. Abolish the fetid iniquity of capitalism and in its place erect an egalitarian system for the benefit of all the people. [9]

*

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

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

Notes

  1. I speak of supremacism/greatness as a stable unvarying attribute by virtue of which group one aligns with and not to epochal moments of personal achievement. E.g., Muhammad Ali was one of the greatest boxers, but he pointed immodestly to his greatness in the ring during the peak of his career and not his group affiliation.
  2. And just what does it signify about the greatness of a nation that the vote-casting citizenry elected Donald Trump as their president?
  3. Read Nils Andersson, Daniel Iagolnitzer, and Diana G. (eds), International Justice and Impunity: The Case of the United States, (Clarity Press, 2008). Review.
  4. See William Blum, Rogue State (Common Courage Press, 2000).
  5. Stalwart US-ally Canada being referred to as “the peaceable kingdom”; however, it shares the same odious history for the most part with the USA. See Richard Sanders, Fictive Canada, Issue #69, Press for Conversion! (Fall 2017).
  6. For an informative affordable overview of the crimes of the Jewish State see Tony Seed and Gary Zatzman (eds), Dossier on Palestine, (Shunpiking, 2002).
  7. With my colleague B.J. Sabri, we wrote a 12-part series where we concluded, “Zionism is irrefutably racist.” See Kim Petersen and BJ Sabri, “Defining Israeli Zionist Racism,” Dissident Voice, Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
  8. Read Brian Miller and Mike Lapham’s The Self-Made Myth: And the Truth about How Government Helps Individuals and Businesses Succeed, (2012).
  9. How might such an egalitarian world look? Michael Albert discusses how an anarchist economy might operate in Parecon: Life After Capitalism (Verso, 2013). Review. Or one might even consider the emergence of a Star Trek economy. See Manu Saadia, Trekonomics: The Economics of Star Trek (Piper Text Publishing, 2016). Review.

Featured image is from Palácio do Planalto, Flick

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Unflattering Veneer of Trump’s Self-proclaimed Greatness
  • Tags:

A Labour Government that Will Run Rail, Roads, Jobs, the NHS, Housing and Social Care with Responsible Care

October 21st, 2019 by Hans Stehling

Today, Britain watches the dying moments of a mendacious Conservative Government and Party that has made the United Kingdom the laughing stock of both Europe and the world. Once the greatest economic and political force in history, now a comedy act run by a clown and a clutch of incompetent ideologues.

A Home Secretary and a Transport Minister who would struggle to get jobs waiting on tables. A Chancellor who is overwhelmed by his position and a Prime Minister who would fail in any job other than churning-out copy for a Tory rag. After having sacked the brightest and best of its old guard, the Tory Party is now the Gory Party, squelching about in its own blood as it desperately looks for a way out of its ideological excesses.

Fortunately, its political machinations are nearly at an end. The electorate will speak and speak loudly. Its voices will reverberate around Europe as it finally rejects this inept group of inconsequential political incompetents.

There will be a new dawn, a new economy and a new country in which the polarisation between rich and poor will measurably start to decrease: where bankers, personal wealth and hedge fund managers and non-executive directors will have to work hard and pay taxes like everyone else: where passengers will ride in modern rolling stock on a state-owned railway that will run smoothly and on time: where teachers, students, nurses, policemen, shop and office workers can afford decent housing and get prompt medical attention, where doctors surgeries and hospitals are properly funded and managed: where the country and the economy are run for the benefit of everyone not just the rich and powerful: where electricity, heating and water are affordable for all, both old and young: where the disabled are not disadvantaged but where salaries for executives are strictly tied to performance and where society respects a democratic government for everyone, not just a powerful class of landowners.

A new dawn will soon break for what will once again be the United Kingdom of Great Britain under a reforming Labour government and the rule of law. Democratic government is intended to be of the people, by the people and for the people – not by London bankers for the City of London and its friends.

*

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.

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Red Pepper

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Labour Government that Will Run Rail, Roads, Jobs, the NHS, Housing and Social Care with Responsible Care
  • Tags: ,

Brexit: From Post-truth to Post-democracy

October 21st, 2019 by True Publica

Post–truth is a philosophical and political concept that refers to “the disappearance of shared objective standards for truth” and the “circuitous slippage between facts or alt-facts, knowledge, opinion, belief, and truth. Post-democracy is a society that continues to have and to use all the institutions of democracy, but in which they increasingly become a formal shell and where the energy and drive of the nation pass from the democratic arena into small circles of a politico-economic elite.

You can search both terms and a plethora of results are returned. This article won’t look at the philosophical ideas of these very damaging concepts. The fact is, one has been around for a while and the other is now in an advanced state of operation.

It is ironic, is it not, that many members of the current British government insist that the EU is somehow ‘undemocratic’ just as it demonstrates how undemocratic it is itself. Today, elected MPs, broadcasters and political commentators all talk of little else apart from Britain’s ongoing democratic crisis – a manufactured crisis that left the door wide open for the new era of post-democracy to take root.

From post-truth…

There was a time when if a politician got caught with his pants down – he resigned and fell away from public life in disgrace – and it wasn’t so long ago that the cash-for-questions scandal was very influential in the fall of the John Major government in 1997. Just a decade ago, the Prime Minister would have been forced to stand down for a scandal involving a pole-dancing ‘entrepreneur’ receiving taxpayers cash and when his colleagues involved in the Brexit donors-for-access affair got caught on film, it would have rocked a sleaze ridden government to its core. Not today.

Nearly a decade ago, David Cameron’s election manifesto turned out to be not much more than a parchment of lies. From promises of building hundreds of thousands of starter homes, launching free childcare, a social care cap, making government the most transparent ever to no top-down reorganisations of the NHS – all were just soundbites designed to deceive. With Theresa May she stoked up the so-called ‘health-tourism’ fantasy (that the Royal College of Physicians said barely existed) and then when in power pushed the slogan ‘Brexit means Brexit’ while secretly funding corporations out of taxpayers money who were threatening to leave if she achieved it – just to stay in No10.

But Boris Johnson makes his former colleagues at the helm of Britain look like amateurs. His illustrious and distinguished career has derived solely from his own campaigns of disinformation and propaganda. From fantastical made-up stories like bendy bananas to misinformation campaigns of £350 million a week on a bus to the propaganda of ‘taking back control.’ Project Fear, do-or-die and ‘dead-in-a-ditch – are all fatuous and meaningless slogans made up to keep the electoral numbers up.

The post-truth world of today centres around politics and populists. Politicians glibly talk of law and order whilst presiding over racial violence and nationalism that threatens the very fabric of society. It’s a means to their own ends – as is an unelected Prime Minister who aimed to shut down parliamentary democracy, claiming it was acting in the national interest. There is an alarming political trajectory that should worry all normal thinking adults in Britain.

Examples of the government consistently duping the public would be distorting unemployment numbers, homelessness and the endless Brexit lies.

One recent very public example of the new era comes from within No 10 Downing Street. Dominic Cummings, not only threatened to end the career of elected MPs if they didn’t toe the Brexit line – but achieved exactly that when they didn’t. Cummings (who many skulking the corridors of Westminster think is running the entire BJ strategy) also reportedly told a meeting of special advisers that the mission of this government is to take Britain out of the EU on 31 October “by any means necessary.” That in itself has undertones of something more sinister given the language is derived from a definition that then puts the strategy  – “open all to all available tactics for the desired ends, including violence.” We already know he ultimately wants the destruction of institutions such as Britain’s civil service, the EU and the UN. Cummings genuinely thinks and often promotes the view that real chaos is the only route to real change. And given the state architecture of mass surveillance and laws designed to protect the government from over-reach is now in the hands of an anti-establishment anarchist like Cummings – who knows what might happen. The home of chaos comes from a lack of truth.

To post-democracy…

Throughout the furore of Brexit, many have forgotten that the government is pushing hard to change the Espionage Act that would jail journalists and whistleblowers as foreign state spies. The government has, through its own efforts, now received recommendations for a “future-proofed” new Espionage Act that would do exactly that. Today, the original expenses scandal could not be published, and even the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook Brexit scandal would see the majority of editors refusing to go to print. The example of the Snowden files and GCHQ destroying hard-drives at the Guardian is yet more evidence.

Journalists are already fighting a war against the state over the protection of their sources and using ever more sophisticated tools to remain out of the reach of GCHQ and agencies of the police. Those tools – especially encryption enabled – are being attacked by the state via legislation demanding ‘backdoor’ access – just another hallmark of a post-democratic society.

Legal professional privilege has all but been reduced to nothing in Britain as a direct result of very serious overreach by the state. Privilege doesn’t exist to protect lawyers or clients – it exists to make the justice system work. Spying on legal privilege negotiations to illegally defend the state from paying compensation to, say victims of torture at the hands of the state is no demonstration of a functioning democracy.

And as is now well known, the government has introduced the most intrusive civil society surveillance powers in any democratic society in the world. It is, to all intents and purposes now a techno-Stasi state. As this article goes to great pains to point out:

“The government can now mine data for any purpose it deems necessary. It can now harvest and manipulate it to shut down oppositional voices, hack journalists information and their sources, silence and imprison whistleblowers, stop peaceful protests and demonstrations – anything at all.”

The ‘chilling effect’ of surveillance on the right to freedom of assembly and now, even the deep monitoring of entire political movements at the grassroots level, the misuse and force of mass arrests adds considerable weight to that chilling. To be photographed, have data captured, being present or arrested at a protest can mean the end of careers for a myriad of government workers, such as teachers, nurses or working at your local council offices. “UK police have treated legitimate campaigning activities in a similar way to their response to organised criminal networks: by building profiles on the size, structures, leadership, individuals and alliances of campaign groups” – so says Britain’s privacy watchdog.

The result is that an illegal form of ‘blacklisting’ is alive and kicking. Outlawed by the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 – the government and its agencies have been caught red-handed – again. The government is using the complex architecture of the law to suppress the truth that thousands have been denied employment as a result of state agencies or their proxies. In just one example – from the 2018 State of Surveillance report by BigBrotherWatch – “a judge-led undercover Policing inquiry followed revelations about the ‘Special Demonstration Squad‘ has been little more than a disaster with no evidence heard in its first three years and participants boycotting the process because of a lack of trust. It is not expected to report until 2023.” The point is, technology has replaced the SDS when it was supposedly shut down. And as the report goes on to say – “Meanwhile, the monitoring of workers, unionists and especially whistleblowers continues.”

Turning frontline workers into border guards is nothing more than turning the general public into state informants. The governments’ commitment to ensuring Britain has a ‘hostile environment’ for undocumented migrants may well be supported by the general public if that was the only reason it was being used, but it is not. From the same report – “These public servants are transformed – often unwillingly and unknowingly – into spies, made to serve their part in a system of targeted surveillance designed to monitor undocumented migrants’ every interaction with essential frontline services. Even seriously ill people and children are seen as fair game by the Government in its determination to aid deportations at any human cost. And, in order for undocumented migrants to be denied access to goods and services, we all end up having to show photo ID to do things as mundane as registering with a GP or renting a flat.”  

Electoral suppression through voter ID is another good example of our post-democratic world. The headline from Britain’s Democratic Audit only this week says its all  – “Requiring voter ID in British elections suggests the government is adopting US ‘voter suppression’ tactics.”

Promising the fastest-growing protest movement in the world – Extinction Rebellion – that the government will declare a climate crisis, swiftly act to combat it and then allow Britain’s capital to become a ring-fenced police state where democratic rights and freedoms are met with mass arrest is not democracy. Forcing people to show ID as they walk to work as they did on Wednesday (16th Oct)  is not democracy. Will members of XR be met with the right-wing goons of capitalism in open street fights – the typical tactic of the security services and their many known false flags? We’ll see what happens.

Ignoring international law is another tendency of non-democratic or authoritarian states and Britain is now actively promoting itself as one. The Chagos Islands is but one shining example. Selling weapons to countries that flaunt international laws and the continued solitary confinement of Julian Assange are other examples. Extrajudicial assassinations and forcing statelessness of British citizens, like it not, is the trademark of state lawlessness and democracy dissolving.

Does jailing journalists and whistleblowers, closing down legal privilege, blacklisting, forming an army of state informants, enforcing electoral suppression and designing mass civil society surveillance sound like democracy to you?

Terror laws brought in by the Cameron government, laws designed to catch terrorists and organised crime networks to track down people who dodge the BBC licence fee, hundreds of councils have been authorised (in one year 9,607 times) to hunt down non-payment of council tax and seven public authorities, including the BBC, refused under the Freedom of Information Act to disclose why or how often they had used these powers. The BBC now refuses 48% of such requests.

All of these examples add to a trajectory where post-truths and lack of transparency lead directly to post-democracy. Just so you know – “the lack of concern of the wishes or opinions of others and the strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom” – is just one of many definitions of a state with authoritarian tendencies.

Hybrid regime

The government of David Cameron (enthusiastically assisted by Home Secretary Theresa May) consistently introduced legislation aimed directly at dismantling our rights and civil liberties in the name of national security. In the hands of this current government, the aim will be to deconstruct human rights laws and civil society protections. This is amply evidenced by Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal. Its very design is about Britain adopting the Singapore Scenario. Even if it gets a green-light, because more promises are made, they will be reneged upon because this government no longer believes that the rule of law is as important as the unassailable power it is building for itself for the future. And like all non-democratic states; treaties, contracts and agreements at domestic and international levels mean little. Here is a revelation, the proof of post-democracy, and if it is true, and there’s no reason to believe it is not given the nature of the source, Brexit does not mean Brexit – it means something else.

Former UK ambassador Craig Murray presents us with insider information on the current Brexit deal:

“There is currently considerable alarm in the FCO that Legal Advisers have been asked about the circumstances constituting force majeure which would justify the UK in breaking a EU Withdrawal Agreement in the future. The EU did not fall for Johnson’s idea that a form of Northern Irish “backstop” would only come into effect with the future sanction of Stormont, as this effectively gives a hardline unionist veto, and Barnier was not born yesterday. The situation that Johnson and Raab appear now to contemplate is agreeing a “backstop” now to get Brexit done, but then not implementing the agreed backstop when the time comes due to “force majeure”.

There are two major problems with this line of thinking. The first is that it will give unionists an incentive to foment disorder in order to justify breaking the backstop agreement – indeed there is a concern that might be the tacit understanding Johnson is reaching with the DUP. Remember the British state conspired with the same people to murder the lawyer Pat Finucane and destroyed the evidence as recently as 2002.

The second problem is one of bad faith negotiation, and this is what is troubling the diplomats of the FCO. To negotiate an agreement with the secret intention of breaking it in future is a grossly immoral proceeding, and undermines the whole principle of good international relations. I should like to be able to say that I am sure this cannot be the intention. But when I look at Johnson, Raab and Cummings, I am really not so sure at all. It is possible that Johnson will succeed in the apparently insurmountable challenge of securing a deal all parties can agree, by the simple strategy of promising some parties he has no intention of honouring it.”

You might want to sit and think about the implications of what Murray has said there for a few minutes. In brief – Brexit means Brexit for some but for everyone else, it means something entirely different.

This is the British government of today. A government built on a foundation of misinformation, disinformation and propaganda. From the acceleration of post-truth in 2010 to post-democracy in a decade. Quite soon you won’t just lose your civil liberty, you’ll lose much more as extreme capitalism and corporatism strangle the life out of what we understand to be democracy.

*

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

Is Trump Mentally Unstable?

October 21st, 2019 by Rod Dreher

I’m serious. He blew up at the Congressional Democratic leadership today. Here’s what Rep. Steny Hoyer had to say about it:

.

.

.

According to the NYT:

During the meeting, according to Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Trump berated her as “a third-grade politician” and suggesting that she would be happy if communists gained influence in the Middle East. Ms. Pelosi told reporters on the White House driveway afterward that the president seemed “very shaken up” and was having “a meltdown.”

Mr. Trump also dismissed his own former defense secretary, Jim Mattis, who resigned last year when the president first tried to withdraw troops from Syria. When Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, began to cite Mr. Mattis, a retired Marine general, the president interjected, calling him “the world’s most overrated general,” according to a Democrat briefed on the meeting.

“You know why?” Mr. Trump said. “He wasn’t tough enough. I captured ISIS. Mattis said it would take two years. I captured them in one month.”

And this:

Well, she’s right. This man is nuts. My colleague Daniel Larison wrote a short time ago about Trump’s scary-bonkers formal letter to Turkey’s Erdogan. You’ve got to read this thing to believe it. It’s not a hoax — the White House has confirmed that this is what POTUS sent to another world leader:

Who talks like that in real life? Who threatens another world leader like a TV mafioso? “Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool!” Who responds well to being addressed so condescendingly? Trump reportedly distributed copies of this letter to Congressional leaders today in an attempt to show them how tough he is. In fact, he demonstrated that he is a boob. Worse:

At what point does President Trump’s monumental foreign policy idiocy become a national security threat? Not only was he stupid to write and send such a letter, but he undermined his own emissary to Ankara by releasing it today.

In related news:

A former top White House foreign policy adviser told House impeachment investigators this week that she viewed Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, as a potential national security risk because he was so unprepared for his job, according to two people familiar with her private testimony.

The adviser, Fiona Hill, did not accuse Mr. Sondland of acting maliciously or intentionally putting the country at risk. But she described Mr. Sondland, a hotelier and Trump donor-turned-ambassador, as metaphorically driving in an unfamiliar place with no guardrails and no GPS, according to the people, who were not authorized to publicly discuss a deposition that took place behind closed doors.

Ms. Hill, the former senior director for European and Russian affairs at the White House, also said that she raised her concerns with intelligence officials inside the White House, one of the people said.

Mr. Sondland’s lawyer declined to comment.

In her testimony, Ms. Hill described her fears that Mr. Sondland represented a counterintelligence risk because his actions made him vulnerable to foreign governments who could exploit his inexperience. She said Mr. Sondland extensively used a personal cellphone for official diplomatic business and repeatedly told foreign officials they were welcome to come to the White House whenever they liked.

Ms. Hill said that his invitations, which were highly unusual and not communicated to others at the White House, prompted one instance in which Romanian officials arrived at the White House without appointments, citing Mr. Sondland.

Ms. Hill also testified that Mr. Sondland held himself out to foreign officials as someone who could deliver meetings at the White House while also providing the cellphone numbers of American officials to foreigners, the people said. Those actions created additional counterintelligence risks, she said.

Another incompetent boob — and a senior US diplomat appointed by Donald Trump.

At some point, Congressional Republicans are going to have to consider whether or not impeachment and removal is in the best national security interests of the United States. You can bluster about the Deep State all you want, but what we know to be true about the president’s behavior in this Turkey matter is profoundly troubling, not only about his competence as Commander in Chief, but about his own mental stability.

Think about it: if China, North Korea, or Iran were to choose this moment to test America, who among us would have confidence in Trump’s response? What if you were a senior US general or admiral? How much security would you have in the soundness of the orders coming from this White House?

As much as I fear and loathe some of the political positions of the Democrats, after today, we have cause to worry that the president is not mentally capable of doing his job. Whether or not you like the leadership of the opposition party, you have to be able to work with them to govern the country. And you have to be able to communicate to world leaders who have large and powerful armies in a way that does not unduly antagonize them via insults and empty threats. Trump lacks these skills. To put it mildly.

UPDATE: The Speaker of the House calmly asked the nation to pray for the president’s (mental) health:

UPDATE.2: Yeah, he’s draining the swamp, all right…

Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union and a central figure in the House impeachment inquiry of President Trump, is overseeing a nearly $1 million renovation of his government-provided residence, paid for with taxpayer money, that current and former officials have criticized as extravagant and unnecessary.

The work on the ambassador’s home on the outskirts of Brussels includes more than $400,000 in kitchen renovations, nearly $30,000 for a new sound system and $95,000 for an outdoor “living pod” with a pergola and electric heating, LED lighting strips and a remote-control system, government procurement records show.

The State Department also has allocated more than $100,000 for an “alternate” residence for Sondland for September and October, while work is performed.

*

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.

Don’t Let Your News Be Silenced – Support Global Research

October 21st, 2019 by Global Research

The world is changing – but whose voice is telling you how?

Global Research stands at a pivotal moment in its 18-year history. Increasingly we are faced with new challenges regarding how to keep our content flowing and accessible to all. The more people we reach, the better our chances to contain media manipulation.

However, our finances have taken a major hit over the past year, largely due to the same challenges mentioned above. Can you help us get back on course by making a donation or taking out a membership?

Together, let us attempt to reverse the tide of war and social injustice.

Be a part of it and contribute to the future of Global Research.

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

Browse our online book store here

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING INDEPENDENT MEDIA!

“No Angels”: Kurdish Militias, “Betrayal” and the Campaign to Destroy Syria

October 21st, 2019 by Adeyinka Makinde

It is presently fashionable, but totally erroneous to aver that the Kurds have been “betrayed”. The truth is that the Kurds and the Americans have used each other for their mutual ends in the Syrian War, a catastrophe orchestrated by the United States and its regional allies Saudi Arabia and the State of Israel.

For the Saudis, the animus against the Assad government is based on the fact that it is ruled by what is considered by mainstream Sunni Muslims to be a heretical minority, the Alawites, whose alliance with Shia Iran poses a threat to Saudi influence in the Muslim Arab world.

And for the Israelis, it is the threat posed by the Triple Entente of Iran, Syria and the Lebanese militia, Hezbollah, an alliance that is sometimes referred to as the “Shia Crescent”. The destabilisation and the destruction of Syria would, from Israel’s perspective, have achieved three goals. Firstly, the weakening of Iranian influence in the region. Secondly, the isolating of Hezbollah, the militant Shia group created out of the embers of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in the early 1980s, which was responsible for the Jewish state’s withdrawal from the south of that country on two occasions. It is Hezbollah that has prevented the longstanding goal of colonising Lebanon south of the Litani River. Thirdly, a fractured Syria would from an Israeli view mean that no successor state would make a legal claim for the restoration of the Golan Heights, which was illegally annexed in 1981.

The object of Israel has always been to balkanise its Arab Muslim neighbours, and the enduring influence of its lobby in the United States is the overriding factor in this enterprise which provided the Saudis with the role of funding the anti-Assad jihadist insurrection begun in 2011. Israel, for its part, provided medical, logistical and financial assistance to a number of these jihadi fanatics and struck at Assad’s forces to weaken the Syrian effort in confronting them.

It is useful to be reminded of a declassified U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document circulated in 2012 which explicitly sought the creation of a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria. The so-called Islamic State (IS) and other Islamist-orientated militias functioned as the U.S.’s proxy army to achieve this end.

But Russian intervention with the help of Iranian soldiers and Hezbollah — all invited onto Syrian soil by the legitimate government of the country — beat back the threat posed by IS. The Americans, whose presence in parts of Syria is illegal, reacted by arming, training and supplying Kurdish militias such as the YPG to continue the quest of creating a statelet in oil-endowed eastern Syria.

Those who are versed in the history of the region know that the Turks will not tolerate the creation of an independent Kurdish state on its border. Moreover, members of the Syrian-based YPG also operate as guerrillas for the Turkish-based PKK, a group designated by the Turks as well as the U.S. and the EU as a terrorist organisation.

The Turks are of course no innocents in regard to the Syrian War. They were part of the original U.S.-Saudi-Israeli effort to overthrow the Assad government. Turkey provided a route through which jihadist fighters could infiltrate Syria’s borders. The Turkish Army High Command furnished these mercenaries with encampments and training facilities, and as IS began carving out its U.S. approved principality in eastern Syria, the Turks facilitated the establishment of this nascent caliphate by buying oil exploited from oil fields previously developed by the Syrian national government. Indeed, many will recall the role played by members of the Erdogan family in this illicit trade.

But while the Turks, like the U.S., the Saudis and the Israelis are no innocents in the enterprise that was geared towards destroying the Ba’athist government of Syria, President Donald Trump described the Kurds as being “no angels”.

Do the Kudish militias have clean hands? An examination of the facts reveals that they do not. For during the quest to carve out a separate, autonomous territory in eastern Syria (Kurds represent just 8% of the population of Syria), Kurdish militias ethnically cleansed the region of its Arab Muslim population and murdered Christian Assyrian communities. As noted earlier on, their primary role was to carve out a chunk of territory and the decision to arm Syrian Kurds taken by Trump in 2017 because it was seen as the fastest way to seize Raqqa, the capital of the proclaimed caliphate. It was a decision of course which drew opposition from Turkey.

The irony is that the Kurds would have been on more secure footing had they joined forces with the legal, secular government of Syria in fighting the locally-bred jihadists, as well as the imported Islamist fighters of al-Qaeda, al-Nusra and IS.

But they have miscalculated. Some accuse Ottoman-era Kurds of having facilitated the genocide of Christian Armenians in the early part of the 20th century, as a means through which they could obtain a state of their own. But they were denied this. And now in the 21st century, they look certain to be denied this.

The famous maxim in international relations of their being no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent national interests may explain Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. forces from this area of Syria. For while the national interests of the Turks, the Saudis and the Israelis are clearly defined, the national interest on the part of the United States in pursuing the policy of balkanising Syria. If the illegal presence of the United States in Syria was indeed to fight jihadis, then it would have logically sided with the Syrian administration.

Those who claim that the Kurds have been “betrayed” do so largely out of ignorance of the wider facts. And among neoconservative figures such as US Senator Marco Rubio and former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, the frequent references to the Kurdish role in fighting jihadis is to say the least disingenuous. Lindsey Graham, a senator from South Carolina, was perhaps more honest when assessing that the biggest losers from Trump’s decision would be the “Kurds and Israel”.

For it has been in Israel’s interests that the campaign to destroy Syria has been waged, and not, as Graham strongly, albeit inadvertently implies, in the interests of the United States.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog, Adeyinka Makinde.

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research 

Is Erdogan Using Chemicals in Syria Again?

October 21st, 2019 by Steven Sahiounie

Hasaka Hospital in northeast Syria reported treating cases of chemical attacks on civilians, including children on Wednesday.  The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported the event after gathering information from the hospital, which is in an area that has a Kurdish, and Syrian government presence.  Photos emerged of children with obvious burns to the skin.  White Phosphorus is a chemical used in military actions to illuminate a battle zone at night.  However, it is a banned chemical weapon if used against civilians, as it causes severe burns. 

Have chemical attacks in Syria been used before, and who benefitted?

Pres. Obama stated that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a ‘red line’ not to be crossed, or those responsible would face US military intervention.  The ‘Free Syrian Army’ (FSA) attacking the Syrian civilians and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) took the ‘red-line’ statement to be a ‘green-light’ for them.  They effectively used chemical attacks multiple times in Syria, directed against Syrian civilians.  The FSA were Sunni Muslims, killing Sunni Muslims. This is the hallmark of Muslim Brotherhood ideology, which is a political ideology and is not a sect or religion-based.  The Muslim Brotherhood claims that killing fellow Muslims is allowed because the end goal is more important than innocent lives.

An early gas attack was in Khan al Assal, west of Aleppo.  The village population did not support the ‘revolution’ to create an Islamic State and had a small contingent of SAA stationed to fend off terrorist attacks.  The FSA mounted chlorine to their missiles and attacked the village, resulting in deaths and injuries reported live on Syrian TV coverage at the hospital.  Later, TV coverage at the village showed dead livestock and citizens.  Previous to the attack, the FSA had posted videos online showing chlorine containers from a Turkish source, as they practiced gassing rabbits.  The Syrian government requested the UN inspectors to come to the village, but it would be almost a year before they would arrive in Syria, and just as they were unpacking their bags in Damascus, the famous sarin gas attack was staged by the terrorists in East Ghouta.  That video went viral and was shown repeatedly globally for days.  Two deputies from the CHP party in Turkey claimed that Turkey was directly involved and that sarin was sent to Syria from Turkey via several businessmen.

The ultimate goal for the many chemical attacks carried out by the terrorists was to illicit a military invasion of Syria by the US and NATO.

Who are the ground troops used by Turkey currently in northeast Syria?

Pres. Erdogan would never risk sending dead Turkish soldiers back to their parents from fighting in Syria.  The Turkish population is tired of the war in Syria and wants no part in it.  The Turkish economy is in ruins, the Turkish lira has lost value, and the people want an end to military adventures in a foreign country.  They have had to bear the burden of over 3 million Syrian refugees, who do not speak their language and are from a very different culture.  Erdogan instructed his military leaders to use the assets on hand for ground troops: thousands of FSA, followers of Radical Islam, who failed at their ‘Islamic Revolution’ in Syria, inspired by their dedication to the Muslim Brotherhood, and took refuge in Turkey.  Erdogan and his AKP party adhere to the Muslim Brotherhood political ideology.  During the Syrian conflict, Turkey was an integral part of the Obama-NATO attack on Syria for ‘regime change’.  However, when Trump came into office he cut the funding and began a plan to get the US out of Syria, which progressed to his total withdrawal from northeast Syria.

This paved the way for Erdogan’s ’Operation Peace Spring’, which was an invasion to eradicate the Kurdish militia in northeast Syria, who Turkey equates with the PKK, who is an internationally recognized terrorist group, responsible for over 40,000 deaths in Turkey spanning 30 years.

The Turkish military used Turkish aircraft, piloted by Turkish pilots, and they used Turkish tanks and armored vehicles; however, the ground troops are not all Turkish: they are Syrian terrorists.  The Syrian terrorist groups now employed by Turkey are numerous; however, we can focus on just one militia who are well known: the ‘Northern Storm Brigade’.

The ‘Northern Storm Brigade’ first came to international notoriety when its leader met personally with the US Republican Senator John McCain in northern Syria in May 2013.   The photos that McCain’s office posted on the internet went viral as several of the Syrians he posed with were recognized by Lebanese citizens as having been kidnappers.  Much later, when the photos and videos of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who claimed to be the Caliph of the ‘Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’ (ISIS), were posted online it was noticed that the leader of the ‘Northern Storm Brigade’ with Sen. John McCain seemed to be identical.

Obama sold the American public on a story of the FSA as freedom fighters and secular Syrians who were fighting in tennis shoes for democracy.  That image lasted only until they recruited Al Qaeda to take over the ‘regime change’ program they had started for Obama and NATO.  Many of the surviving FSA are now living in USA and Europe, and could be passing on their extensive knowledge in bomb-making to young radicals; however, we know many of the surviving FSA are living in Turkey, and are well paid for their mercenary services, including the current invasion into northeast Syria against the Kurds.

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a journalist and commentator. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

Ms. Pumpkin Head for President: A Nightmare

October 21st, 2019 by Edward Curtin

A few weeks ago I had a terrifying nightmare, so gruesome was it that I awoke screaming. In this dark horror show, I was carving a pumpkin for Halloween.  The cap came off easily and I disemboweled the slimy interior quickly, but as I did, I felt a strange sensation on my hand, as if a tongue were biting it. 

When I was finishing carving the face, however, the trouble really started.  The pumpkin head came alive as the eyes and mouth moved and then it started speaking in a voice that was familiar but one I couldn’t place.  Blond hair started sprouting from its head as it started shrieking and bouncing on the table in an hysterical manner.  I jumped back in fear and trembling as it started cackling, “I running, I running.” Blood ran from between the carved teeth and the blue eyes pulsated with the mania of a serial killer in a horror movie.

I awoke with a scream when I realized it was Hillary Clinton.

So hideous was this night terror that I kept it to myself. But a week later when the next Democratic pseudo-debate was being promoted, I said to my wife that something told me that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee and the debates were a sideshow.  She said she thought that would never happen and that Clinton was now hated and done for. I disagreed without recounting my nightmare because to describe it at that point would have induced more retching at the thought of the night monster.

Then this past week during the Democratic debate, the courageous Tulsi Gabbard put the lie to the murderous militarism of U.S. foreign policy and its regime change operations with its use of American supported terrorists in Syria and throughout the world.  She calmly and eloquently denounced the militarist positions of the other candidates standing beside her, as they listened disquieted and disturbed to a patriotic American speaking truth that they dare not even think, so bought and sold are they.

She was a woman alone among a cast of sycophants denouncing the murderous policies carried out by presidents Democratic and Republican and foisted on the American people through a vast network of propaganda, appealing to their worst instincts.  It was a stunning few minutes, for it is so rare, almost unheard of, for a politician to tell Americans the brutal truth about their government.

To many it was a sign of hope, but to the evil forces that run this country, Rep. Gabbard had gone too far and the knives came out in force, this time led by the pumpkin-headed Hillary Clinton and her accomplices at The New York Times and The Washington Post, who have consistently trashed Tulsi Gabbard in an effort to destroy her candidacy.

I felt my dream was prophetic when Clinton, in her slimy manner, attacked Tulsi Gabbard, without naming her, by saying,

I’m not making any predictions but I think they’ve [The Russians] got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.

Well, I ain’t making any prediction either; I’m leaving that up to my nightmare to do my talking.

It tells me that Hillary-O-Lantern, spitting blood, is running and gunning again.

She’s the favorite of the CIA and the military industrial complex and all those who profit from war and live off the deaths of victims everywhere.  They have bunches of sites and bots and fake news conspirators and all sorts of ways of supporting her, which they have been doing for many years, straight through their constructed Russia-gate and Ukraine-gate conspiracies and her barbaric support for wars everywhere, including the destruction of Libya and her joyful response to the fiendish death of Muammar Gaddafi, among so may atrocities.

Tulsi, never cowered, said it straight and true in response:

Great, Thank you.  You the Queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and  of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. 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 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.

She later said, “I stand against everything she represents.”

Halloween is the time for masks and dissembling. Hillary Clinton is a figure straight out of a grotesque Halloween party, as are her clones in the Democratic party. Tulsi Gabbard was not invited to their party but came anyway, and came to tell the truth about the masquerade.

She has torn off Clinton’s mask and asks the American people to see the true face of Clinton and all her minions, who represent the triumph of war and death, and the sick play we have been living through, an endless war on terror justified by endless lies.

Norman O. Brown so well describes our stage set:

Ancestral voices prophesying war; ancestral spirits in the danse macabreor war dance; Valhalla, ghostly warriors who kill each other and are reborn to fight again. All warfare is ghostly, every army an exercitus feralis (army of ghosts), every soldier a living corpse.

Lying is the leading cause of living death in the United States.

Tulsi Gabbard has told the truth.

Like me, I am sure you don’t want your nightmares to become reality. Let’s live in the truth.

*

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

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

“Zero Carbon”, 5G Denial and “Green Neoliberal Globalization”

October 21st, 2019 by Julian Rose

Why is it that the two words ‘Zero Carbon’ send a cool shiver down my spine? Is it the ‘zero’ or is it the ‘carbon’? Or is it particularly the combination of the two? 

I wasn’t sure, until I looked-up ‘zero carbon’ within a scientific context addressing greenhouse gasses, and the answer that came back was this “If there were no greenhouse gasses the average temperature on Earth would be about -18 degrees celsius”.  Now I know why the cool shiver passed down my spine. 

The high profile use of this zero carbon goal, particularly via Green New Deal proponents upping the pressure on governments to follow-through their commitments to the Paris climate change treaty, carries with it the overtones of a global crusade. And the missionary zeal behind global crusades is often drummed-up by people and institutions guided by dogma rather than by conscious and humanitarian instincts for a better world. 

An exploration of the roots of the ambition to achieve ‘zero carbon’ reveals a direct link to ‘climate action’/’climate emergency’ measures promoted via Extinction Rebellion, advocates of a Green New Deal and the ‘sustainable development’ edicts of the United Nation’s Agenda 21 – now renamed  Agenda 2030. 

All of these ‘stop global warming’ institutions/movements are heavily backed by money derived from sources that have no record of following a transparently ‘green’ commitment within their own ethos or business practices.

Now this immediately raises the question: if the backers are not ethically in line with the supposed aims of those they are funding  – could those that they are funding be influenced to adapt to the values of their backers? Might they be drawn into something quite contrary to the original ideal they set out to achieve? 

Well, quite obviously the answer is yes, they could. And a quick revue of the fate of such organisations as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth shows that this is exactly what happened.

High ambitions of the sort embraced by Greenpeace, for example, led to it becoming embroiled in ‘the art of compromise’ for the sake of rapid growth and influence. 

Very soon genuine green credentials become tainted by the influence of the corporate and/or political backers, whose funds come with the proviso to adhere to certain criteria and conditions in order for further funding to be guaranteed. It’s a trap a large number of ambitious NGO’s have fallen  into and never recovered from. 

The truth is that leading parties in green NGO organisations focused on a prize which conformed to the standard definition of neo-liberal globalisation ‘success’, rather than holding true to the founding principles of the organisations they were steering. 

The green movement that jumped onto the band-wagon called ‘stop global warming’ has, however, got an even bigger problem to deal with, one which is far more devious than the familiar ‘art of compromise’ that has undone so many once well intentioned movements. 

This is the fact that ‘the problem’ it is addressing is an invention – not a reality. An invention pushed into prominence by the United Nations body called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A body with direct links to the most powerful grouping of corporate institutions on the planet with the addition of a coterie of multi millionaires determined to set the planet’s top-down ‘green’ agenda for the indefinite future. 

An agenda that has little or nothing to do with the environment – and everything to do with the survival of the neo-liberal ‘big’ global economy, as admitted by Dr Otmar Edenhofer, head of Working Group 3 of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

The actual causes of climactic change – and yes, it is happening – are to be found in a composite of man made and natural events, ranging from HAARP’s gross interference via heating-up the ionosphere, atmospheric aerosol geoengineering (chemtrails), the residues of perpetual war, natural solar activity, the Pole shift, a weakening magnetosphere, intense electro smog and ozone depletion.

CO2 making only a tiny contribution. 

Zero Carbon and the Extinction Event

The Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) is an NGO  based in West Wales. It started-out in the early 1970’s as a truly innovative ‘make something out of nothing’ alternative energy and ecological life style community. A small group of entrepreneurs settled an old slate quarry at Machynlleth on the edge of Snowdonia, and built around themselves a community devoted to self sufficiency, especially in renewable energy, where home made wind turbines and water wheels, mostly constructed from scrap metal, powered their makeshift homes and artisan enterprises. CAT was an inspiration for many early ecological enthusiasts, many of whom (including myself) had read EF Schumacher’s iconic book ‘Small Is Beautiful’ and wanted to put into practice the human scale wisdom expressed in its pages. 

The CAT community increased throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s and more eco-friendly innovations were put in place that enabled the public to get their hands onto green solutions to everyday needs. Soon people came from all over the world to learn about renewable energy and the art of human scale ecologically sustainable living.

It wasn’t until around 2000 that most of the original pioneers retired from active involvement in CAT’s development and a new breed of entrepreneur took their place. With a focus ever more geared to education, large sums of money were raised to build a state of the art rammed earth eco-friendly education centre in which officially recognised state supported training courses were put in place that enabled budding practitioners to learn the skills necessary for a general ‘greening ‘ of the wider environment. 

As the global warming/climate change concept rose up the political agenda, so CAT became more and more absorbed by the edicts of the CO2 obsessed IPCC. Seeing itself as a beacon of pragmatic light in a sea of theoretical dogma, CAT’s new leadership sought to take the helm, declaring that the various suggested time frames for reduction in warming to be achieved by ‘decarbonising’ the atmosphere, were all too long and too unambitious. There was an emergency, they declared, and (initially within the context of the UK) only a ‘zero carbon by 2030’ end game could save the day. 

This message was presented to the public, to government officials and to industry, with scientific documentation to back it up. Suddenly CAT was the centre of a hugely controversial arena, pitching its Zero Carbon message in amongst the list of demands forming the basis of various international climate treaties of which the Paris accord is the most recent.

But how many stopped to ask the question: what exactly is ‘Zero Carbon’? 

Do CAT and the other institutions holding high this flag want us to take it literally? Is it simply a strategic way of getting the climate change agenda speeded up? What actually is going on here? 

Upon closer examination the entire package is riddled with holes. A kind of madness is built into the entire process, right from the original thesis that one variable – ‘CO2’ – a clear and odorless gas that constitutes just 0.0391% of the composition of the atmosphere, could, on its own, be responsible for dangerously warming the entire planet. This, even when this proportion may be rising due to the burning of fossil fuels. 

Then the notion that we should all buckle down to bring this single element ‘carbon dioxide’ down to an even smaller percentage of global atmospheric gasses, by using carbon taxes and ‘cap and trade’ regulations to force less industrialised countries of the world to slow their fossil fuel dependent economies and hobble their infrastructural development. Isn’t this simply the old colonial rule dressed in new clothes?  And these two issues are, of course, just the tip of the iceberg. The real story behind the push to promote ‘stop global warming’/’climate change’ involves the fostering of a scam whose scale and deviousness has surely set a new precedent in the art of deception. 

Those, like me, who deeply believe in a progressive transformation of polluting fossil fuels into decentralised human scale renewable energy solutions, are being dramatically conned; even if CAT and other environmental NGO publications suggest otherwise. 

Zero Carbon is the official call we are all being told to get behind, and it is the one taken up, directly or indirectly, by Extinction Rebellion, the Greta Thunberg school of youth indoctrination, the proponents of Green New Deal and the telecoms pushing forward a blanket 5G network. 

Smelling big money, politicians are happy to go along with it too. Especially since Mark Carney, director of the Bank of England, announced that any businesses that do not conform to the zero carbon ‘green’ criteria will be blocked from access to new loans, while those that do can expect high financial rewards. Yes, all the big multinational/transnational corporations are being invited to the table and are running to get the best seats. It’s a heist. 

A heist, led by ‘the green movement’ itself. What an irony! The supposedly anti neo-liberal globalist movement that was supposed to point the way to a decentralised, localised and human scale form of people power, taking sound ecological practices as the foundation for a world that would finally shift ‘the god of money’ off its throne to be replaced by the cultivation of respect for the laws of nature and a human scale economy operating ‘as if people mattered’. 

When one takes a serious look at the scale of our current deviation from the path of truth, it swims before one’s eyes like a virtual reality dream (nightmare). The zero carbon world we are being exalted to adapt to, when viewed through this virtual google 3D head set, reveals scenes of a fenced-off brave new world of ‘rewilded’ landscapes on the one hand – and sterile 5G driven ‘smart cities’ on the other. All of it overseen by Amazon/Google ‘Cloud’ powered smart grids monitoring and controlling an ever more dystopian robotic world, increasingly resembling a totalitarian prison camp. 

Ray Kurzwell would surely feel quite at home with the ushering-in of such artificial intelligence led systems finally achieving their place as the ‘new brain’; having successfully usurped the human one.   

Zero Carbon suggests to me that the cyborg 5G smart city is the Agenda 2030 ‘sustainable development’ carbon free omega point towards which we are all being ushered at brake-neck speed. With Caroline Lucas, Greta Thunberg, Gail Bradbrook, Yanis Verufakis and others leading ‘the rebellion’ while holding high the flag of a Green-Fascist New World Order. 

Eco-fascism has arrived on our doorstep and its appeal has become almost irresistible to those who combine a hyped-up fear of ‘the end of the world’ with belief in the rhetoric of bought-out climatologists, ambitious fake green con men (and women) and the political figurehead puppets of the deep state.

Zero carbon has taken the lead as ‘the solution’ to an anthropogenic global warming invention whose alarmist climate rhetoric was cunningly dreamed-up by the Club of Rome some thirty five years ago, as the perfect means of controlling the people as well as the essential political agenda of planetary life, both economic and social. By cleverly giving carbon the lead role in an extinction narrative – in which it is caste as the chief villain – the perpetrators of the myth (United Nations plc) have grabbed the headlines –  insisting that this harmless, essential component of nature (CO2) is the all-time baddie that must now be reduced to zero in order to save the planet. The Putin of the biosphere. 

The sheer audacity of this lie is breathtaking. Think about it.. reduce nature’s natural capital, carbon dioxide, to zero and what do you have?  An extinction event. The very ‘event’ that Extinction Rebellion is, on behalf of the United Nation’s Agenda 2030, blocking the streets of London, New York, Berlin et al. to demand action against. Thereby supporting a bunch of crooks, well versed in the art of deception, to enforce their master plan for absolute control combined with a significant reduction in the world population. “Carbon must be eliminated – therefore get rid of non carbon neutral humans.” 

The unknowing would never associate fascism with environmentalism, would they. They would never guess that a fake green agenda could be the Trojan horse for for the final take-over. Yet the fascist take-over that failed under Hitler and Mussolini, has crept steadily and stealthily forward under the dictatorship of the giant banking fiefdoms of the past half century – and it is precisely these institutions that are now falling in line to back a Green New Deal. 

Green is the colour chosen for the  final great deception and that which trees and plants convert into oxygen has been cast as the ‘demiurge’ which heroic styled NGO’s are riding out to do battle with. A battle to the death, no less. 

We will not all be fooled all the time, even if a majority maintain an eyes wide shut disposition to the roll-out of such a toxic agenda. The wake-up is gathering momentum at an ever accelerating rate. An instinctual resistance to the 5G microwave crowd control weapon, coupled with a plethora of reports on its egregious health affects, is acting as a powerful vector to unite people across the globe, causing all of us to recognise that this is not just about one exceptionally cruel form of eco-genocide, but the pinnacling of an underlying fear – by humanity’s oppressors – of that which stands behind love, beauty, compassion and joy. Fear that takes the form of an aggressive suppression of these primary life instincts. 

As the eminent social psychiatrist Dr Erich Fromm stated, it is The Fear of Freedom that we are witnessing in the diabolic attempts to shut-down the energetic evolution of the universal life force itself. 

The tables are turning.The greater the downward pressure to conform to a dead-end, slavish and robotic existence, the greater the innate inner power of opposition rises up in resistance – in those who let it. A resistance sparked by outrage – and a defiant determination to act in defence of Life. 

Onward, onward, dear friends, in the midst of the darkness more and more light is shining through!

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Zero Carbon”, 5G Denial and “Green Neoliberal Globalization”
  • Tags: ,

US Ditches Kurdish Proxies in Syria

October 21st, 2019 by Tony Cartalucci

As US troops flee northeast Syria – they leave behind their Kurdish proxies to face an uncertain future at the hands of approaching Turkish troops. Reports of Turkish forces entering Syria dominated news headlines – followed by Western op-eds trading blame for America’s failed policy in Syria.

Absent from these headlines is any mention of how Washington deliberately engineered and executed this war against Syria – beginning in 2011 through the use of proxies including Al Qaeda and its affiliates – escalating in 2014 with the illegal invasion and occupation of Syria by US troops themselves – to Washington’s unravelling fortunes now.

For example, Washington Post’s Josh Rogin can now be seen across social media hand-wringing over alleged atrocities committed against America’s abandoned Kurds – atrocities the mainstream media spent years covering up, spinning, or even defending when committed by these same forces against the Syrian Army.

America Abandons its Kurds 

For Kurds who aided and abetted US machinations in Syria – regardless of how the conflict ended – it was a miscalculation on their part.

Syrian Kurds were certainly not going to be the first US proxy in history to actually benefit from a US-led war aimed at destroying the nation they resided in. Just as the US has done in Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya – Syria was slated for dismemberment – with friend and foe alike left amid a failed, dysfunctional state that would burn around them and require decades to rebuild.

And this would have been the “best” case scenario.

The worst case scenario is that the US would abandon its proxies – possibly even betraying them in exchange for entirely self-serving concessions.

Foreign Policy magazine which at one point during the Syrian conflict featured an article titled, “Two Cheers for Syrian Islamists: So the rebels aren’t secular Jeffersonians. As far as America is concerned, it doesn’t much matter,” – a contribution to a Western media campaign at the time defending US-support for Al Qaeda in Syria – has more recently featured an op-ed penned by Kurdish military commander Mazloum Abdi.

Titled, “If We Have to Choose Between Compromise and Genocide, We Will Choose Our People,” the op-ed declares:

We believe in democracy as a core concept, but in light of the invasion by Turkey and the existential threat its attack poses for our people, we may have to reconsider our alliances. The Russians and the Syrian regime have made proposals that could save the lives of millions of people who live under our protection.

The op-ed ends by claiming:

The reason we allied ourselves with the United States is our core belief in democracy. We are disappointed and frustrated by the current crisis. Our people are under attack, and their safety is our paramount concern. Two questions remain: How can we best protect our people? And is the United States still our ally?

Its hard to believe a successful military commander could be so politically naive as to think the US stands for democracy or that the US has allies rather than interests it merely uses proxies like the Kurds to advance. The fact that the very same publication featuring Mazloum Abdi’s op-ed had at one time eagerly promoted the extremists now descending upon his Kurdish fighters should aptly answer his final question as to whether or not the US is “still” – or ever was – his ally.

Mazloum Abdi also noted in his op-ed that:

Syria has two options: a religious sectarian and ethnic bloody war if the United States leaves without reaching a political solution, or a safe and stable future—but only if the United States uses its power and leverage to reach an agreement before it withdraws.

This seems to suggest that the Kurdish commander is oblivious to the fact that in this case – the firefighter he wants to douse the flames of Syria’s conflict about to consume him was the arsonist who lit them in the first place.

Syrian “Kurdistan” Was Always a Fantasy 

Whether a demonstration of his naivety or an exercise in shrewd propaganda – Mazloum Abdi and his Kurdish fighters find themselves painted into this corner by their own hands and their own brush.

Nothing about the territorial entity many fighters under Abdi sought to create was politically, militarily, or economically feasible. It would have been a vector of US influence first and foremost – and would exist only for as long as it served Washington’s interests.

Syria’s major cities all exist west of the Euphrates or directly on its eastern banks – not east of it where America’s Kurdish proxies reside. Any “Kurdish state” that would form in Syria’s east would be entirely artificial – propped up by a US military occupation and subsidized by US taxpayers. It would be decades before this region could develop the economic capacity to independently sustain itself and defend against Turkish incursions, uprisings by non-Kurdish locals, or attempts by Damascus to uphold Syria’s territorial integrity as guaranteed by international law.

Syria’s Kurds may face uncertainty and fear for their future but the failure of US regime change in Syria is a blessing for them in disguise. These Kurds now have the opportunity to reapproach Damascus, play a direct role in restoring Syria’s territorial integrity, and cut deals with Syria and its allies to secure their future.

It will be a future within Syria – which will remain a united, functioning nation-state and where in many of its most populated areas life is already returning to normal – and a future that would have been impossible in the fractured, dysfunctional Syria the United States envisioned and worked toward from 2011 onward.

Such deals made between the Kurds and Damascus will not live up to the fantastical and entirely unrealistic promises made to Syria’s Kurds by Washington – but Washington was never going to fulfill its promises, couldn’t, and now – demonstratably hasn’t.

Turkey’s Intentions 

Turkey – a nation straddling East and West – has shifted its policy radically throughout the war – a war Turkey played a pivotal role in facilitating in its first several years.

Moscow’s patience with Ankara – during Russia’s long and arduous process of stopping – then rolling back US-regime change efforts – has created the diplomatic conditions in which Turkey has a graceful exit from the blind alley Washington led it into. Whether or not Turkey will utilize that exit and constructively work with Syria and Russia in ending the conflict is another matter entirely – and a matter only time will tell.

The possibility that Turkey is simply replacing America’s tenuous occupation with one thought to be more sustainable and conducive toward US objectives still remains and Turkey’s diplomatic overtures toward Russia may have been a partial ploy.

However while deception is a key ingredient in both war and the empire it helps build and maintain – there always was to be a day when an inflection point was reached and the true – genuine unravelling of US hegemony would begin.

Turkey’s pivot Eastward and Washington’s disposal of its Kurdish “allies” may be a key indicator that at least for US hegemony in the Middle East – that inflection point is here and now.

A Possible Inflection Point 

The US withdrawal from Vietnam and the fate of its client regime in the nation’s south comes to mind when analyzing America’s apparent withdrawal – or at the very least – redeployment in Syria.

The US withdrawal from Vietnam marked the end of major US military aggression in Asia Pacific. US forces retreated to their regional military bases and have been confined there ever since by a combination of growing economic prosperity across Asia and growing military might making any future US military aggression in the region unimaginable.

For the fractured Middle East – a similar process where chaos engineered and exploited by the US being replaced by constructive and cooperative economic development – will finally and indefinitely end US military aggression there.

In 2015 when the Russian Federation intervened militarily in the Syrian conflict at the request of the Syrian government – the US proxy war was all but doomed.

No amount of posturing, positioning, maneuvering, propaganda, or false flags would put US-led regime change in Syria back on track if Moscow refused to blink.

Both within the context of  Washington’s shifting fortunes in Syria and in terms of shifting global economic and political power – the self-interests of nations aiding and abetting the US in the Middle East- along with many other nations worldwide – will continue pivoting West to East.

US troops – rather than returning home from its many Middle Eastern wars – are instead ending up garrisoned in Saudi Arabia. This could be the beginning of a long-term process similar to US troop deployments in South Korea and Japan – where US intervention becomes less and less feasible – and US forces pushed further and further from the region.

Still – Syria’s survival in the face of a multi-year multinational proxy war waged against it is not the end of US hegemony in the Middle East. The US still possesses the capacity to trigger political unrest across the region and is still leading a destructive war against Yemen and a proxy war against Iran and its allies in Iraq. The US also still possesses an eager provocateur – the Israeli government – which will complicate and drag out for as long as possible any regional transition away from Western hegemony and toward lasting peace and prosperity.

It is interesting that while the US claims to underwrite global peace and stability – the one common denominator regions of the planet experiencing peace and prosperity seem to share is an absence of abundant US military and political influence. As another nation and perhaps a whole region begins to slip from Washington’s hands – the US sees yet another opportunity to instead pursue a genuinely constructive role within an emerging multipolar world not only changing despite of it – but prepared and eager to move on with out it if need be.

*

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

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

The US Has Backed 21 of the 28 ‘Crazy’ Militias Leading Turkey’s Brutal Invasion of Northern Syria

October 21st, 2019 by Max Blumenthal

Former and current US officials have slammed the Turkish mercenary force of “Arab militias” for executing and beheading Kurds in northern Syria. New data from Turkey reveals that almost all of these militias were armed and trained in the past by the CIA and Pentagon.

***

Footage showing members of Turkey’s mercenary “national army” executing Kurdish captives as they led the Turkish invasion of northern Syria touched off a national outrage, provoking US government officials, pundits and major politicians to rage against their brutality.

In the Washington Post, a US official condemned the militias as a “crazy and unreliable.” Another official called them “thugs and bandits and pirates that should be wiped off the face of the earth.” Meanwhile, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the scene as a “sickening horror,” blaming President Donald Trump exclusively for the atrocities.

But the fighters involved in the atrocities in northern Syria were not just random tribesmen assembled into an ad hoc army. In fact, many were former members of the Free Syrian Army, the force once armed by the CIA and Pentagon and branded as “moderate rebels.” This disturbing context was conveniently omitted from the breathless denunciations of US officials and Western pundits.

According to a research paper published this October by the pro-government Turkish think tank SETA,

“Out of the 28 factions [in the Turkish mercenary force], 21 were previously supported by the United States, three of them via the Pentagon’s program to combat DAESH. Eighteen of these factions were supplied by the CIA via the MOM Operations Room in Turkey, a joint intelligence operation room of the ‘Friends of Syria’ to support the armed opposition. Fourteen factions of the 28 were also recipients of the U.S.-supplied TOW anti-tank guided missiles.” (A graph by SETA naming the various militias and the type of US support they received is at the end of this article).

In other words, virtually the entire apparatus of anti-Assad insurgents armed and equipped under the Obama administration has been repurposed by the Turkish military to serve as the spearhead of its brutal invasion of northern Syria. The leader of this force is Salim Idriss, now the “Defense Minister” of Syria’s Turkish-backed “interim government.” He’s the same figure who hosted John McCain when the late senator made his infamous 2013 incursion into Syria.

The “sickening horror” this collection of extremists is carrying out against Kurds is, in fact, the same one it imposed on Syrians across the country for the past seven years. Before, when their goal was regime change in Damascus, they had the blessing and wholehearted support of official Washington. But now that they are slaughtering members of a much more loyal US proxy force, their former patrons and enablers are rushing to denounce them as “bandits and pirates.”

Left: John McCain with then-FSA chief Salim Idriss (right) in 2013; Right: Salim Idriss (center) in October, announcing the establishment of the National Front for Liberation, the Turkish mercenary army that has invaded northern Syria.

The FSA and White Helmets become Turkey’s mercenary army

Turkey employed anti-Assad insurgents against the Kurdish YPG for the first time in March 2018, when it invaded the northern Syrian city of Afrin during Operation Olive Branch. That onslaught saw an array of heinous atrocities, from the vandalism of the corpse of a female Kurdish fighter to the looting of Afrin. These war crimes were committed largely by fighters of the defunct Free Syrian Army – the collection of “moderate rebels” once armed by the CIA.

In a video message, one of the invading fighters promised mass ethnic cleansing if Kurds in the area refused to convert to his Wahhabi strain of Sunni Islam. “By Allah,” the fighter declared, “if you repent and come back to Allah, then know that you are our brothers. But if you refuse, then we see that your heads are ripe, and that it’s time for us to pluck them.”

Also present in Afrin were the White Helmets, the supposed civil defense outfit that was nominated for a Nobel Prize, celebrated by the Western media as life-saving rescuers, and heavily funded by the US and UK governments. The White Helmets had arrived as auxiliaries of the Islamist mercenary forces, and were operating as Turkish proxies themselves.

After Turkey and its rebel proxies ethnically cleansed the Kurdish-majority community of Afrin, the White Helmets pledged to “rebuilt it,” to “restore the city to its former beauty and utility.” In a photo op, they even spelled out the Arabic word Afrin with the bodies of their volunteers:

This October, when Turkish-backed Islamist fighters stormed back into northern Syria, atrocities immediately followed.

Hevrin Khalaf, a Syrian Kurdish legislator, was pulled from her car by the militiamen and executed along with her driver. Other Kurds, including two unarmed captives, were filmed as they were murdered by the Turkish proxies. The mercenary gangs went on to deliberately free ISIS captives from unguarded prisons, releasing hundreds of their ideological soulmates to the battlefield.

The most shocking footage allegedly showed the Turkish mercenaries sawing the heads off of Kurdish fighters they had killed. For those familiar with Nour al-Din al-Zinki, a participant in the Turkish invasion that was formerly supplied by the CIA, and which beheaded a captive Palestinian-Syrian fighter on camera in 2016, this behavior was not surprising.

Left out of the coverage of these horrors was the fact that none of them would have been possible if Washington had not spent several years and billions of dollars subsidizing Syria’s armed opposition.

Prolific promoters of the “moderate rebels” run from their records

When the Turkish military and its proxy force overwhelmed the Kurdish YPG this October, Hillary Clinton angrily denounced their brutality.

Back in 2012, however, when Clinton was Secretary of State, she junketed to Istanbul to rally support for those very same militias during a “Friends of Syria” conference convened by Erdogan.

She later remarked, “The hard men with the guns are going to be the more likely actors in any political transition than those on the outside just talking. And therefore we needed to figure out how we could support them on the ground, better equip them…”

One of those “hard men” is Salim Idriss, today the “Defense Minister” of Syria’s non-existent “provisional government” and de facto leader of the mercenary forces dispatched by Turkey into northern Syria. He has pledged, “We will fight against all terror organizations led by the PYD/PKK.”

Back in 2013, however, Idriss was lionized in Washington and hyped as a future leader of Syria.

When the later Sen. John McCain made his notorious surprise visit to the Turkish-Syrian border in May 2013, hoping to inspire a US military intervention, he was warmly welcomed by Idriss, the then-leader of the US-backed Free Syrian Army.

“What we want from the US government is to take the decision to support the Syrian revolution with weapons and ammunition, anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft weapons,” Idris told Josh Rogin, a reporter and neoconservative booster of regime change in Syria.

Though Idriss and his allies never got the full-scale intervention they sought from the Obama administration, they did receive shipments of heavy weapons, including hundreds of anti-tank TOW missiles.

They were also showered with adulation by droves of hyper-ambitious foreign correspondents from corporate Western outlets.

CNN’s Clarissa Ward was an especially enthusiastic promoter of the FSA, embedding with its fighters, painting them as a heroic resistance. When she returned to Syria years later, she used a top mouthpiece of Syria’s local Al Qaeda affiliate as a fixer for her unequivocally pro-opposition “Inside Aleppo” series.

CNN’s Clarissa Ward, then of CBS, with the FSA in 2011

Danny Gold was also among the flocks of Western reporters that embedded with the armed opposition during the height of the insurgency against Damascus. In 2013, he churned around a piece for Vice on “chatting about ‘Game of Thrones’” with a group of fighters from Jabhat al-Nusra, Al Qaeda’s local franchise.

Gold and a clique of rabid online regime change zealots spent the rest of their time clamoring for US intervention in the country and viciously denigrating anyone who disagreed. Gold has, for instance, likened The Grayzone’s factual coverage of Syria to Nazi propaganda.

This October, when the Turkish invasion of northern Syria began, Gold reported that one of the FSA fighters he embedded with back in 2013 was taking part in the assault on Kurdish positions.

Like Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Islamist fighters’ former boosters, Gold was clearly struggling with a case of cognitive dissonance. Unable to take responsibility for promoting these extremists as they rampaged across Syria for years, or for smearing anyone who forcefully opposed the regime change agenda, he lashed out at his critics: “Almost as if war is complicated and doesn’t fit into the neat little box the anime teens in my mentions don’t realize,” he tweeted.

As members of a former US proxy ruthlessly prey on a present day US proxy, Western pundits and politicians are hoping that no one notices that they spent the past seven years celebrating the former group. They are initiating a cover-up, not only of the blowback unfolding in northern Syria, but of their own records.

This band of hacks is now fully exposed for foisting a bloody scam on the public, marketing some of the most brutal fanatics on the planet as revolutionaries and “moderate rebels” while they destabilized an entire region. Like the extremists they once promoted, most have somehow managed to evade accountability and remain employed.

Below is SETA’s list of Turkish “national army” militias, outlining the type of US support each one received over the years. 

SETA Turkey National Army Syrian rebel factions

*

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.

Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican Gomorrah, Goliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including Killing Gaza. Blumenthal founded The Grayzone in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America’s state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic repercussions.

All images in this article are from The Grayzone unless otherwise stated

Detailed Report on Israeli Human Rights Violations

October 21st, 2019 by If Americans Knew

Reposted from PCHRGaza (which publishes these detailed reports every single week): 

  • Great March of Return in Eastern Gaza Strip: 78 civilians injured, including 31 children.
  • West Bank: 4 civilians injured, including a child in the West Bank
  • During 74 incursions into the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem: 65 civilians arrested, including 5 children and 5 women
  • Israeli forces raided the Public Administration office of the Union of Health Work committee 
  • 4 houses demolished in Hebron and Bethlehem, and a civilian was forced to self-demolish his house in Jerusalem
  • Hundreds of settlers raided al-Aqsa Mosque yards in occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City and performed prayers
  • Settlers attacked 2 volunteer foreigners in Burin village, in Nablus and farms in Bethlehem
  • 6 shootings reported against Palestinian agricultural lands, eastern Gaza Strip, and 4 shootings reported against Palestinian fishing boats off Gaza Strip Shore
  • Israeli forces closed the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron for 2 days due to Jewish holidays
  • Complete closure imposed on the Gaza Strip and the West Bank for Jewish holidays                                             
  • 49 temporary checkpoints erupted in the West Bank, where 2 Palestinian civilians were arrested. 

Summary 

During the reporting period, PCHR documented 157 violations of the international human rights law and international humanitarian law (IHL) by Israeli forces and settlers in the occupied Palestinian territory.

As part of the Israeli violations of the right to life and bodily integrity, Israeli forces wounded 78 Palestinian civilians, including 31 children, on 78th Friday of the Great March of Return in the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile in the West Bank, the Israeli forces wounded 4 Palestinian civilians, including a child near the annexation wall.

It was notable that for the past two weeks, shooting incidents against Palestinian civilians attempting to sneak into Israel without permits through the annexation wall, north of the West Bank, escalated. Israel had left gateways in the wall for Palestinian farmers to access their lands behind the wall; however, Palestinians use these gates to sneak into Israel for work. PCHR’s investigations affirm that Israeli occupation forces could have arrested those young men or keeping them away from the annexation wall without resorting to fire.

As part of the Israeli incursions and house raids, Israel carried out 74 incursions into the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem, and raided civilian houses, attacking and enticing fear among residents in addition to shooting in many incidents. As a result, 65 Palestinians were arrested, including 5 children and 5 women. During this week, as part of its policy to restrict the work of civil society organizations, Israeli occupation forces raided the office of UHWC in al-Birah, Ramallah and damaged its equipment and contents. Two weeks ago, the Israeli occupation forces raided the head office of ADDAMEER Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association in Ramallah.

As part of Israeli attacks against Palestinian fishermen in the Gaza Strip, 4 shootings were reported by the Israeli gunboats against the Palestinian fishing boats at sea within the allowed limited area for fishing while 6 shootings were reported against the agricultural lands in eastern Gaza Strip in addition to one limited incursion into the northern Gaza Strip.

Under the settlement expansion activities in the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem, PCHR documented 4 violations relevant to house demolitions, including 5 houses in Hebron and Bethlehem and 8 attacks by settlers, including attacking 2 international volunteers in Burin village in Nablus and a famer in Bethlehem in addition to puncturing vehicles’ tires in Salfit.

In terms of the Israeli closure policy, the Gaza Strip still suffers the worst closure in the History of the Israeli occupation in the oPt as it has entered the 14th consecutive year, without any improvement to the movement of persons and goods and ongoing isolation of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank and the rest of the world. Meanwhile, the West Bank is divided into separate cantons with key roads blocked by the Israeli occupation since the Second Intifada and with temporary and permanent checkpoints, where civilians’ movement is restricted and others are arrested.

Moreover, during the reporting period, Israel imposed a complete closure on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for Jewish Holidays that will start on Sunday morning, 13 October 2019, and end on Monday, 21 October 2019.  According to Israeli occupation forces’ declaration, the West Bank and Gaza strip crossings, will be closed during this period except for urgent cases that includes people, who have special permits.

First: Violation of the right to life and to bodily integrity 

  1. Excessive Use of Force against the Great March of Return in the Gaza Strip

Israeli occupation forces continued its excessive use of lethal force against the “Great March of Return” peaceful demonstrations organized by Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and the peaceful protests in the West Bank against Israeli occupation forces’ crimes and settlement activities.

According to fieldworkers’ observations, the 78th Friday titled: “Our Martyr Children,” witnessed large participation of civilians aced with excessive and lethal force by Israeli forces despite the peaceful nature of the demonstrations. At approximately 15:00 on 04 October 2019, protests started across the five GMR encampments until 19:00, and involved activities such as speeches and theatrical performances. Hundreds of civilians protested at varied distances from the border fence across the Gaza Strip, and threw stones, firecrackers and Molotov Cocktails at Israeli forces. As a result, 78 civilians were injured, including 31 children. PCHR’s fieldworkers documented thar 2 civilians, including 2 children, sustained serious wounds while 22 others were shot with live bullets and their shrapnel in addition to others being shot in the upper body due to targeting them directly with rubber bullets and tear gas canisters.

The incidents were as follows:

  • Northern Gaza Strip: Israeli occupation forces’ attacks against protestors resulted in the injury of 21 civilians, including 8 children: 6, including a child, were shot with live bullets and shrapnel; 11, including 4 children, were shot with rubber bullets; and 4, including 3 children, were hit with tear gas canisters. Samer Wael Rajab al-Refi (23), from al-Toufah neighborhood, sustained serious wounds after being shot with a live bullet in his neck.
  • Gaza City: Israeli forces’ attacks against protestors resulted in the injury of 6 civilians, including 2 children: 3 with live bullets and shrapnel; and 3 with rubber bullets.
  • Central Gaza Strip: Israeli shooting and firing tear gas canisters at protestors resulted in the injury of 15 civilians, including 10 children; one of them deemed in critical condition: 10 were shot with live bullets and shrapnel, and 5 were hit with tear gas canisters. All of them were then taken to al-Aqsa Hospital, where their injuries ranged between minor and moderate. Furthermore, dozens of civilians suffocated due to tear gas inhalation and received medical treatment on the spot while others were taken to hospitals. Bahaa’ Mostafa Salama Abu Rokaab (17), from al-Zawayda village, sustained serious wounds after being shot with a live bullet in his abdomen.
  • Khan Younis: Israeli forces fired live and rubber bullets and tear gas canisters at the protestors, wounding 11 civilians, including 3 children; one of them deemed in extremely critical condition. All of them were transferred to hospitals. Among those wounded, a civilian was shot with a live bullet, and 5 were shot with rubber bullets and hit with tear gas canisters. In addition, many civilians sustained superficial bullet wounds and suffocated due to tear gas inhalation. They received treatment on the spot. ‘Alaa Hani al-‘Abasi (13) sustained serious wounds after being hit with a tear gas canister in his head. He was then taken to the Gaza European Hospital to receive treatment.
  • Rafah: Israeli shooting and firing tear gas canisters at protestors resulted in the injury of 25 civilians, including 8 children; 4 of them were shot with live bullets and shrapnel, 20 were shot with rubber bullets, and one was directly hit with a tear gas canister.

  1. Excessive use of force in the West Bank:

  • At approximately 13:30 on Friday, 11 October 2019, Palestinians from Kufor Qaddoum village, northeast of Qalqiliyah launched their weekly peaceful protest and headed towards the village’s eastern entrance that has been closed by Israeli forces for the past 16 years in favor of “Kedumim” settlement. The demonstrators chanted national slogans demanding end of the occupation and protested the Israeli forces’ crimes against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The protestors threw stones at the Israeli soldiers stationed behind sand berms while the soldiers fired live and rubber bullets, sound bombs and tear gas canisters at them. As a result, Ahmed Emad Shtaiwi (19) was shot with a live bullet to the chest. Moreover, a number of civilians suffered tear gas inhalation.
  1. Shooting and other violations of the right to life and bodily integrity
  • At approximately 06:00 on Thursday, 10 October 2019, Israeli forces assigned to guard the annexation wall fired live bullets at Mahmoud Bahjat Amin Jaradat (39), from al-Silah al-Harithiyah village, west of Jenin while. As a result, Mahmoud was shot with a live bullet to the right leg while attempting to sneak into Israel through the gate in the wall established on lands Thuhor al-‘Abed village, west of Ya’bud village, southwest of Jenin. He was then taken to Khalil Suleiman Hospital in Jenin to receive medical treatment.
  • At approximately 09:00, Israeli occupation forces stationed in eastern Khan Younis border area fired live bullets and tear gas canisters at agricultural lands in eastern Khuza’ah village. The shooting sporadically continued for half an hour; no casualties were reported.
  • At approximately 09:30 on Friday, 11 October 2019, Israeli forces assigned to guard the annexation wall fired live bullets at Ahmed Bassam Mohammed Kamil (25), from Qabatiyah village, southeast of Jenin. As a result, he was shot with a live bullet in the foot while attempting to sneak into Israel through the gate established on lands of Thuhor al-‘Abed village, west of Ya’bud village, southwest of Jenin.
  • At approximately 07:45 on Friday, 11 October 2019, Israeli gunboats stationed northwest of Beit Lahia in northern Gaza Strip, opened fire and chased Palestinian fishing boats sailing within 3 nautical miles. The shooting continued until 10:00 on the same day. As a result, the fishermen were forced to flee fearing for their lives; neither casualties nor material damage was reported.
  • At approximately 06:40 on Saturday, 12 October 2019, Israeli gunboats stationed northwest of Beit Lahia in northern Gaza Strip, opened fire and chased Palestinian fishing boats sailing within 3 nautical miles. As a result, the fishermen were forced to flee fearing for their lives; neither casualties nor material damage was reported.
  • At approximately 06:40 on Sunday, 13 October 2019, Israeli gunboats stationed northwest of Beit Lahia in northern Gaza Strip, heavily opened fire and chased Palestinian fishing boats sailing within 3 nautical miles. As a result, the fishermen were forced to flee fearing for their lives; neither casualties nor material damage was reported.
  • At approximately 14:30 on the Same day, Israeli forces stationed along the border fence, in eastern al-Shuhada’a cemetery, east of Jabalia in northern Gaza Strip, opened fire at Jabalia Municipality crew, who were working in the landfill area. As a result, a live bullet hit the equipment; no casualties were reported. It should be noted that the municipality crew obtained a permit from the Palestinian General Authority for Civil Affairs (GACA) for their equipment, which include 2 bulldozers. It should be noted that at approximately 12:00 on Wednesday, 09 October 2019, Israeli occupation forces opened fire at the same crew in the same area despite obtaining a permit from the GACA.
  • At approximately 10:00 on Monday, 14 October 2019, Israeli gunboats stationed in western Rafah shore in southern Gaza Strip, opened fire at Palestinian fishing boats sailing within 3 nautical miles. As a result, the fishermen were forced to flee fearing for their lives; neither casualties nor material damage was reported.
  • At approximately 08:00 on the same day, Israeli forces stationed in eastern Kahn Younis border area opened fire at agricultural lands in eastern ‘Abasan al-Kabirah for few minutes; no casualties were reported. At approximately 15:10, Israeli forces opened fire again at agricultural lands in eastern Khuza’ah and al-Fukhari villages; no casualties were reported.
  • At approximately 11:30 on the same day, Israeli soldiers stationed in eastern al-Shoka border area, east of Rafah, opened fire at the agricultural lands; no casualties were reported.
  • At approximately 16:00 on Tuesday, 10 October 2019, Israeli soldiers stationed along the border fence in eastern al-Shoka village, east of Rafah, opened fire at Shepherds. As a result, the shepherds were forced to leave the area; no casualties were reported.

At approximately 07:00 on Wednesday, 16 October 2019, Israeli forces opened fire at Bara’a Mohammed Fareez Te’mah (17), from Qifin village, north of Tulkarm. As a result,  Mohammed was shot with a rubber bullet to the right hand while attempting to sneak into Israeli through the annexation wall’s gate established on lands of Thohur al-‘Abed village, southwest of Jenin.

Second: Incursions and Arrests 

Thursday, 10 October 2019:

  • At approximately 02:15, Israeli occupation forces moved into Jenin. They raided and searched a house belonging to Sultan Kamal al-Sa’di (27) and then arrested him.
  • At approximately 01:00, Israeli occupation forces, reinforced by heavy military vehicles, moved into Dura village, southwest of Hebron and stationed in al-Hijra neighborhood. They raided and searched a house belonging to Ahmed Ishaq Abu Hushhush (33). He was then arrested and taken to an unknown destination.
  • At approximately 01:30, Israeli occupation forces, reinforced by heavy military vehicles, moved into Beit Owa village, southwest of Dura, southwest of Hebron. They raided and searched two houses belonging to Bara’ Isma’el al-Masalma (24) and Eyad Ra’ed al-Masalma (27). He was then arrested and taken to an unknown destination.
  • At approximately 07:00, Israeli occupation forces moved into al-Auja village, northeast of Jericho. They raided and searched a house belonging to Abdullah Khaled Ajouri (33) and then arrested him.
  • At approximately 11:20, Israeli occupation forces moved into Deir Nizam village, northwest of Ramallah, and stationed in al-Hadeeqa area, where there was event organized by Deir al-Nizam high School in cooperation with al-Ro’ya International Foundation. Dozens of school students and young men gathered on the main street and threw stones and empty bottles at the Israeli soldiers, who fired in response teargas canisters. As a result, a number of students and teachers suffered teargas inhalation and they were treated on the spot. Furthermore, they arrested Ramiz Mohammed Yehya al-Tamimi (13) and took him to “Helmish” investigation center. He was released at approximately 23:40 on the same day.

Note: Israeli occupation forces carried out (9) incursions in Hebron and Dora villages in Hebron; Jeious and Qalqilya in Qalqilya; Beit Led in Tulkarm; ‘Aboud and Deir Abu Mesha’al in Ramallah. No arrests were reported.

Friday, 11 October 2019:

  • At approximately 01:30, Israeli occupation forces moved into Balata refugee camp, east of Nablus. They raided and searched a house belonging to Mohammed Samir Hasan Hashash (22) and then arrested him.
  • At approximately 03:00, Israeli occupation forces, reinforced by heavy military vehicles, moved into Bani Na’em village, north of Hebron. They raided and searched a house belonging to Mahmoud Mohammed al-Khadour, and then handed his two sons; Mohammed (24) and Khalil (27) summonses to refer to the Israeli Intelligence service in “Ghosh ‘Etzion”, south of Bethlehem.
  • At approximately 05:15, Israeli occupation forces, reinforced by heavy military vehicles, moved into al-Bira village and stationed in Sateh Marhaba neighborhood. They raided and searched head office of UHWC in Sateh Marhaba neighborhood, and fired teargas canisters. Ali Ahmed Mahmoud Abdulrahman, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of UHWC said to PCHR’s fieldworker: “At approximately 07:00, I was at my house in Abi Ghoush village in Jerusalem; I received a phone call telling me that the Israeli occupation forces broke the doors and stormed UHWC head office in Sateh Marhaba. I immediately headed there and saw the two main doors were forcibly opened; they ransacked the office, disabled the phone lines and the elevator, ruined two drugs refrigerators and threw the drugs on the ground. The neighbors told me that the Israeli soldiers packed by 17 military machines stormed the head office and fired teargas canisters at approximately 05:15, and left at 06:00. Finally, there’s no justification to storm such charitable organization which does not pose any threat or danger, and its objectives are clear for serving citizens”.
  • At approximately 05:30, Israeli forces moved into Ramallah, and stationed in al-Irsal neighborhood, they raided and searched a house belonging to Hadi al-Tarsha (20) and then arrested him. Around the same time, another Israeli occupation force moved into al-Teera neighborhood, they raided and searched a house belonging to Mais Waleed Hanatsha (20) and then arrested her. It should be noted that Hadi and Mais are students at Birzeit University, and Mais’s father is a prisoner in the Israeli jails since 03 October 2019.
  • At approximately 11:00, Israeli occupation forces stationed in the Council Gate (Bab al-Majlis), in the occupied East Jerusalem’s old city, arrested Mohammed Musbah Abu Sbaih (17) while coming out from al-Aqsa Mosque and took him to “al-Qishla” investigation center in the old city of Jerusalem. A few hours later, he was released, provided that banned his entry to al-Aqsa Mosque for 15 days.
  • At approximately 15:00, Israeli occupation forces stationed on Beit Foriq checkpoint at the northeast entry to Nablus arrested Mohammed Ahmed Hanani (16) and ‘Aref Nazeer Hanani (15), from Beit Foriq. They arrested and took them to an unknown destination. On the morning of the next day, ‘Aref was released while they kept Mohammed arrested.
  • At approximately 18:30, Israeli occupation forces moved into Qalqilya. They raided and searched two houses belonging to Mahmoud Mostafa Zaid (23) and Mahmoud Yoused Zaid (18), and then arrested them.
  • Israeli occupation forces carried out (9) incursions in Hebron, al-Samou’, and Beit Umor villages in Hebron; Kafr Zibad, Deir al-Qhusoun, Anabata, Anteel, and Tulkarm in Tulkarm. No arrests were reported.

Saturday, 12 October 2019:

  • Israeli occupation forces carried out (2) incursions in the northern Dora village and al-Fawwar refugee camp in Hebron. No arrests were reported.

Sunday, 13 October 2019:

  • At approximately 01:00, Israeli occupation forces moved into al-Issaweya village, northeast of occupied East Jerusalem. They raided and searched several houses and arrested (11) civilians including a child namely: Mo’tasim Hamza Obaid (16); Mohammed Ibrahim Darweesh (26); Khaled Mousa Mostafa (21); Adam Shafeeq Obaid (19); Mohammed Marwan Obaid (19); Khaled Waleed Obaid (22); Deya’ Ayman Obaid (23); Hatem Hasan Zumorod (19); Nadeem Mostafa al-Safadi (19); Mohammed Mousa Hamdan (19); and Firas Akram Zagheir (24).
  • At approximately 01:30, Israeli occupation forces, reinforced by heavy military vehicles, moved into Bani Na’em village, north of Hebron. They raided and searched a house belonging to Yehya Ali Mousa Manasra (45) and then arrested him and his daughter Maryam (21), and took them to an unknown destination.
  • At approximately 03:30, Israeli occupation forces, reinforced by heavy military vehicles, moved into Dora, southwest of Hebron. They raided and searched a house belonging to Bassam Hamad al-Zeer (54), and no arrests were reported.
  • At approximately 02:00, Israeli occupation forces moved into Anabta village, north of Tulkarm. They raided and searched two houses belonging to Zaher ‘Amer abdulkarim Barakat (27) and Yazan Tyseer Sobhi Abduldayem (21), and then arrested them.
  • Israeli occupation forces carried out (3) incursions in Deir Samit village, al-Fawwar refugee camp, and Dora village in Hebron. No arrests were reported.

Monday, 14 October 2019:

  • At approximately 03:00, Israeli occupation forces moved into Salwan village, south of occupied East Jerusalem’s old city. They raided and searched a house belonging to Adnan Tawfeq Ghaith (45), the governor of Jerusalem. And then they arrested him and took him to “al-Maskoubeya” investigation center. Lawyer Rami Othman said that Adnan Ghaith was arrested at dawn on charge of working with the Palestinian Authority (PA) inside Jerusalem, and he was released in the evening of the same day on bail of 5.000 NIS.
  • At approximately 04:00, Israeli occupying forces moved into Beit Hanina, north of occupying East Jerusalem’s old city. They raided and searched a house belonging to Shady Abdullah al-Mtour (42), the secretary of Fateh Movement in Jerusalem, and then he was arrested and taken to “al-Maskoubeya” investigation center. It should be mentioned that al-Mtour was accused on charge of working with the Palestinian Authority (PA) inside Jerusalem, and he was released at approximately 23:00 of the same day on bail of 5,000 NIS.
  • At approximately 21:30, Israeli occupation forces moved into al-Issaweya village, northeast of occupied East Jerusalem, and stationed around al-Arba’een Mosque in the center of the village, and then arrested Nasrallah Ibrahim Mhmoud (17) and Munir Darbas (23).
  • Israeli occupation forces carried out (4) incursions in Beit Umor, Surif, Karma, Beit Oula villages in Hebron. No arrests were reported.

Tuesday, 15 October 2019:

  • At approximately 02:00, Israeli occupation forces, reinforced by heavy military vehicles, moved into Beit Umor, north of Hebron and stationed in al-Shaikh neighborhood. They raided and searched a house belonging to Ali Mohammed Ali al-Allami (38) and took him to an unknown destination. It should be noted that the Israeli Construction and Organization Department demolished the abovementioned house two weeks ago, claiming that the building is non-licensed.
  • Around the same time, Israeli occupying forces moved into Deir Abu Misha’al, northwest of Ramallah. They raided and searched a house belonging to Mohammed Ali Zahran (20) and then arrested him.
  • At approximately 04:00, Israeli occupation forces moved into al-Sa’deya neighborhood, one of the Jerusalem’s old city neighborhoods. They raided and searched a house belonging to Rawhi Mahmoud al-Kalghasi (22) and then arrested him.
  • Israeli occupation forces carried out (2) incursions in Sa’eer and al-Shoyoukh villages in Hebron. No arrests were reported.

Wednesday, 16 October 2019:                   

  • At approximately 01:00, Israeli occupation forces moved into Bal’a village, north of Tulkarm. They raided and searched a house belonging to Ibrahim Abdul Qader Salama searching for weapons. The soldiers handcuffed Salama, and blindfolded him and then detained him in the military vehicle. They also stole NIS 10,000 from the house without giving the family a confiscation notice. Salama said to PCHR’s fieldworker:

“At approximately 01:00 on Wednesday, 16 October 2019, we heard sound of knocking on the door while we were sleeping. When I got up from the bed, I was startled with Israeli soldiers in front of me as they opened the door with a special tool. They raided the house, entered all room, and detained my wife and children in a room and me in another room. They then handed cuffed me and blindfolded my eyes and took me to the military vehicles outside the house. When the soldiers finished searching the house at approximately 03:30, they brought me back to the room and kept me hand cuffed and blindfolded. We found out that the soldiers stole about NIS 10,000, which belongs to my job as I own a Shawarma Restaurant and it is not strange that I have that amount of money on a daily basis.”

  • At approximately 01:30, Israeli occupation forces moved into Qalqiliyah. They raided and searched 3 houses belonging to Wesam Bilal Duweiri (27), Wasfi Mohammed Dawoud (56), Hasan Ibrahim Melhem (46) and then arrested them.
  • At the same time, Israeli occupation forces backed by several military vehicles moved into Beit Ummer village, north of Hebron and stationed in al-Bayadah area. They raided and searched 3 houses and then arrested Montaser Abdul Hamid Moheisen (26), Ward Ibrahim Yusuf ‘Awad (19) and ‘Ala’a Mahmoud al-‘Awawdah (26).
  • At approximately 02:00, Israeli occupation forces moved into Abu dese village, east of occupied East Jerusalem. They raided and searched a house belonging to Yusuf Ahmed ‘Ariqat (20) and then arrested him.
  • At the same time, an Israeli occupation forces backed by several military vehicles moved into Bani Na’im village, east of Hebron. They raided and searched a house belonging to Ayoub Mohammed Rashid Tarairah (29) and the arrested him.
  • At approximately 02:15, Israeli occupation forces moved into Balata refugee camp, east of Nablus. They raided and searched a house belonging to Omer Salamah Hashash (20) and then arrested him.
  • At approximately 02:30, Israeli occupation forces moved into Betunia village, west of Ramallah. They raided and searched a number of houses and the arrested Tha’er Mohammed ‘Ali Bader (43), his brother Ashraf (39) and Tamer (30).
  • At approximately 03:30, an Israeli occupation force backed by several military vehicles moved into Dura, southwest of Hebron and stationed in Rajm Abu Hilal area. They raided and searched 2 houses after which they arrested Saddam Husein Masharqa (28), Hamzah Nader ‘Azmi Abu Hleil (28).
  • At approximately 13:30, Israeli occupation forces moved into al-‘Issawiyah village, northeast of occupied East Jerusalem. They raided and searched several houses after which they arrested 7 civilians namely: Mohammed Mousa Mustafa (20), Mohammed Zakaria ‘Eliyan (19), Yazan Zakaria ‘Eliyan (22), Ahmed Khalid Abu Shamala (21), Younis Mohammed Abu al-Humus (23), Abdul Qader Mahmoud Abu Saimah (19) and Qasem Monir Derbas (20).
  • At approximately 08:20, Israeli occupation forces backed by a number of military construction vehicles moved about 100 meters into the south of the border fence, northeast of Jabalia in northern Gaza Strip. The vehicles leveled lands that were previously leveled along with sporadic shooting at the area. At approximately 11:00 on the same day, Israeli occupation forces withdrew from the area; no casualties were reported.
  • At approximately 12:00, Israeli forces stationed at Qalandiya military checkpoint, north of occupied East Jerusalem, arrested Ismail Amin Nawahdah (71), al-Aqsa Mosque Khatib, and took him to al-Mascubiyah detention center for investigation.

Lawyer Khaldoun Najem said that Israeli Intelligence Services released Sheikh Nawahdah at approximately 18:00 on the same day, on condition to deny him access to al-Aqsa Mosque for 11 days after investigation with him about last Friday’s speech in al-Aqsa Mosque. Israeli authorities claimed that Nawahdah incites people against them. Sheikh Nawahda stressed through investigation with him that all laws ensured the freedom of expression. Nawahdah also denied that the Friday speech was inciteful. Lawyer Najem was concerned that by arresting, Sheikh Nawahdah, Israeli occupation forces might intend to intervene in Friday’s speeches in al-Aqsa Mosque. Najem also pointed out that Israeli occupation forces adopt escalating policy towards the condition in Jerusalem, including their attempt to intervene in Friday prayer’s speeches, which is un acceptable.

  • Israeli occupation forces carried out (3) incursions in Qabatiya village, southeast of Jenin; Tal village, west of Nablus; Beit Furik village, north of Nablus. No arrests were reported.

Collective Punishment:

  • At approximately 05:00 on Friday, 11 October 2019, an Israeli force backed by several military vehicles accompanied by a vehicle of the engineering unit, moved into Birzeit village, north of Ramallah. They raided and searched a house of prisoner Yazan Husein Maghames (25), which is comprised of one floor. The soldiers detained the family members in the house’s balcony, searched the house contents and then took its measurements and made holes in the walls to demolish the house. The soldiers verbally informed the family that they will demolish the house. Maghames was arrested on 11 September 2019, by Israeli soldiers, who arrested him from his house and took him to “Ofer” prison where he was interrogated in al-Mascubiyah detention centre in Jerusalem. Maghames was charged with participation in the attack at Ein Bubin near Deir Bzai’a village, west of Ramallah on 23 August 2019, which caused the killing of Israeli female settler and injuring her father and brother.

This decision is part of the collective punishment policy adopted by the Israeli forces against families  of Palestinian individuals accused of carrying out attacks against Israeli forces and/or settlers.

Settlement Expansion and settler violence in the West Bank including occupied East Jerusalem

Demolition and Confiscation of Civilian Property for Settlement Expansion Activities

  • At approximately 01:00 on Thursday, 10 October 2019, Israeli forces backed by military construction vehicles and accompanied with a vehicle of the Israeli Civil Administration, an excavator and a bulldozer moved into Sha’b al-Haratheen area in southern Hebron. The military construction vehicles demolished two 20-sqaure-meter houses built of tin plates and sheds, under the pretext of non-licensing. The demolished houses belong to Jameel Mahmoud al-Ka’abnah (55) and his son Mahmoud (24). A solar panel was confiscated as well.
  • At approximately 11:00, Israeli forces demolished 2 houses; one of them was under-construction, in Kisan village, east of Bethlehem, under the pretext of non-licensing. Head of Kisan village council, Sadam ‘Abiyaat, said that Israeli forces moved into the village and demolished Ayman Ya’qoub Ghazal’s 150 square-meter house, which sheltered 4 people. The Israeli forces also demolished another 120-sqaure-meter under-construction house belonging to Sadam’s brother, Amjad. ‘Abiyaat added that the Israeli authorities moved into the village 20 days ago and notified the two siblings to demolish their houses. He pointed out that clashes erupted between the village’s residents and Israeli forces, who fired tear gas canisters and sound bombs at them during the demolition.
  • At approximately, 09:00 on the same day, Israeli forces moved into Wadi al-Makhrour area, west of Beit Jala, and raided a demolished restaurant belonging to Ramzi Qisiyah. It should be noted that the Israeli forces demolished the restaurant few weeks ago and confiscated its contents. They then returned and demolished the restaurant’s floor. Wadi al-Makhrour lands were lately attacked by the Israeli forces and settlers. Moreover, Israeli settlers set up a mobile house in the center of the area. All these attacks aim at building a settlement outpost in the center of Wadi al-Makhrour area.
  • At approximately 10:00 on Tuesday, 15 October 2019, Mohamed al-Atrash self-demolished 2 under-construction floors of his building in Wadi al-Humus neighborhood in Surbaher village, south of occupied East Jerusalem. The Israeli Supreme Court issued the demolition decision under the pretext that the building overlooked a security street established on the village’s lands. Hamada Hamada, Head of the Defense Committee of Wadi al-Humus Lands, said that the building is located in an area classified as Area A, according to Oslo Agreement, and its owner obtained a license from the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). However, the Israeli military governor issued a demolition decision against the building, under the pretext that it is located near a security street. He pointed out that the Israeli Supreme Court did not approve the demolition decision. Hamada added that al-Atrash self-demolished parts of his building, comprising of 4 floors built on an area of 400 square meters. Al-Atrash clarified that he was forced to implement the demotion for fear of damaging the other floors.

It should be noted that on 22 July 2019, the Israeli authorities demolished 10 residential buildings, comprising of 72 apartments; 3 of them were inhabited while the others were under-construction, in Wadi al-Humus neighborhood. They also blow-up 4 floors of Mohamed Idrees Abu Tair’s 7-floor building, under the pretext of overlooking a security street. The Israeli authorities claimed that the construction in Wadi al-Humus neighborhood obstructs the Israeli security officers’ work. Moreover, the Israeli forces refused residents’ proposed alternatives to the Israeli court, such as removing the fence and turning it into a wall or using advanced technology to prevent sneaking incidents. It is noteworthy that the Palestinian citizens in Jerusalem are living a real construction crisis, as they could not meet the complex procedures required by the Israel Municipality, in exchange for granting them construction permits. These procedures take years and cost tens of thousands of dollars.  The municipality deliberately obstructs Palestinians’ construction efforts in order to expand the Israeli neighborhoods by allocating large amounts of money to build them and create “Greater Jerusalem”.

Israeli Settler Violence

  • At approximately 16:30 on Friday, 11 October 2019, a group of Israeli settlers, who were present in Zohar hill near Jenasafout village, on Nablus-Qalqiliyia Road, threw stones at a taxi driven by Jehad Mostafa ‘Ali Ramadan (47), from Tal village, southwest of Nablus. As a result, the vehicle’s windshield was broken.
  • At approximately 01:30 on Sunday, 13 October 2019, a group of Israeli settlers moved into Merda village, north of Salfit, where they punctured the tires of 6 vehicles and wrote slogans against Arabs on them. They also wrote slogans on the walls of 2 houses. Head of Merda village council, Bassam Ebdah, said that a group of Israeli settlers moved into the village from the eastern side, through the Bypass road. They then attacked Palestinian civilians’ houses and vehicles, noting that the village residents did not woke up, but they later saw them via surveillance camera recordings. The recordings showed that the settlers were masked and carrying bags on their backs. The affected vehicles belong to: Shawqi ‘Emad Abu Baker, Mohamed ‘Aref Ebdah and Monther Ahmed Mohamed Ebdah. The settler wrote slogans on the walls of Zahi and Zohdi Rashid Masour’s houses.
  • At approximately 10:00, a group of Israeli settlers severely beat Fadel Ahmed Hamdan (68) while harvesting olive trees in al-Walaja village, southwest of Bethlehem. He was then taken to al-Hussain Hospital in Beit Jala to receive treatment. Fadel’s son, Wesam, said to PCHR’s fieldworker that his father was harvesting olive trees from his plot of land in “Biet ‘Ail” settlement; meanwhile, 10 Israeli settlers brutally beat him with sticks. As a result, his father’s hand was fractured while his head was wounded. He was then taken to al-Hussain Hospital for treatment.  It should be noted this was not the first time that the settlers attack the village’s farmers while harvesting olive trees. The Israel authorities annually gave the residents permits allowing them to access their lands for harvesting olive trees, but this year the famers did not get permission, so they were forced to harvest the trees for fear of stealing the crop by the settlers or damaging it due to bad weather.
  • At approximately 11:00 on Monday, 14 October 2019, at least hundreds of Israeli settlers raided al-Aqsa Mosque’s yards in occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City, from al-Maghareba Gate, under the tight Israeli forces’ protection. This coincided with arresting 5 Palestinian worshipers from the mosque’s yards and transferring them to investigation centers. Eyewitnesses said that the Israeli police issued in the morning a decision to evacuate Bab al-Rahma Mosque, coinciding with storming the mosque’s yards by settlers and intelligence officers. Furthermore, Israeli police arrested 5 Palestinian civilians, who came from Israel to perform prayers, and later released them.
  • At approximately 10:00 on Tuesday, 15 October 2019, hundreds of Israeli settlers raided al-Aqsa Mosque from al-magharebah Gate, under the tight Israeli forces’ protection, on the Jewish Sukkot Holiday. The Islamic Endowment (Awqaf) Department stated that at least 400 Israeli settlers raided al-Aqsa Mosque and wandered in its yards, under tight Israeli forces and intelligence officers’ protection. The department clarified that the settlers performed prayers in the mosque while Israeli police imposed tight restrictions on Palestinians’ entering to the mosque, checked their IDs and detained some of them. Furthermore, Israeli police arrested Belal Mohamed ‘Ali (43), while present near al-Rahma Mosque in eastern al-Aqsa Mosque and took him to an investigation center.
  • On the same day morning, the Israeli Municipality opened ‘Ain Haninah site, west of al-Walaja village, west of Bethlehem, to Israeli settlers and prevented Palestinians ‘entering. Haaretz Newspaper pointed out that the site was opened amid tight security measures by Israeli police officers and border guard officers, who closed a road leading to Palestinian villages.
  • At approximately 04:25 on Wednesday, 16 October 2019, a group of Israeli settlers moved into Dir ‘Ammar village, northwest of Ramallah, where they punctured the tires of 5 vehicles and wrote slogans on them, in addition to writing slogans against Arabs on the village’s walls. Head of the Dir ‘Ammar village council, Hasan Rushdi, said that the attack occurred in “al-Maghshi” area, near “Talmoun” settlement and that was the first time that the settlers attacked the residents’ properties. The affected vehicles belong to: Yaser Felfel ‘Awda, Thair Felfel ‘Awda, Khaled Abu ‘Arifah, Isma’il al-Ja’ouni, and ‘Abed al-Elah ‘Awda.
  • At approximately 11:30 on Wednesday, 16 October 2019, at least 20 Israeli settlers, from “Yatizhar” settlement, moved into the south-eastern of Nablus, where they attacked an international solidarity group comprising of 15 members with stones and sticks. The international solidarity group was helping Palestinian farmers in harvesting olive trees. As a result, 2 of them sustained wounds. The settlers also set fire to the area, burning dozens of dunums planted with olive trees. The wounded were identified as:
  1. Izaik Jasmin Histoun (32), from Chicago, who sustained wounds in his head.
  2. Jim Kohen (71), from United Kingdom, who sustained wounds in his right hand, back and leg.
  • At approximately 13:00 on the same day, hundreds of Israeli settlers raided al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City, on the 3rd day of Israeli Sukkot Holidays. In addition, Israeli forces arrested 3 Palestinian women while present near al-Selselah Gate and beat them. The Islamic Endowment (Awqaf) Department stated that at least 900 Israeli settlers raided al-Aqsa Mosque in the morning while over 200 other settlers raided it in afternoon via al-Magharebah Gate, under the tight Israeli forces and police officers’ protection. Among those raided the mosque were the Israeli Minister of Agriculture, Uri Ariel, and dozens of extremist settlers. The settlers performed prayers in the mosque yards and at its gates, especially near al-Selselah Gate. The settlers attempted to attack and cursed journalists and Palestinians banned from entering the mosque. The Israeli forces arrested 3 Palestinian women identified as Madleen Mohamed ‘Issa (27), Hanadi Mohamed Saleh al-Helwani (38), ‘Aydah al-Sidawi (59), noting that all of them were banned from entering the mosque for 4-6 months.

Closure policy and restrictions on freedom of movement of persons and goods

West Bank

In addition to permanent checkpoints and closed roads, this week witnessed the establishment of more temporary checkpoints that restrict the goods and individuals movement between villages and cities and deny civilians’ access to their work. Israeli forces established 49 temporary checkpoints and arrested 2 civilians.

The military checkpoint were as follows:

Ramallah:

  • On Thursday, 10 October 2019, Israeli forces established 2 checkpoints at the entrances to al-Nabi Saleh and Dir Abu Mish’al villages. They stopped Palestinains’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs.
  • On Friday, 11 October 2019, Israeli forces established 2 checkpoints at the entrance to al-Nabi Saleh village and in ‘Ain Sinah square. They stopped Palestinains’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs.
  • On Saturday, 12 October 2019, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the entrance to al-Jalazoun refugee camp. They stopped Palestinains’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs.
  • On Sunday, 13 October 2019, Israeli forces established 3 checkpoints at the entrance to Biet ‘Ur al-Foqah village, at the intersection of al-Taiba village, and in “Hemlish” settlement square near al-Nabi Saleh village.They stopped Palestinains’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs.

On Monday, 14 October 2019, Israeli forces established 4 checkpoints at the entrances to ‘Ain Yabroud, ‘Ain Sinah and Sinjel villages, at the main intersections of city (al-Nabi Saleh- ‘Aboud- Dir Abu Mish’al- Beit Rima). They stopped Palestinains’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs.

  • On Tuesday, 15 October 2019, Israeli forces established 2 checkpoint in “Hemlish” settlement square near al-Nabi Saleh village, and at the intersection of al-Jeftlik village, north of Jericho. They stopped Palestinains’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs.
  • On Wednesday, 16 October 2019, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the entrance to Dir Baziegh village, west of Ramallah.They stopped Palestinains’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs.

Jericho:

  • On Thursday, 10 October 2019, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the northern entrance to Jericho. They stopped Palestinains’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs. No arrests among them were reported.
  • On Friday, 11 October 2019, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the northern entrance to Jericho. They stopped Palestinains’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs. No arrests among them were reported.
  • On Tuesday, 15 October 2019, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the northern entrance to Jericho. They stopped Palestinains’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs. No arrests among them were reported.
  • On Wedneday, 16 October 2019, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the intersection of al-Jeftlik village, north of Jericho. They stopped Palestinains’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs. No arrests among them were reported.

Hebron:

  • On Thursday, 10 October 2019, Israeli forces established 4 checkpoints at the entrances to Samou’a, bani Na’iem, al-Moreq, and Ethna villages. They stopped Palestinains’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs, No arrests among them were reported.
  • On Friday, 11 October 2019, Israeli forces established 2 checkpoints at the entrance to al-Dahiriyia village and at the southern entrance to Hebron.
  • On Saturday, 12 October 2019, Israeli forces established 4 checkpoints at the entrances to al-Shayyoukh, Sureef and Beit Ummer villages, and on Abu Risha Road.
  • On Sunday, 13 October 2019, Israeli forces established 4 checkpoints at the southern entrance to Halhoul, at the entrance to Yatta, at the southern entrance to Hebron, and at the entrance to Beit Kahel village.
  • On Monday, 14 October 2019, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the southern entrance to Halhoul and no arrests among Palestinians were reported.
  • On Tuesday, 15 October 2019, Israeli forces established 4 checkpoints at the entrances to al-Fawar and al-‘Aroub refugee camps, and at the entrances to Samou’a and Beit Ummer villages.
  • On Wednesday, 16 October 2019, Israeli forces established 3 checkpoints at the northern entrance to Halhoul village, at the southern entrance to Hebron, and at the entrance to Yatta village.

Jenin:

  • At approximately 13:00 on Tuesday, 15 October 2019, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the intersection of the American University, southeast of Jenin. They stopped Palestinians’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs; No arrests among them were reported.

Nablus:

  • At approximately 13:30 on Thursday, 10 October 2019, Israeli forces established a checkpoint on Road (17), on ‘Asirah-Nablus Road. They stopped Palestinains’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs, No arrests among them were reported.
  • At approximately 16:30 on Friday, 11 October 2019, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at al-Tota intersection northwest of Nablus.
  • At approximately 10:30 on Tuesday, 15 October 2019, Israeli forces established a checkpoint on Nablus New Road, south of Nablus, at the southern entrance to the city. They stopped Palestinians’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs, No arrests among them were reported.

Qalqiliyia:

  • At approximately 13:45 on Friday, 11 October 2019, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the entrance to ‘Azoun village, east of Qalqiliyia. They searched Palestinians’’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs. The checkpoint was later removed.
  • At approximately 20:0 on Saturday, 12 October 2019, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the entrance to ‘Azoun village, east of Qalqiliyia. They searched Palestinains’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs. The checkpoint was later removed.
  • At approximately 21:45 on Saturday, 12 October 2019, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the intersection of Amateen village, north of Qalqiliyia. They searched Palestinains’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs. The checkpoint was later removed.
  • At approximately 18:00 on Sunday, 13 October 2019, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the entrance to Qalqiliyia. They searched Palestinains’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs. They then arrested Riyad ‘Ali al-Taneeb (27), from Qalqiliyia.
  • At approximately 17:20 on Sunday, 13 October 2019, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the entrance to Izbit al-Tabeeb village, east of Qalqiliyia. They searched Palestinians’’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs. The checkpoint was later removed.

Salfit:

  • At approximately 19:30 on Friday, 11 October 2019, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the entrance to Hares village, north of Salfit. They searched Palestinians’’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs. The checkpoint was later removed.
  • At approximately 20:00, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the entrance to Kaful Hares village, north of Salfit. They searched Palestinians’’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs. The checkpoint was later removed.

*

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: Israeli soldier aim at Palestinians protesting confiscation of their land by Jewish settlements in Kufr Qadoom vsillage near the West Bank city of Nablus, Oct. 11, 2019. (Photo by Nidal Eshtayeh/Xinhua)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Detailed Report on Israeli Human Rights Violations
  • Tags: ,

The 737 Max 8 Jet: Why Haven’t Boeing’s Executives Been Arrested?

October 21st, 2019 by Bryan Dyne

A leaked conversation between two Boeing employees provides further evidence that even though the aerospace giant was well aware of potentially catastrophic problems of the Boeing 737 Max 8 jet, it still decided to introduce the aircraft for commercial flights. Within two years of executives making the decision to put it into service, the deadly aircraft crashed twice—first in October 2018 and then in March of this year—killing 346 men, women and children.

So why aren’t any of Boeing’s executives facing criminal charges?

The exchange between Boeing pilot Mark Forkner and his colleague Patrick Gustavsson, first published by Reuters, again reveals that the company subordinates passenger safety to the drive for profit. With only six months to go before the release of the aircraft, Forkner noted “fundamental issues” with the Max 8 that other Boeing officials “claim they’re aware of.” He specifically mentioned that “MCAS” was “running rampant in the [simulator]” and that “the plane [was] trimming like crazy.”

These comments by two Boeing employees dovetail with black box recordings and other data collected on the two crashes, Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, which show that a previously unknown system, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), forced the planes into an unrecoverable nosedive. The system was ostensibly installed so that pilots of previous Boeing 737s would require next to no training on the new aircraft, a major selling point the company used to push its plane onto customers over European rival Airbus’s A320neo aircraft.

The real reason MCAS was developed, however, was to correct for a tendency of the Max 8 to stall. In order to shorten development time for the aircraft, Boeing essentially welded on new engines to a half-century old airframe, which meant the jet constantly had a slight pitch up. Instead of designing a new body for the engines, company executives determined it would be much quicker and cheaper to apply a software fix to faulty hardware.

Moreover, Boeing did everything it could to hide this development from regulators. Forkner, who at the time was a technical pilot for the company, told Gustavsson “I basically lied to the regulators (unknowingly)” because neither he nor his coworker had been informed of how much control MCAS could assume over an aircraft. Despite this incident, which was likely one among many, Boeing not only hid the dangers of the system from aviation safety officials, it kept the software out of Max 8 flight manuals. Even after the Lion Air crash, many pilots in the US and internationally were unaware of MCAS and the potential dangers it posed.

There is no innocent explanation for these omissions. They indicate reckless and criminally negligent behavior on the part of Boeing executives to rush into service a flying deathtrap in order to gain market share over its corporate rivals.

That none of them have been prosecuted, much less arrested, speaks to the incestuous relationship between airline companies and the US government. Ali Bahrami, one of the heads of the aerospace industry’s lobbying group, was one of the leading members of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) during the initial development of the Max 8. FAA Acting Administrator during both crashes was Dan Elwell, a former American Airlines executive. Stephen Dickson, the new head of the agency, was a Senior Vice President at Delta.

It also indicts Boeing’s Wall Street investors, which see lives lost only as the cost of doing business. This includes The Vanguard Group, T. Rowe Price Associates, the Newport Trust Co., SSGA Funds Management and Blackrock Fund Advisors, among others. They collectively control 27.9 percent of Boeing’s stock, valued at $59.4 billion, which is more than twice what it was when Boeing first introduced the Max 8.

Boeing’s executives themselves also made a tidy sum. During the meteoric rise of the company’s stock in January and February, Chief Financial Officer Gregory Smith, Executive Vice President John Keating, General Counsel Michael Luttig and Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenberg all sold shares worth $9.5 million, $10.1 million, $9.5 million and $6.5 million, respectively. That the second Max 8 crash occurred within a month of these and other similar windfalls raises questions about what else corporate executives knew.

The relationship between Boeing, its executives and its Wall Street investors, however, is only a symptom of the logic produced by the deregulation of the airline industry as a whole, an effort spearheaded by the Democratic administration of Jimmy Carter in 1978. Aided and abetted by Professor Alfred Kahn and liberal icon Senator Edward Kennedy, Carter pushed through the Airline Deregulation Act, which smashed the existing setup that treated interstate airlines as a regulated public utility, setting routes, schedules and fares.

At the same time, Carter drew up plans to smash the air traffic controllers’ union, PATCO, which were carried out in 1981 by his Republican successor Ronald Reagan—with the support of a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. This began an assault on airline workers and all sections of the working class, made possible by the treachery and complicity of the trade unions, which accelerated the growth of financial speculation and parasitism which has dismantled much of the country’s industry.

The basis for this is the ongoing counterrevolution being carried out by the ruling elite against the social position and living standards of the working class as wealth is concentrated ever more tightly in the top 1 percent and .1 percent of society. These same processes led the utility company PG&E to plunge millions into darkness two weeks ago without warning. The company, which has been implicated in the deaths of 85 people in last year’s Camp Fire, has stated that random blackouts will likely be the new normal for working-class Californians for at least a decade.

The Boeing 737 Max 8 disasters are the outcome of the capitalist ownership of the airline industry and the financial system. They point to the inherent incompatibility between the basic interests of the working class and the private ownership of essential industries, as well as the division of the world’s economy into rival nations. These catastrophes were driven by both the greed of Boeing executives and big investors and the intensifying trade conflict between the United States and Europe.

The only way forward is the opposite, the transformation of the airlines and other major corporations and banks into publicly owned utilities under the democratic control of the working class. This will be a key part of a political fight against the corporate-financial oligarchy and both of its parties, as part of the establishment of a planned economy based on social need, not private profit.

*

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 The 737 Max 8 Jet: Why Haven’t Boeing’s Executives Been Arrested?
  • Tags: ,

Recipe for Disaster and The U.S. Military Industrial Empire

October 21st, 2019 by Philip A Farruggio

I tune into many cooking shows lately. They all have lots of recipes for just about any kind of dish one can imagine. Well, from our 21st Century Military Industrial Empire’s Cookbook the most popular recipe is this one: Take the Two Party/One Party food fight and add a large portion of Mainstream Media Bu**hit. Wallah, you will have the finest disaster dish around. With all the many terrible actions by this administration to subjugate we working stiffs, the apologists for empire refuse to mention them and instead focus on constitutional technicalities.Tune in the boob tube and view the Pro Impeachment vs. No impeachment rhetoric concerning this possibly Adhdd (Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) president.

Symptoms of inattention

  • Often makes careless mistakes and lacks attention to details
    Examples: overlooking or missing details or handing in work that is inaccurate
  • Often has difficulty paying attention to tasks
    Example: difficulty remaining focused during lectures, conversations, or lengthy readings
  • Often seems to not listen when spoken to directly
    Example: mind seems elsewhere, even in the absence of obvious distraction
  • Often fails to follow through on instructions, chores, or duties in the workplace
    Example: starts tasks but quickly loses focus and is easily sidetracked
  • Often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities
    Examples: messy, disorganized work; poor time management; fails to meet deadlines
  • Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to participate in tasks requiring sustained mental effort, like preparing reports, completing forms, or reviewing lengthy papers
  • Often loses things like tools, wallets, keys, paperwork, eyeglasses, and mobile phones
  • Often easily distracted by other things, including unrelated thoughts
  • Often forgetful in daily activities, such as running errands, returning calls, paying bills, and keeping appointments

You don’t need a degree in psychiatry to notice how Mr. Trump displays many, if not all, of these symptoms. The fact that he continuously repeats a phrase two times is an indication. Yet, his ‘ condition’ is only one part of the complex problem that this Military Industrial Empire has created.

Viewing last week’s (supposed) Democratic Party presidential debate made this writer contemplate throwing my shoe at the television screen. One solitary aspirant on that stage, Ms. Gabbard, had the audacity to mention ‘Wars of regime change’ that are synonymous with longstanding US foreign policy… under ALL our previous presidents. The others on that stage, all of them, like ‘deer caught in the headlights’, just brushed her remarks aside, like an elephant does to a fly on its ass. They were too concerned with ‘helping the Kurds from being massacred by the Turks in Syria’. After all, the Kurdish forces were wiping out ISIS from that part of Syria, and Trump gave a ‘green light’ to Turkey by pulling US forces out. And that was and IS the new rhetoric, right? Well, not really. You see, if the Bush/Cheney gang did not attack and occupy Iraq an Afghanistan, and the Obama/Hillary gang did not attack and destroy Libya… there would be NO ISIS or whatever group of Islamic fanatics assembled in that region, including Syria. By the way, US foreign policy aided and abetted those fanatics so as to see ‘Regime change’ come to Syria, a cog in the geopolitical landscape of that Middle East region. Translated: What Ms. Gabbard was stating by her assertions, is that the Two Party/One Party representatives of this empire ALL have dirty hands in this mess! Mr. Trump is just the latest of many minions of empire!

The Two Party/One Party scam continues so long as the hundreds of millions of working stiffs keep buying into what they are selling. The Republicans always take the lead in protecting the interests of the Super rich. All Trump did was sell his phony populist Kool Aid to the millions of working stiffs by scapegoating the non white poor, playing the terrorist fear card, blessing our militarism… and of course catering to the evangelical anti abortionists. With all the skeletons he has in his closet, if the Democrats ran Donald Duck instead of Mrs. Clinton, with ALL her skeletons, they would have won the White House. Not to be Not to be. The empire needs to keep the suckers ‘deaf and dumb’ to what it has always been doing: Support the Super Rich and the obscene militarism that protects them. Why is it that, during ALL the Democratic Party’s (so-called) debates, no mention of the fact that over HALF our federal tax dollars goes down the rabbit hole of military spending? You want what now many running for president are trumpeting, Medicare for All (of course, all but perhaps Sanders are still embedded with keeping private insurance active in it)? Well, cut even but 25% of that money, which would be at least $ 180 billion a year, and you can have comprehensive national health care for all of us. without the private insurers being involved!

Of course, if we want to see real and viable change within our political system, then take ALL the private money OUT of elections by instituting Public funding. Then, the Two Party/One Party scam would end… for good!

*

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].

India Is Confused; Where Does It Go from Here?

October 21st, 2019 by Andre Vltchek

At J. Nehru University, most students know about China and Russia only from the BBC, Reuters and other Western media outlets. Even those individuals who claim they belong to the left are not immune; influenced mainly by the British propaganda.

It has been like this for years: usual confusion, all around India: tough nationalistic, even chauvinistic rhetoric, mixed with almost religious economic submission to the West, and often, to Western geo-political interests.

During the last few years, nationalism, as well as Hindu religious dogmatism have been gaining ground, while capitalism, often in its most vulgar and grotesque form, has been turned into a worshipped and bulletproof demagogy.

Gone are the days of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi. Now, there is no flirtation with socialism, anymore, and no attempt to create a country that would serve all of its citizens.

Like in Thailand, which is now the country with the most unequally distributed income on earth, Indian elites are thriving on their exceptionalism, on being separated from the poor majority by entire galaxies.

Here, Bentley and Jaguar showrooms rub shoulders with terrible, impenetrable slums. Expensive private hospitals are shamelessly seducing foreigners into “cheap” medical tourism, while the local poor are dying in pain and misery, often with no help at all.

*

For many years, I have been writing about this country, from Kerala and Tamil Nadu to the oppressed Northeast and Kashmir. I have encountered, and worked with, many local thinkers, opposition figures and artists.

Then, four years ago, after covering Kashmir, Assam and the deprived villages north of Delhi, something broke inside me, and I couldn’t stand what I saw here, anymore. I could not deal with the gang rapes, with people being tortured and forced to eat their own flesh. And I refused to be subjected to the most grotesque “security”measurements and bullying on earth.

“Democracy!”, people laughed at me, when I mentioned the word. “Yes, democracy, for them, for the rich. We the poor only stick pieces of paper into a box, take small bribes and alcohol from various political parties, before elections. We get beaten up if we do something the rulers and the rich consider wrong.”

I have had enough of the farce: in India, Indonesia, Thailand – wherever the brutal, nihilist regimes which have been reducing the majority of the population into beggars, have been clinging, almost unopposed, to power.

*

Then two months ago, the Student Association at Jawaharlal Nehru University, wrote me a letter, inviting me back to speak, this time about China and the conflict between the PRC and the United States.

The email exchange with the Students Union Leaders included a piece of information which I was actually aware of:

“The International Relations field is being completely taken over by pro US / pro NATO people here…”

“Everybody here is occupied with JNU student union elections next week. It is one of the most important places of ideological resistance to the current Fascist government in India. “

Modi… Yes. They hate Modi at JNU. Many do. But then later, in Delhi, after accepting the invitation, in an Uber from my hotel to the university, I was told, bluntly:

“Your friends, including Arundhati Roy and a Kashmiri documentary film director Sanjay Kak, used to speak at this university, often. Now they cannot even show their faces here, or there would be a riot organized by the RSS.”

At that moment I knew that I am on my own. Ready to face the students at the school which could be still considered the best public university in India, but which was hostile to even the most luminous intellectuals this nation has recently produced.

I recalled how, four years ago, in a café in New Delhi, sitting at a table with Arundhati Roy and Sanjay Kak, I committed an indiscretion, exclaiming:

“But India has such great opposition figures!”

Arundhati looked at me, sarcastically, and uttered:

“Yes, and most of us are sitting, right now here, at this table.”

*

My encounter with the JNU students and researchers was colorful; from the beginning to the end. They wanted me to speak about the “Global South”, and about the conflict between the West and both China and Russia.

I did. But I also wanted to “take the pulse”, to understand, from their questions and statements, what they actually know, and what they would like to learn from exchanges like this.

For two full hours we faced each other, and these were not always pleasant moments.

I spoke about China and Russia as I knew them, experienced, and wrote about. They were shooting many questions at me, questions that were often shaped by the Western propaganda language, and by mass media jargon.

“Human rights”, “democracy”, “why does China do this?”, “why does Russia do that?”

I stood my ground.

“Why did China do nothing to help Cuba?”

I patiently explained that China saved Cuba, after the Soviet Union decomposed under Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Sarcastic sounds followed.

“Fidel Castro quoted me, and wrote that I was correct,” I uttered. This restored order. There was not much to add.

There were questions about Hong Kong. Confrontational questions. Definitely not questions that are asked among comrades. I did not lose my temper. Patiently, I explained what I recently witnessed in Hong Kong: the confusion of the rioters backed by European and North American countries. Violence and hate; destruction.

At the end, one young man asked me, with a smile: “And what about Iranian imperialism?”

“Iranian imperialism?” I couldn’t understand. I still did not fully comprehend that this was different India that I knew in quite a recent past.

“Yes. Iranian imperialism… You know: supporting Yemeni rebels, and brutal Assad’s dictatorship…”

I recalled how I was approached: [JNU] is one of the most important places of ideological resistance to the current Fascist government in India.

One of the left-activists and research scholars at JNU who asked not to be identified, and who was present during my presentation, later wrote for this essay:

“On the extreme right-wing violence kind of things like lynching, riots, hate speech, Hindutva interpretation of history etc. – there is some resistance from a section of liberal elites. Or resistance on caste issues from people who care about these issues.

But on long term policies of Indian state – pro-US foreign policy, neoliberal economic policies, etc – there is hardly any understanding or resistance. 

I even heard one ex-WTO guy in a seminar here – who was surprised to see the consensus among students on the ‘rule-based international trading system’ in contrast to fierce disagreements when he came a few years back. 

There are few teachers who are exceptions – but in general a far-right shift (in economic and foreign policy) is unfortunately true.”

That is obviously and unfortunately what is happening. I witnessed it at JNU, I was told this by my friends, and I felt it on the street.

*

Binu Mathew, the legendary Editor of “Countercurrents” magazine, based in Kerala, explained:

“During the cold war India was one of the conscience keepers of the world. It took a moral stand on world issues. Jawaharlal Nehru was one of the founders of the Non Aligned Movement during the Cold War. It was a huge moral force during those maddening times. It has completely lost now. It was done by the very followers of Nehru’s Congress party. They made India a minion of the USA by signing a military strategic partnership in 2008. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which came to power after the Congress-led government, took it to another level. In 2016, the US designated India a “Major Defense Partner”. Now India is following the dictate from Washington… I think the USA is using India as a bulwark against the growing Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region.”

Narendra Modi used to be the Chief Minister of Gujarat, during those brutal massacres that I covered. The right-wing, Hindu nationalist, paramilitary volunteer organization, RSS, responsible for those massacres, is now a major force on the Indian political scene. Mr. Modi is held responsible for the pogroms. The academic view of the “events” is summarized by Martha Nussbaum, who said:

“There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law.”

Mr. Modi is now Prime Minister of India. Under his rule, the misery of the poor (the majority of the nation) is deepening. The shameful cast system is still firmly in place.

*

Leaving India for Thailand, I watched the extremely long Hindi film, called “Guru”. Melodramatic, badly acted and directed, but it was still worth watching.

Nowhere else in the world, would such films be possible to make a film glorifying capitalist, thuggish cronyism and corruption, a feel-good film about an ambitious young man becoming the owner of an industrial empire. In India, no one laughs at such propaganda, turbo-capitalist monstrosities. Such films are actually admired. People are dreaming to be like the main character.

While right-wing publications were lying everywhere, I couldn’t find or purchase the relatively progressive weekly news magazine Frontline; in my hotel, at the airport or on board the airplane.

A few years ago, I wrote an essay: “India Is Where? On Two Chairs!” Now, it is clearly sitting on the lap of the West. It has found “its place”.

The Global South? BRICS? Just words; at least for now. A few great individuals, like Arundhati Roy, are still fighting, but they are locked out, even from the J. Nehru University.

It is painful to accept, but it is the 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.

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

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on India Is Confused; Where Does It Go from Here?
  • Tags:

The Four A’s of American Policy Failure in Syria

October 21st, 2019 by Scott Ritter

The ceasefire agreement brokered by Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday accomplishes very little outside of putting window dressing on a foregone conclusion. Simply put, the Turks will be able to achieve their objectives of clearing a safe zone of Kurdish forces south of the Turkish border, albeit under a U.S. sanctioned agreement. In return, the U.S. agrees not to impose economic sanctions on Turkey. 

So basically it doesn’t change anything that’s already been set into motion by the Turkish invasion of northern Syria. But it does signal the end of the American experiment in Syrian regime change, with the United States supplanted by Russia as the shot caller in Middle Eastern affairs.

To understand how we got to this point, we need to navigate the four A’s that underpin America’s failed policy vis-à-vis Syria—Afghanistan, Astana, Adana, and Ankara.

The first, Afghanistan, represents the epitome of covert American meddling in regional affairs—Operation Cyclone, the successful CIA-run effort to arm and equip anti-communist rebels in Afghanistan to confront the Soviet Army from 1979 to 1989. The success of the Afghanistan experience helped shape an overly optimistic assessment by the administration of President Barack Obama that a similarly successful effort could be had in Syria by covertly training and equipping anti-Assad rebels.

The second, Astana, is the capital city of Kazakhstan, recently renamed Nur Sultan in March 2019. Since 2017, Astana has played host to a series of summits that have become known as “the Astana Process,” a Russian-directed diplomatic effort ostensibly designed to facilitate a peaceful ending to the Syrian crisis, but in reality part of a larger Russian-run effort to sideline American regime change efforts in Syria.

The Astana Process was sold as a complementary effort to the U.S.-backed, UN-brokered Geneva Talks, which were initially convened in 2012 to bring an end to the Syrian conflict. The adoption by the U.S. of an “Assad must go” posture doomed the Geneva Talks from the outset. The Astana Process was the logical outcome of this American failure.

The third “A”—Adana—is a major city located in southern Turkey, some 35 kilometers inland from the Mediterranean Sea. It’s home to the Incirlik Air Base, which hosts significant U.S. Air Force assets, including some 50 B-61 nuclear bombs. It also hosted a meeting between Turkish and Syrian officials in October 1998 for the purpose of crafting a diplomatic solution to the problem presented by forces belonging to the Kurdish People’s Party, or PKK, who were carrying out attacks inside Turkey from camps located within Syria.

The resulting agreement, known as the Adana Agreement, helped prevent a potential war between Turkey and Syria by formally recognizing the respective sovereignty and inviolability of their common border. In 2010, the two nations expanded the 1998 deal into a formal treaty governing cooperation and joint action, inclusive of intelligence sharing on designated terrorist organizations (i.e., the PKK). The Adana Agreement/Treaty was all but forgotten in the aftermath of the 2011 Syrian crisis, as Turkey embraced regime change regarding the Assad government, only to be resuscitated by Russian President Vladimir Putin during talks with Erdogan in Moscow in January 2019. The re-introduction of the moribund agreement into the Syrian-Turkish political dynamic successfully created a diplomatic bridge between the two countries, paving the way for a formal resolution of their considerable differences.

The final “A”—Ankara—is perhaps the most crucial when it comes to understanding the demise of the American position in Syria. Ankara is the Turkish capital, situated in the central Anatolian plateau. In September 2019, Ankara played host to a summit between Erdogan, Putin, and Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani. While the ostensible focus of the summit was to negotiate a ceasefire in the rebel-held Syrian province of Idlib, where Turkish-backed militants were under incessant attack by the combined forces of Russia and Syria, the real purpose was to facilitate an endgame to the Syrian crisis.

Russia’s rejection of the Turkish demands for a ceasefire were interpreted by the Western media as a sign of the summit’s failure. But the opposite was true—Russia backed Turkey’s demand for a security corridor along the Turkish-Syrian border, and accepted Ankara’s characterization of the American-backed Syrian Defense Forces (SDF) as “terrorists.” This agreement, combined with Turkey’s willingness to recognize the outcome of Syrian presidential elections projected to take place in 2021, paved the way for the political reconciliation between Turkey and Syria. It also hammered the last nail in the coffin of America’s regime change policy regarding Bashar al-Assad.

There is little mention of the four A’s in American politics and the mainstream media. Instead there’s only a skewed version of reality, which portrays the American military presence in Syria as part and parcel of a noble alliance between the U.S. and the Kurdish SDF to confront the ISIS scourge. This ignores the reality that the U.S. has been committed to regime change in Syria since 2011, and that the fight against ISIS was merely a sideshow to this larger policy objective.

“Assad must go.” Those three words have defined American policy on Syria since they were first alluded to by President Obama in an official White House statementreleased in August 2011. The initial U.S. strategy did not involve an Afghanistan-like arming of rebel forces, but rather a political solution under the auspices of policies and entities created under the administration of President George W. Bush. In 2006, the State Department created the Iran-Syrian Operations Group, or ISOG, which oversaw interdepartmental coordination of regime change options in both Iran and Syria.

Though ISOG was disbanded in 2008, its mission was continued by other American agencies. One of the byproducts of the work initiated by ISOG was the creation of Syrian political opposition groups that were later morphed by the Obama administration into an entity known as the Syrian National Council, or SNC. When Obama demanded that Assad must step aside in August 2011, he envisioned that the Syrian president would be replaced by the SNC. This was the objective of the Geneva Talks brokered by the United Nations and the Arab League in 2011-2012. One of the defining features of those talks was the insistence on the part of the U.S., UK, and SNC that the Assad government not be allowed to participate in any discussion about the political future of Syria. This condition was rejected by Russia, and the talks ultimately failed. Efforts to revive the Geneva Process likewise floundered on this point.

Faced with this diplomatic failure, Obama turned to the CIA to undertake an Afghanistan-like arming of Syrian rebels to accomplish on the ground what could not be around a table in Geneva.

The CIA took advantage of Turkish animosity toward Syria in the aftermath of suppression of anti-Syrian government demonstrations in 2011 to funnel massive quantities of military equipment, weapons, and ammunition from Libya to Turkey, where they were used to arm a number of anti-Assad rebels operating under the umbrella of the so-called “Free Syrian Army,” or FSA. In 2013, the CIA took direct control of the arm and equip program, sending teams to Turkey and Jordan to train the FSA. This effort, known as Operation Timber Sycamore, was later supplemented with a Department of Defense program to provide anti-tank weapons to the Syrian opposition.

American efforts to create a viable armed opposition ultimately failed, with many of the weapons and equipment eventually falling into the hands of radical jihadist groups aligned with al-Qaeda and, later, ISIS. The emergence of ISIS as a regional threat in 2014 led to the U.S. building ties with Syrian Kurds as an alternative vector for implementation of its Syrian policy objectives.

While the fight against ISIS was real, it was done in the context of the American occupation of fully one third of Syria’s territory, including oil fields and agricultural resources. As recently as January 2019, the U.S. was justifying the continued presence of forces in Syria as a means of containing the Iranian presence there; the relationship with the SDF and Syrian Kurds was little more than a front to facilitate this policy.

Turkish incursion into Syria is the direct manifestation of the four A’s that define the failure of American policy in Syria—Afghanistan, Astana, Adana and Ankara. It represents the victory of Russian diplomacy over American force of arms. This is a hard pill for most Americans to swallow, which is why many are busy crafting a revisionist history that both glorifies and justifies failed American policy by wrapping it in the flag of our erstwhile Kurdish allies.

But the American misadventure in Syria was never going to end well—bad policy never does. For the American troops caught up in the collapse of the decades-long effort of the United States to overthrow the Assad government, the retreat from Syria was every bit as ignominious as the retreats of all defeated military forces before them. But at least our forces left Syria alive, and not inside body bags—which was an all too real alternative had they remained in place to face the overwhelming forces of geopolitical reality in transition.

*

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.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several books, most recently, Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West’s Road to War (2018).

Stop the Turkish Invasion of Syria. US Out of Syria and the Middle East

October 21st, 2019 by Kevin Zeese

The crisis in Syria has taken a new direction with the Turkish invasion into Syria ostensibly to push back the Kurdish peoples. The US has added to this crisis by its indifference toward the Kurds after using them as a proxy force in its battle against ISIS.

The US role in Syria, in the greater Middle East, has been destructive throughout this century. The invasion and occupation of Iraq have left destruction and chaos. The illegal bombing of Libya and the brutal murder of former prime minister, Muammar al-Gaddafi, has created a failed state. The alliance with Saudi Arabia in the war against Yemen has resulted in mass murder and destruction. The ongoing conflicts with Iran through illegal unilateral coercive measures (sanctions), regime change attempts, threats of war and military skirmishes create more instability in the region. And, the ‘special relationship’ with Israel has allowed the continued ethnic cleansing and land theft from the Palestinians and has been a US tool for instability in the region. The never-ending war in Afghanistan continues to cause destruction as the US remains even though it has been defeated.

All of these actions have resulted in more than a million deaths and mass migration which has not only impacted the region but Europe, causing political instability and the advance of right-wing, anti-immigrant forces.

It is time for the US to get out of Syria and out of the Middle East. The Middle East was better off, more stable and wealthier before the disastrous US actions of this century. The illegal US wars have also cost the US trillions of dollars for no benefit for the United States. US policy has not served any positive purposes but has caused instability, conflict and destruction. It is time for the US to get out of the Middle East.

Mobilization against war protest in Vancouver, Canada.

Syria: A Major Defeat for the US and a Geopolitical Game Changer

The bi-partisans in Washington, DC and the foreign policy establishment are furious at Donald Trump for pulling out of the Kurdish region of Syria and allowing Turkey to invade the area. These groups were united when the US goal was removing President Assad from power, but with the culmination of this failed policy, there is political division. Seven years of murderous war have been destructive and accomplished little.

Pepe Escobar describes Syria as the biggest defeat for the CIA since Vietnam. It is a significant defeat, but US losses in Iraq and Afghanistan are in the running for the worst defeat since Vietnam. He describes Syria “as a massive geopolitical game-changer” that strengthens Assad in Syria as he retakes control of northeast Syria, Russia as a guarantor for Syria and key player in the victory over US regime change, and Turkey which is getting protection from the Kurds. The losers are the United States and Kurds, although something might be developed for the Kurds in Syria.

The US contribution to the current chaos and destruction is bi-partisan and precedes Trump. While the brutal attacks by Turkey in Syria in are being blamed on Trump,  in reality, they go back to President Obama. Max Blumenthal reportsin The Grayzone that “many [of the Turkish fighters] were former members of the Free Syrian Army, the force once armed by the CIA and Pentagon and branded as ‘moderate rebels.’” Blumenthal cites a research paper published this October by the pro-government Turkish think tank, SETA, “Out of the 28 factions [in the Turkish mercenary force], 21 were previously supported by the United States, three of them via the Pentagon’s program to combat DAESH. Eighteen of these factions were supplied by the CIA ….”  Further, the leader of this force is Salim Idriss, hosted John McCain when the late senator made his infamous 2013 incursion into Syria.

The Turkish attack in Syria has been filled with ugly extreme violence including beheadings that are causing outrage. They include mercenaries sawing the heads off of Kurdish fighters they had killed, a Syrian Kurdish legislator pulled from her car by the militiamen and executed along with her driver, unarmed Kurdish captives filmed as they were murdered, the vandalism of the corpse of a female Kurdish fighter, the deliberately freeing of ISIS captives from unguarded prisons, and a video message, one of the invading fighters promised mass ethnic cleansing if Kurds in the area refused to convert to his Wahhabi strain of Sunni Islam.

Ajamu Baraka points out that the US created “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) were the good guys when they were part of overthrowing Assad, but now have been turned into the “Turkish supported FSA,”  especially after the gruesome graphic videos of the Turkish invasion emerged. In reality, Baraka points out “many of us knew, along with the CIA and most of the honest foreign policy community, that the FSA was always al-Qaeda’s Syria operation in the form of Jabhat al-Nusra and other jihadist militias.”

Blumenthal concludes:

“Left out of the coverage of these horrors was the fact that none of them would have been possible if Washington had not spent several years and billions of dollars subsidizing Syria’s armed opposition.”

These recent events need to be viewed through the context of fifty years of on-again, off-again coups and regime change campaigns have failed. Timber Sycamore, the regime change project of the Obama administration, was a “secret” plan authorized by Obama which allowed the CIA to arm terrorists in Syria. Timber Sycamore, included Saudi Arabia, Qatari, Jordan and Turkey working with the US, officially began in late 2012 and ended in failure in 2017. The secret program included training future ISIS members as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting Bashar al-Assad. The US was duplicitous and used terrorism as a tool as documented in the book “The Management of Savagery”.

When Obama’s regime change strategy failed, the US switched to occupying one-third of Syria, including the oil region. In January, Secretary of State Tillerson announced the US was creating a de facto Kurdish State including one-third of Syria with a 30,000-strong force of Syrian Defense Force (SDF) troops, with US air support, and eight new US bases. In April 2018, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley announced that the US planned to maintain its illegal presence in Syria.

Obama’s effort to dominate Syria was rooted in the Bush-era. In 2001, former NATO commander Wesley Clark was on record as stating that Syria was on a list of targeted nations to be toppled by the US and in 2002, former Secretary of State John Bolton said in a speech titled “Beyond the Axis of Evil” that Syria was among a handful of nations the US was targeting. The 2011 protests in Syria, which the US media claimed were to remove Assad, were quickly manipulated by the US and foreign powers who sought to destabilize Syria. CIA-backed Muslim Brotherhood assets were in place to snipe at both police and protesters when the demonstrations broke out and Saudia Arabia provided weapons to aid regime change.

Caitlan Johnstone points to more evidence that Syria was not an organic uprising but a foreign regime change effort from the beginning:

“The former Prime Minister of Qatar said on television that the US and its allies were involved in the Syrian conflict from the very beginning. A WikiLeaks cable and a declassified CIA memo both show the US government plotting to provoke an uprising in Syria exactly as it occurred, years before it happened. Former Foreign Minister of France Roland Dumas stated that he was informed that the UK was engineering an uprising in Syria two years before the violence erupted.”

But, even the Obama era regime change goal needs to be put in the context of fifty years of on-again, off-again efforts by the US to put in place a government the US could control. The US has a long history of trying to control Syria dating back to the 1940s. The first coup attempt by the CIA after it was created was in Syria in 1949. Controlling Syria has been a consistent policy objective. CIA documents from 1986 describe how the US could remove the Assad family. Obama’s policy carried out a long-established goal of US foreign policy to dominate Syria.

In January Trump called for withdrawal from Syria which was met with a firestorm of opposition and he was outmaneuvered by war hawks in his administration and Congress. There continues to be resistance to withdrawal today. The US is not leaving Syria, but merely moving troops from Northeast Syria to other areas. David Macilwain reports

 “The truth of US intentions – to remain in Eastern Syria until they are driven out militarily – has now been emphasized by US Defence secretary Mark Esper. At a press conference where he confirmed the US intention to withdraw 1000 troops from Syria, when asked whether this meant from all of Syria he simply repeated what he had said –’from Northern Syria.’”

In March 2018, Trump tweeted that the US would soon be withdrawing from Syria, one month later Secretary of Defense Mattis told Congress the US was not withdrawing testifying “We are continuing the fight, we are going to expand it and bring in more regional support.” Each of Trump’s efforts to get out has been opposed by bipartisan war hawks.

It is past time for the US to leave Syria and end its longterm desire to dominate the country. People in the United States and around the world must insist on the US obeying international law which means, the US must leave Syria as it has no legal grounds for being in that sovereign nation.

The Rojava Cantons direct democracy governance without a state. Still from video

Kurds in Syria Negotiate Their Future With Damascus

Kurds are often regarded as “the largest ethnic group without a state.” With the US withdrawal from the Kurdish area of Syria, the Kurds must negotiate their future with Damascus. The Kurds in Syria are now working with Damascus to repel the Turkish invasion and negotiating their future.

In mid-2012, Assad’s forces largely withdrew from the Kurdish area, and the battle against ISIS was left to the Kurdish militias: the YPG (People’s Protection Units) and the YPJ (Women’s Defense Forces), the autonomous women’s militias. When the Free Syrian Army failed, the US funded the Syrian Kurdish militias known as the Peoples Protection Unit with a new name, Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).  The Kurdish never targeted the Syrian government but focused on ISIS. Now, the Syrian Kurdish militias have come to an agreement to work with Damascus to combat the Turkish invasion.

The Kurdish, Rojava cantons are a liberated area in Syria led by socialist-feminists and a population that makes decisions through local councils. Their economy is based on a cooperative model with thousands of co-ops, but private businesses are allowed. The co-ops are initiated and controlled by the communes, i.e. the community assembly structures. Their basic principle is the participation of everyone in production. In the words of a minister of economics: “If a single loaf of bread is manufactured in Rojava, everyone will have contributed to it.”

Their governing model is direct democracy governance without a state, built on local assemblies. There are multiple levels with neighborhood councils, District Councils and a People’s Council for the entire region. And there is also ‘Democratic Self-Administration’ which is a more conventional government structure of legislative and executive bodies as well as municipal administration. These bodies are not limited to Kurds but open to all religions and races. Women hold 40 percent of leadership positions at all levels. Three leftist enclaves making up an area slightly smaller than the state of Connecticut.

Some see Rojava’s governance without hierarchy, patriarchy or capitalism as a model for the future of the Middle East and beyond, and as an antidote to capitalism. It is the Communalist Model of Democratic Confederalism an adoptation of the ideas of the Zapatistas in Chiapas and the work of Murray Bookchin.

In Turkey, Kurds remain part of Turkey and “have formed a political party (Peoples Democratic Party – HDP) which unites progressives of all ethnicities.  In the 2015 Turkish election, HDP emerged as the third most popular party and stopped Erdogan’s election domination.”  The HDP opposes Turkey’s invasion of Syria.

Turkey is concerned that the Kurds will use the territory they’ve captured to establish an independent Kurdish state for the region’s 25 to 35 million Kurds, roughly 15 million of whom reside in Turkey. Four percent of Kurds reside in Syria, approximately 1.6 million people. Kurds are the fourth largest ethnic group in the region after Arabs, Persians, and Turks. After the Ottoman Empire’s defeat in World War I they were not granted a homeland.

The Syrian and the Kurds must determine the future of the Kurdish areas. Peace activists and popular movements around the world should be in solidarity with the Kurdish peoples desire of a semi-independent territory. The Kurdish population exists over multiple countries. A contiguous Kurdish state is an impossible dream and negotiation will be required by each population in the country where they reside.

US Out of Syria Internationalist protest in NYC (Internationalist photo).

US Out of Syria and Out of the Middle East

We agree with the US Peace Council which demands “the US peace movement to organize a united national campaign in support of the Syrian people and demand the total withdrawal of all occupying forces from Syria. Leave Syria to the Syrian People!”

The movement’s first demand must be the US out of Syria and out of the Middle East because the US is not leaving Syria or the region. Reports indicate between 200 and 300 U.S. troops will remain at the southern Syrian outpost of Al-Tanf and 1,000 troops will shift leaving Syria and going into western Iraq adding to the than 5,000 troops the US has in Iraq, US forces may conduct operations in Syria from Iraq. On October 11, the US announced it was sending an additional 1,800 troops to Saudi Arabia. An additional 14,000 US troops have been deployed to the Middle East since spring, including more than 6,000 who are part of a naval strike group. The US is fighting in at least seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Niger, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.

We must also be in solidarity with the Kurdish people and call for an end to the Turkish invasion of Syria. The Turkish invasion is already backfiring and people mobilizing against the invasion will lead to its retreat. Syria will need to ensure there are no threats to Turkey from Syria.

And, the US must accept immigrants from Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan where migration crises have been caused by US wars. Rebuilding nations destroyed by the United States is a costly endeavor that the US owes to the region. These countries do not want the US meddling in their efforts so retribution must be made through the United Nations without any US strings attached.

*

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

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

Selected Articles: US Democrats Helped Cultivate the Barbarism of ISIS

October 21st, 2019 by Global Research News

Global Research, like many independent voices all over the globe, is feeling the effects of online measures set up to curtail access to our website, and by consequence, hinder our finances. We sail on despite the unpredictable currents and unfavourable forecasts. We can’t steer this ship alone however, we need your help!

We would be greatly indebted to you for any donation large or small. Can you contribute to help us meet our monthly running costs? Make no mistake, we intend to be here for years to come, but for the time being we ask for your help to stay afloat as we ride the storm out. 

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

*     *     *

Tulsi Gabbard Is Right, and Nancy Pelosi Wrong. It Was US Democrats Who Helped Cultivate the Barbarism of ISIS

By Jonathan Cook, October 21, 2019

Islamic State, or Isis, didn’t emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the Middle East. And I’m not even referring to the mountains of evidence that US officials backed their Saudi allies in directly funding and arming Isis – just as their predecessors in Washington, in their enthusiasm to oust the Soviets from the region, assisted the jihadists who went on to become al-Qaeda.

Fifty Years Ago Today, US Soldiers Joined the Vietnam Moratorium Protests in Mass Numbers

By Derek Seidman, October 21, 2019

Millions turned out across the United States in a historic day of action. Nothing else so conveyed the breadth of the antiwar movement. Life magazine described the Moratorium as “a display without historic parallel, the largest expression of public dissent ever seen in this country.” With the Moratorium, wrote Fred Halstead, “the antiwar movement for the first time reached the level of a full-fledged mass movement.”

Peace Restored in Ecuador. But Is Trust Restored?

By Nino Pagliccia, October 21, 2019

The tipping point has been decree 883 that forced a series of measures such as removal of subsidies for gasoline and diesel fuels deregulating their price, which caused a price increase of 20 percent up to more than 100 percent. Other costs were in turn affected together with everything that relies on transportation like food. Additional aspects of the decree included the elimination of import duties and the lay-off of thousands of public employees. This was viewed as part of a set of austerity measuresimposed on the country by the IMF, which Ecuadoreans referred to as “paquetazo” (big package). In exchange, the Moreno government was to receive more than $4 billion from the IMF at t

Ecuadorean General Strike Wins Concession on Fuel Subsidies

By Abayomi Azikiwe, October 21, 2019

The government of Lenin Moreno, adhering to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditionality, announced the new economic program which resulted in the sharp rise in the price of diesel by 100% and petroleum by 30%. These price increases happened over night making it impossible for many working people and farmers to pay for their household expenses. These hyperinflationary trends also resulted in the rise in food prices and the cost of transportation. The Moreno government initially rejected the demands of the unions and mass organizations saying that fuel subsidies had cost the country over $60 Billion.

Bolivia at the Crossroads: Choosing Between Continued Success or Handover to US Hegemony

By Peter Koenig, October 21, 2019

The United States has not stopped trying to change public opinion with false propaganda and making incredibly ludicrous promises to the population. For example, US Embassy people – maybe Fifth Columnists on US payroll, promised the population of the poor Yungas region of Bolivia, new and asphalted roads, if they didn’t support Evo Morales in the upcoming elections. There are also flagrant lies circulating, that Evo and his families had stolen hundreds of millions of dollars and deposited them in a secret account in the Bank of the Vatican.  Similar lies as are being spread about Nicolas Maduro, the Castro family, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, the leaders of Iran and Syria and many more, who oppose the dictate of Washington.

US Interventions in Canada – A Brief History

By Larry Romanoff, October 20, 2019

The US has always maintained a dream of annexing Canada and expanding the American homeland empire to include the entire length and breadth of the North American continent. The ambition to take territorial control of Canada has existed since before the founding of the US and has not measurably diminished since then. The US has invaded Canada five times, the last attempt involving plans to bury most of Canada in poison gas. In the 1970s the US launched an extensive program of propaganda and violence intended to fragment and dismember Canada as a prelude to swallowing it, and is again trying to absorb Canada today through its misbegotten “Fortress America” scheme. A forcible military option disappeared from the radar for some time, but could easily reappear in the future especially as the US begins to increasingly covet Canada’s fresh-water resources.

The Road to Damascus: How the Syria War Was Won

By Pepe Escobar, October 20, 2019

Starting in 1963, the Baath party, secular and nationalist, took over Syria, finally consolidating its power in 1970 with Hafez al-Assad, who instead of just relying on his Alawite minority, built a humongous, hyper-centralized state machinery mixed with a police state. The key actors who refused to play the game were the Muslim Brotherhood, all the way to being massacred during the hardcore 1982 Hama repression.

*

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: US Democrats Helped Cultivate the Barbarism of ISIS

Tulsi Gabbard Is Right, and Nancy Pelosi Wrong. It Was US Democrats Who Helped Cultivate the Barbarism of ISIS

October 21st, 2019 by Jonathan Cook

There is something profoundly deceitful in the way the Democratic Party and the corporate media are framing Donald Trump’s decision to pull troops out of Syria.

One does not need to defend Trump’s actions or ignore the dangers posed to the Kurds, at least in the short-term, by the departure of US forces from northern Syria to understand that the coverage is being crafted in such a way as to entirely overlook the bigger picture.

The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s meeting this week with Trump, who is described as having had a “meltdown”. Explaining why she and other senior Democrats stormed out, the paper writes that “it became clear the president had no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East”.

Hang on a minute! Let’s pull back a little, and not pretend – as the media and Democratic party leadership wish us to – that the last 20 years did not actually happen. Many of us lived through those events. Our memories are not so short.

Islamic State, or Isis, didn’t emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the Middle East. And I’m not even referring to the mountains of evidence that US officials backed their Saudi allies in directly funding and arming Isis – just as their predecessors in Washington, in their enthusiasm to oust the Soviets from the region, assisted the jihadists who went on to become al-Qaeda.

No, I’m talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington’s local client states, the US created a giant void of governance at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State – and they didn’t care.

Overthrow, not regime change

You don’t have to be a Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar Assad apologist to accept this point. You don’t even have to be concerned that these so-called “humanitarian” wars violated each state’s integrity and sovereignty, and are therefore defined in international law as “the supreme war crime”.

The bigger picture – the one no one appears to want us thinking about – is that the US intentionally sought to destroy these states with no obvious plan for the day after. As I explained in my book Israel and the Clash of Civilisations, these haven’t so much been regime-change wars as nation-state dismantling operations – what I have termed overthrow wars.

The logic was a horrifying hybrid of two schools of thought that meshed neatly in the psychopathic foreign policy goals embodied in the ideology of neoconservatism – the so-called “Washington consensus” since 9/11.

The first was Israel’s long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steroids, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that sucked out all the local population’s energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they could export to non-compliant states in the region.

The second was the Chicago school’s Shock Doctrine, as explained in Naomi Klein’s book of that name. The chaotic campaign of destruction, the psychological trauma and the sense of dislocation created by these overthrow wars were supposed to engender a far more malleable population that would be ripe for a US-controlled “colour revolution”.

The recalcitrant states would be made an example of, broken apart, asset-stripped of their resources and eventually remade as new dependent markets for US goods. That was what George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton really meant when they talked about building a New Middle East and exporting democracy.

Even judged by the vile aims of its proponents, the Shock Doctrine has been a half-century story of dismal economic failure everywhere it has been attempted – from Pinochet’s Chile to Yeltsin’s Russia. But let us not credit the architects of this policy with any kind of acumen for learning from past errors. As Bush’s senior adviser Karl Rove explained to a journalist whom he rebuked for being part of the “reality-based community”: “We’re an empire now and, when we act, we create our own reality.”

The birth of Islamic State

The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region’s finest public health services.

One can argue about the initial causes of the uprising against Assad that erupted in Syria in 2011. Did it start as a popular struggle for liberation from the Assad government’s authoritarianism? Or was it a sectarian insurgency by those who wished to replace Shia minority rule with Sunni majority rule? Or was it driven by something else: as a largely economic protest by an under-class suffering from food shortages as climate change led to repeated crop failures? Or are all these factors relevant to some degree?

Given how closed a society Syria was and is, and how difficult it therefore is to weigh the evidence in ways that are likely to prove convincing to those not already persuaded, let us set that issue aside too. Anyway, it is irrelevant to the bigger picture I want to address.

The indisputable fact is that Washington and its Gulf allies wished to exploit this initial unrest as an opportunity to create a void in Syria – just as they had earlier done in Iraq, where there were no uprisings, nor even the WMDs the US promised would be found and that served as the pretext for Bush’s campaign of Shock and Awe.

The limited uprisings in Syria quickly turned into a much larger and far more vicious war because the Gulf states, with US backing, flooded the country with proxy fighters and arms in an effort to overthrow Assad and thereby weaken Iranian and Shia influence in the region. The events in Syria and earlier in Iraq gradually transformed the Sunni religious extremists of al-Qaeda into the even more barbaric, more nihilistic extremists of Islamic State.

A dark US vanity project

After Rove and Cheney had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington’s policy had engineered.

The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria.

This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before their absolute rule, became the west’s chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building their state on parts of Syria.

Again, let us ignore the fact that the US, in helping to destroy a sovereign nation, committed the supreme war crime, one that in a rightly ordered world would ensure every senior Washington official faces their own Nuremberg Trial. Let us ignore too for the moment that the US, consciously through its actions, brought to life a monster that sowed death and destruction everywhere it went.

The fact is that at the moment Assad called in Russia to help him survive, the battle the US and the Gulf states were waging through Islamic State and other proxies was lost. It was only a matter of time before Assad would reassert his rule.

From that point onwards, every single person who was killed and every single Syrian made homeless – and there were hundreds of thousands of them – suffered their terrible fate for no possible gain in US policy goals. A vastly destructive overthrow war became instead something darker still: a neoconservative vanity project that ravaged countless Syrian lives.

A giant red herring

Trump now appears to be ending part of that policy. He may be doing so for the wrong reasons. But very belatedly – and possibly only temporarily – he is seeking to close a small chapter in a horrifying story of western-sponsored barbarism in the Middle East, one intimately tied to Islamic State.

What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should have no credibility on the matter to begin with.

But their claims that Trump has “no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East” is a giant red herring they are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.

First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like it – was inevitably going to fill. Then, it allowed those seeds to flourish by assisting its Gulf allies in showering fighters in Syria with money and arms that came with only one string attached – a commitment to Sunni jihadist ideology inspired by Saudi Wahhabism.

Isis was made in Washington as much as it was in Riyadh. For that reason, the only certain strategy for preventing the revival of Islamic State is preventing the US and the Gulf states from interfering in Syria again.

With the Syrian army in charge of Syrian territory, there will be no vacuum for Isis to fill. The jihadists’ state-building project is now unrealisable, at least in Syria. Islamic State will continue to wither, as it would have done years before if the US and its Gulf allies had not fuelled it in a proxy war they knew could not be won.

Doomed Great Game

The same lesson can be drawn by looking at the experience of the Syrian Kurds. The Rojava fiefdom they managed to carve out in northern Syria during the war survived till now only because of continuing US military support. With a US departure, and the Kurds too weak to maintain their improvised statelet, a vacuum was again created that this time has risked sucking in the Turkish army, which fears a base for Kurdish nationalism on its doorstep.

The Syrian Kurds’ predicament is simple: face a takeover by Turkey or seek Assad’s protection to foil Turkish ambitions. The best hope for the Kurds looks to be the Syrian army’s return, filling the vacuum and regaining a chance of long-term stability.

That could have been the case for all of Syria many tens of thousands of deaths ago. Whatever the corporate media suggest, those deaths were lost not in a failed heroic battle for freedom, which, even if it was an early aspiration for some fighters, quickly became a goal that was impossible for them to realise. No, those deaths were entirely pointless. They were sacrificed by a western military-industrial complex in a US-Saudi Great Game that dragged on for many years after everyone knew it was doomed.

Nancy Pelosi’s purported worries about Isis reviving because of Trump’s Syria withdrawal are simply crocodile fears. If she is really so worried about Islamic State, then why did she and other senior Democrats stand silently by as the US under Barack Obama spent years spawning, cultivating and financing Isis to destroy Syria, a state that was best placed to serve as a bulwark against the head-chopping extremists?

Pelosi and the Democratic leadership’s bad faith – and that of the corporate media – are revealed in their ongoing efforts to silence and smear Tulsi Gabbard, the party’s only candidate for the presidential nomination who has pointed out the harsh political realities in Syria, and tried to expose their years of lies.

Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don’t care about Syria, or its population’s welfare. They don’t care about Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power – and the personal wealth and influence it continues to bestow on 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.

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

US Syria Pullout? A Saigon Moment?

October 21st, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

The 1972 Church/Case amendment ended congressional funding for US military operations in Southeast Asia — except for withdrawal of Pentagon forces, subject to release of prisoners of war.

In June 1973, congressional legislation ended all funding after August 15. After escalating Southeast Asia war to Cambodia and Laos, wanting it ended was a key reason why US dark forces sought Nixon’s removal from office.

Threatening entrenched military/industrial/security and other interests marked him for removal — Trump targeted the same way now. Dems, CIA elements, and supportive media also want revenge for winning an election he was supposed to lose.

On April 30, 1975, US forces completed their withdrawal from the rooftop of its Saigon embassy, ending over a decade of aggression against a nonbelligerent state threatening no one.

The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution authorized war without declaring it, based on a false flag incident.

All wars are based on Big Lies and deception. Truth and full disclosure would destroy pretexts for launching them.

Congress can end all US wars of aggression today the way lawmakers acted in the 1970s by cutting off funding without which they can’t be waged.

Congressional profiles in courage are few and far between — Tulsi Gabbard the only anti-war/progressive presidential aspirant for world peace, stability and social justice in either wing of the one-party state.

The vast majority of House and Senate members support endless US wars. Since the Clinton co-presidency’s rape of Yugoslavia, countless trillions of dollars were spent for militarism, warmaking, and the Pentagon’s global empire of bases, used as platforms for war if ordered — at the expense of vital homeland needs and eroding social justice.

The US came to all its war theaters to stay — directly the way Douglas MacArthur ran Japan from 1945 – 1951, by installing puppet regimes serving its interests, or a combination of both strategies as in Afghanistan and Iraq, their people exploited and otherwise abused.

According to US war secretary Mark Esper, Pentagon forces in northern Syria aren’t coming home. They’re being redeployed cross-border to (occupied) Iraq.

US troops illegally occupying and controlling southern areas in Syria near the Iraqi and Jordanian borders remain in place.

Esper falsely claimed that redeployed US forces to Western Iraq will protect the country and combat ISIS, saying:

The plan “is to help defend Iraq (sic) and…to perform a counter-ISIS mission (sic) as we sort through the next steps. Things could change between now and whenever we complete the withdrawal, but that’s the game plan right now.”

Asked if US special forces will remain in Syria after the northern cross-border redeployment, Esper said it’s an option to be discussed with US (imperial) allies, adding: “(W)e have to work through those details.”

Since Bush/Cheney’s 2003 Iraq aggression, US forces continue to illegally occupy and exploit the country, a puppet regime serving its interests.

Along with al-Qaeda, its al-Nusra offshoot in Syria, and likeminded terrorist groups, the US created ISIS, supporting the scourge as proxy troops it pretends to combat — backed by Pentagon-led terror-bombing, including destruction of vital infrastructure in Syria and elsewhere.

Since Obama launched aggression on Syria in early 2011, US plans for wanting overwhelmingly popular Bashar al-Assad replaced by pro-Western puppet rule remain unchanged.

It’s part of a greater US/NATO/Israeli strategy to redraw the Middle East map, what the scourge of imperialism is all about, including horrendous human rights abuses against affected populations.

The road to Tehran runs through Damascus. In August 2011, Michel Chossudovsky explained the following:

“The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (falsely)  categorizes Syria as a ‘rogue state,’ as a country which supports terrorism,” adding:

“A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign (‘regime change’) including covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed against the Syrian government.”

“An extended Middle East Central Asian war has been on the Pentagon’s drawing board since the mid-1990s.”

“As part of this extended war scenario, the US-NATO alliance plans to wage a military campaign against Syria under a UN sponsored ‘humanitarian mandate.’ ”

Things haven’t gone as planned, mainly because of Russia’s September 2015 intervention at the request of Damascus to aid its military combat US-supported terrorists.

Moscow’s involvement changed the dynamic on the ground, preventing Washington from gaining control of Syria and isolating Iran regionally.

Most of the country was liberated from US-supported terrorists, Idlib province controlled by thousands of al-Nusra jihadists the main exception.

US tactics for controlling Syria changed because of Russia’s involvement, not its war party’s imperial objectives — aiming for unchallenged regional control by replacing sovereign governments in the Syrian Arab Republic and Iran with pro-Western puppet regimes, similar to US control of Afghanistan and Iraq.

That’s where things now stand. Russia foiled the best laid US plans. Yet bipartisan policymakers in Washington support endless war, rejecting restoration of peace and stability to Syria and other US war theaters.

Trump falsely claimed he’s “(b)ringing soldiers home” from Syria. Around 3,000 more are heading to Saudi Arabia, increasing the Pentagon’s regional footprint.

Note: The US/Turkey deal announced last week includes no restrictions on Pentagon-led NATO/IDF terror-bombing of Syrian sites.

It’s further evidence of endless US-led war in Syria — begun nine years ago next March with no near-term prospect for resolution.

A Final Comment

There are world’s apart differences between US 1960s/70s Southeast Asia war and its involvement in Syria today.

Notably, there were hundreds of thousands of Pentagon forces involved in Vietnam combat, thousands returned home in body bags, reported by US media — especially by CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite.

On February 27, 1968 at the end of his nightly newscast, he editorialized on air for three minutes against the war, ending his anti-war commentary, saying:

“(I)t is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out…will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people…This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.”

At the time, Lyndon Johnson said if he lost Cronkite, he lost middle America. Shortly afterwards, he announced that he wouldn’t seek reelection in November 1968.

No Walter Cronkites in the US report on air or in print today, a major difference between earlier and now.

The main difference between both eras is how Washington wages wars — earlier with US combat troops on the ground in large numbers through Bush/Cheney’s 2003 Iraq aggression.

Since then, ISIS and other terrorists serve as US proxy forces, small numbers of Pentagon troops supporting them, along with terror-bombing by US and allied warplanes.

In addition, reporters are embedded with US troops in various venues, their war reporting amounting to Pentagon press releases.

*

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.

Fifty Years Ago Today, US Soldiers Joined the Vietnam Moratorium Protests in Mass Numbers

October 21st, 2019 by Derek Seidman

Today marks the fiftieth anniversary of the October 15, 1969 Moratorium, perhaps the most important US protest during the war against Vietnam.

Millions turned out across the United States in a historic day of action. Nothing else so conveyed the breadth of the antiwar movement. Life magazine described the Moratorium as “a display without historic parallel, the largest expression of public dissent ever seen in this country.” With the Moratorium, wrote Fred Halstead, “the antiwar movement for the first time reached the level of a full-fledged mass movement.”

The Moratorium’s organizers urged people across the country to dedicate October 15 to protesting the war. With the hawkish Nixon in the Oval Office, and with the war showing no end in sight, antiwar forces needed to make a powerful statement that would jolt the political climate in the United States.

When October 15 came, some two million people across two hundred cities took part. There were the expected huge demonstrations — a quarter-million people each in New York City and Washington, DC, and another hundred thousand in Boston, for example. But the scope of antiwar sentiment was also reflected in the many local expressions the Moratorium took across the nation. As one historian described it:

Everywhere, black armbands; everywhere, flags at half staff; church services, film showings, teach-ins, neighbor-to-neighbor canvasses. In North Newton, Kansas, a bell tolled every four seconds, each clang memorializing a fallen soldier; in Columbia, Maryland, an electronic sign counted the day’s war deaths. Milwaukee staged a downtown noontime funeral procession. Hastings College, an 850-student Presbyterian school in Nebraska, suspended operations. Madison, Ann Arbor, and New Haven were only a few of the college towns to draw out a quarter of their populations or more.

Throughout 1969, Nixon had tried to paint the growing antiwar movement as the fringe of the Left. But the Moratorium proved that that the movement was undeniably mainstream, a core pole of American life, able to influence the terms of political debate over the war.

But to understand the true extent of the Moratorium, we must look closely at an oft-overlooked group of participants: the US soldiers serving in the military’s ranks who were made to fight the war.

Police halt an effort to throw a casket over the White House fence protesting the Vietnam War October 15, 1969 as part of the Moratorium Against the War. Washington Area Spark / Flickr

Hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of GIs actively took part in Moratorium actions, both in October 1969 as well as in further Moratorium protests later in the year. Some attended off-base demonstrations. Many signed their names to public statements against the war. Others wore black armbands. Some educated and organized fellow troops in solidarity with the Moratorium. Dozens wrote letters to antiwar papers and groups to express their sympathy with the protests. And many worked alongside civilian allies to take their antiwar stance.This is history that flies in the face of popular memory, shaped and politicized by right-wing myths, that pit Vietnam War–era soldiers against the antiwar movement, posit that peace protests at home demoralized troops in Vietnam, or claim that protesters spit upon GIs.

The history of GI protest during the Vietnam War — and the affinity that many soldiers felt with the Moratorium actions — tells another story. Many troops were part of the antiwar movement. The horrible war they were fighting, and the harassment and racism they endured from the military brass, was hurting their morale. And civilian antiwar organizers viewed them with sympathy and solidarity, offered various forms of support, and, most of all, worked tirelessly with them to try to end the war.

This all may seem to be remote history at this point, but it’s still deeply relevant. The construction of the mainstream memory of the Vietnam War in the United States has been a deeply political and ideological process. Conservative efforts to define the Vietnam War–era US soldier as “spit upon” and “stabbed in the back” by antiwar protesters have gone hand in hand with manufacturing popular consent for war-making over the past half-century.

But the history of GI resistance during the Vietnam War — and during the Moratorium — tells another story that challenges these militarist narratives: that soldiers weren’t pitted against the antiwar movement. Many were part of it.

The GI Movement

Active-duty GIs had been protesting the war as early as 1965, and by 1969, that protest had evolved into a full-on movement. The GI movement — as it was called — was an effort by active-duty soldiers and veterans, working closely with civilian allies, to organize troops to oppose the war, resist the military brass, fight racism, and protect GI civil liberties. While often local, sporadic, and decentralized, the resistance that made up the GI movement was loosely tied together by common symbols, narratives, organizing vehicles, and outside support.

Thousands of soldiers plugged into and participated in the GI movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They signed petitions, joined antiwar marches, and donned peace symbol necklaces. They formed their own soldier antiwar groups with names like GIs for Peace, the American Servicemen’s Union, and Movement for a Democratic Military. They flocked to off-base antiwar coffeehouses and circulated hundreds of subversive newspapers deep into the military’s ranks.

And all this was just the more organized expression of a much larger reservoir of disobedience and rebellion throughout the ranks of the armed forces — leading, for example, journalist John Pilger to film a 1970 documentary on US soldiers in Vietnam titled The Quiet Mutiny, and a famed Marine colonel to declare the “collapse of the armed forces” in the pages of the Armed Forces Journal in June 1971. (For more background on the GI movement, see the new book, Waging Peace in Vietnam: US Soldiers and Veterans Who Opposed the War, as well as David Cortright’s Soldiers in Revolt, David Parsons’ recent book on GI coffeehouses, and the documentary Sir! No Sir!).

A crucial factor in building the GI movement was the solidarity between dissident soldiers and the antiwar civilians who helped them organize. This is important, because the history of the GI movement dispels the notion that the antiwar movement hated soldiers. Rather, many peace activists sympathized with the plight of US troops and helped organize them to end the war.

They fundraised for the GI movement, offered legal help, and aided in the staffing of coffeehouses and the production of GI papers. Some tensions may have existed between antiwar civilians and GIs, but their relationship was far from what scholar Jerry Lembcke has called the “spitting image,” the myth that peace activists spit on US soldiers, would have us believe. Rather, the spitting image was a trope that was mobilized after the war for conservative political gain and to serve a revived American militarism.

By the time the October 15, 1969 Moratorium rolled around, then, GIs were not only increasingly seen as a crucial constituency within the wider antiwar movement, but they had already succeeded in organizing themselves into their own loose antiwar movement that stretched across the globe.

The October Moratorium

via History Workshop UK.

In the leadup to the October Moratorium, civilian antiwar groups like the Student Mobilization Committee (SMC) and the Vietnam Moratorium Committee (VMC) sought to recruit GIs into the action. For example, Jerry Lembcke cites a memorandum that the VMC sent widely to GI antiwar newspapers that read:

We are eager to have servicemen join our national campaign to maximize public pressure for peace. We are writing for your help in getting GIs to participate in a ‘recurring moratorium’ on “business as usual.”

The memo gave suggestions for actions GIs could take, such as holding on-base meetings to discuss GI rights, sending letters to elected officials, and holding fasts during the day of the Moratorium. The VMC also offered legal help to soldiers that made the decision to protest, since this could invite punishment from the military brass.

GIs across the world answered the call to participate in the October Moratorium. Some joined or held stateside protests. For example, seventy-five soldiers stationed at Fort Carson participated in a protest in Colorado Springs, while around 150 soldiers at Fort Sam Houston signed a petition to protest on base. When their request was denied, they held their protest in downtown San Antonio. Hundreds of other GIs elsewhere also took part in Moratorium events.

These dissident troops made their antiwar stance known to the wider movement. For example, twenty-three GIs at Fort Sam Houston signed a Western Union Telegram sent to the New Mobilization Committee that read:

WE THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBERS OF COMPANY E 4TH BN US A MTC FORT SAM HOUSTON TEXAS SUPPORT YOUR EFFORTS IN BRINGING ABOUT A SPEEDY END TO THE WAR IN VIET NAM PS AND LOTS MORE WHO COULD NOT AFFORD TO LIST.

But GIs didn’t just protest stateside. They also joined the Moratorium from Vietnam.

“In the foothills south of Danang,” wrote the the New York Times, “about 15 members of a platoon of the Americal Division wore black armbands as they marched on patrol. ‘It’s my way of protesting,’ one soldier told a reporter. ‘We wanted to do something, and this was the only thing we could think of.’”

The high stakes of the war for these GIs was not lost in the Times’s reporting. “Before the day was out,” the article said, “four of the protesting soldiers had been wounded by Vietcong booby traps.”

Historian Tom Wells writes that another half-dozen troops “donned armbands at the gigantic Tan Son Nhut air base.” Wells also quotes draft resister Michael Ferber, who visited with some US psy-war troops in Vietnam before the protest:

Between drags of “unbelievable” Cambodian grass, the GIs “wanted to know all about the Moratorium,” Ferber recalled. “They were all against the war … I was amazed that morale had degenerated to that extent.”

Lembcke also writes that Life reporter Hal Wingo interviewed around a hundred GIs around the time of the October Moratorium. One of them was Private Jim Beck of the Army’s 101st Division. His brother had been killed in Khe San, and Beck had gone to Vietnam to seek revenge, but he told Wingo “[t]he demonstrators are right to speak up because this war is wrong and it must be stopped.”

Another soldier Wingo who spoke to was PFC Chris Yapp. “I think the protesters may be the only ones who really give a damn about what’s happening,” Yapp told Wingo.

Wingo observed that many GIs in Vietnam did not view the antiwar movement as “anti-soldier”; just the opposite. “Many soldiers regard the organized antiwar campaign in the US with open and outspoken sympathy,” Wingo wrote; and he noted that “the protests in the US are not demoralizing troops in the field.”

Lembcke quotes a letter from one servicemember, Sergeant James C. Ruh, who expressed his support for the October 15 Moratorium and blasted the notion that the antiwar movement was hurting troop morale.

“It has been argued by people, such as Vice President Agnew, that the peace demonstrations are demoralizing and dispiriting to those fighting in Vietnam and therefore should not take place,” wrote Ruh. But he found “nothing to be further from the truth”:

In my own infantry company, which I believe to be fairly representative, the Moratorium has wide support. It was, in fact, very much a morale builder. The men are intelligent enough to realize that the peace demonstrations are on their behalf. They realize that the greater the pressure kept on President Nixon, the sooner they’ll get home. Even more importantly, the fewer will be their friend who do not return.

Ruh also criticized the argument that that “unless you’ve been to Vietnam, you don’t know what is really going on there, and have no right to criticize it,” and turned it on its head while invoking the October Moratorium:

While this is an obviously fallacious argument, being there does add a personal perspective to the situation, which makes many of your men fighting in Vietnam the biggest critics of the war. They can see what is going on, not what is screened through the media. While many wore armbands for the October 15 Moratorium, they are for the large part prevented from demonstrating their feelings on the war. They can give only moral support to the Peace Moratorium, and hope that it is successful.

It’s significant that both Wingo and Sgt. Ruh bring up the relationship between GI morale and the antiwar movement. While pro-war forces claimed the movement was demoralizing soldiers in Vietnam, GIs often saw the existence of the peace movement as a morale booster. It was the horrible war itself, the careerist military brass above GIs, and the racism that many soldiers endured, that was hurting morale.

Beyond October

While October 15 saw the height of the Moratorium protests, similar actions, as well as GI participation in them, continued throughout 1969.

Civilians antiwar organizers intensified their outreach efforts to GIs for the follow-up Moratorium on November 15, while GIs themselves stepped up their protest efforts in the days after the October action. For example, an October 20 on-base meeting of GIs at Fort Lewis, organized by the American Servicemen’s Union, was raided by military police, leading to thirty-five arrests.

On October 28, a captain stationed in Long Binh wrote the Moratorium Day Committee, and after praising the October Moratorium and criticizing his own “cowardice” in failing to protest the war, he declared:

It is time, however belated … that the members of the Armed Forces stood up, raised their voices, and informed the world that they are at one with both the method and the goal of the Vietnam Moratorium. The Moratorium transcends politics. They very humanity of my race is threatened, and no longer can I sit back and laud people who raise their voices without adding mine. This I do now!

Nor was the captain just making a verbal declaration. He was starting to organize. He included a petition with over eighty troop signatures under the heading: “We, the undersigned, agree in spirit with the Vietnam moratorium and urge the immediate and total withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops from SE Asia.” He even included a follow up letter: “You may use both the petitions and my personal letter in whatever way you see fit … Inform all those who will listen that American troops can and should be supported only through support for the Moratorium.”

But perhaps the most significant GI antiwar expression was a November 9, 1969 full-page antiwar ad, published in the New York Times, and signed by an astounding 1,366 active duty GIs from across eighty bases and ships, including nearly two hundred stationed in Vietnam.

The ad was sponsored by the GI Press Service, a “news bulletin and information center” for GI antiwar newspapers that was overseen by the Student Mobilization Committee. The SMC had a “GI task force,” coordinated by ex-GI and Young Socialist Alliance member Allen Myers, that edited the ad.

The ad’s message was clear: it was a bold and direct statement against the war and a call to support the November 15 Moratorium. “We are opposed American involvement in the war in Vietnam,” it read. “We resent the needless wasting of lives to save face for the politicians in Washington. We speak, believing our views are shared by many of our fellow servicemen. Join Us!” The ad also carried a message for supporters of antiwar GIs:

GI’s, as American citizens, have the constitutional right to join these demonstrations. In the past, however, military authorities have often restricted servicemen to their bases, thus effectively preventing them from participating in demonstrations against the war. We ask you to write to the President and your representatives in Congress to demand that GI’s not be prevented from participating in the November 15 demonstrations.

Some GIs organized within their military units to turn out support for both the Times ad and the November Moratorium. David Cortright was stationed at Fort Hamilton, New York, at the time. Despite the threat of reprisals, thirty-five out of sixty soldiers in his unit signed added their names, and a dozen Fort Hamilton troops attended the Moratorium protest in DC, along with hundreds of other GIs.

Cortright recalled that the ad had a “dramatic impact” and helped to “build momentum” for the November Moratorium. Indeed, GI participation on November 15 may have surpassed that of the October protests. Over 200 GIs led the DC protest, which numbered around a quarter-million.

There were also more local expressions of Moratorium organizing. For example, troops at Fort Bliss, who had organized a vibrant chapter of GIs for Peace, held a prayer meeting at a chapel. Francis Lenski, who was stationed at Fort Bliss, recalls another GI action.

“During the lead up to the Moratorium demonstrations,” Lenski said, “members of GIs for Peace decided to make a statement against the war that all of El Paso would see.” He went on:

Located on the side of the Franklin Mountains facing El Paso and Fort Bliss were some hollow drums, painted white by students from a local school. We decided to adapt those drums for another purpose. Working mostly under the cover of darkness, we relocated them to form the shape of the peace sign, filled them with fuel, and set them ablaze. The fiery scene above the city and environs spoke for itself (and us) and was the talk of the town and base for days to come.

Meanwhile, evidence of GI sympathy with and direct participation in the November Moratorium, expressed through letters, poured into the offices of protest organizers. One soldier stationed in Georgia, probably at Fort Benning, wrote to a Moratorium organizer declaring: “I desire to help in any manner I can in the cause of peace and especially on November 13, 14, 15.” He went on, expressing his deep desire to organize against the war:

Saving face is not worth the price, 40,000 + live. I desire to do anything I can to help end this American tragedy and useless killing. The Columbus, Ga. area is in need of some organization and information. There are many others, who like myself would like to work for peace but are ignorant as to just what we can do. Many of us have wives who are eager to do their part and who are better able to fully participate because of their civilian status. Any information and advice and/or material you could send will be greatly appreciated.

Another servicemember wrote to the VMC from his ship, the USS Sanctuary. “Those of us stationed aboard this ship who support your efforts and goals would like to participate in events on November 15, 1969,” he announced. He said that he and his shipmates planned “to wear black armbands,” though they had no plans to disrupt “the normal routine on board the ship,” seemingly in fear of reprisal.

Yet another soldier wrote the Cleveland Area Peace Action Council to express regret that he had “little way of supporting the Movement” from Vietnam, where he was stationed, but he sent $16 for the group to “send someone to DC who can’t afford it” on November 15. This GI explained his donation by saying he “would like to do my share for my country via the Movement.”

Historian Richard Moser cites Dave Blalock, a communications specialist stationed at Camp Long Thanh North, to show how the Times ad inspired GI protest in Vietnam around the November Moratorium. “One night we were sitting around the barracks in Vietnam” said Blalock, “and passing around this full-page ad in the New York Times that a guy had just come back from R & R in Hawaii had clipped out.”

Blalock recalled that everyone started saying “Why don’t we do something on this date, November 15,” and the GIs “came to a decision that we’re going to wear black armbands and we’re going to refuse to go out on patrol.” He continued:

The next day we went around … and put out the word … It seemed like everybody was doing it … The morning of the 15th we wake up at about five in the morning, and instead of playing the military shit, they put Jimi Hendrix’s “Star-spangled Banner” on …

So we went to formation with our new commanding officer. The former CO was blown away … he was killed, fragged … So we went out in morning formation and we’re all wearing black armbands. It was like 100 percent of the enlisted men. .. Including some of the war doctors and the helicopter pilots. The CO comes out as says … “I think we’re going to give you guys a day off.” He was real slick with it.

(Blalock’s full account can also be read in Waging Peace in Vietnam: US Soldiers and Veterans Who Opposed the War.)

These are just a few examples among many others, revealed in interviews, firsthand accounts, the GI underground press, and in letters that soldiers sent to antiwar groups and GI papers of the extent of soldier sympathy with and participation in the Moratorium protests.

The momentum from the November 15 continued to propel GI protest in the weeks that followed. For example, fifty marines from Camp Pendleton led an antiwar protest in Los Angeles days after the November Moratorium, while a few hundred GIs from Fort Bliss led an antiwar march the following Saturday in El Paso, Texas.

And while the Moratorium tapered off by the end of 1969, there were some last gasp attempts to carry out December activities. GIs participated in them. Penny Lewis notes that a thousand marines staged a Moratorium march in Oceanside, California, near Camp Pendleton, on December 14, 1969, while Cortright writes that two hundred soldiers at Fort Bragg also protested in a December action.

One soldier from the Army’s 33rd Signal Battalion wrote to an antiwar GI paper on New Year’s Eve, 1969, to request copies. He declared: “I have close to 500 names of G.I.’s that want to read it and become a part of the Peace things that are happening with the moratorium committee.” He noted that a single copy of an antiwar paper “can travel through 20 and 30 people in one day.” Another soldier from the Army’s 199th Infantry Brigade wrote to the VMC on December 13, 1969. His moving letter read:

For the past seven months I have served in Vietnam in an infantry company. During that time I have come to know the war in terms so personal and so filled with incredulity and sorrow that it is difficult for me to express my feelings about it without becoming either emotional or angry.

My country has let me down. It has sent me here to fight an impossible war; it has witnessed the death of my friends with nothing but vague talk of “commitments” and “silent majorities”; and refused to admit it. It is statistically freighting that the United States could commit 40,000 American lives to so unnecessary a war, but to those of us who must fight this war it is an almost unbearable reality.

I’m hoping that in the coming year our leaders will have the courage and humanity to extricate us from this senseless bloodbath. Too many men, good men, men who deserved to life, have been sacrificed already.

He ended his letter with an authorization from the VMC to “print this letter in full or in part in the N.Y. Times.”

Even into 1970, some GIs still wrote to the Moratorium committee with antiwar missives. A marine wrote a letter to an antiwar paper on behalf of his fellow troops. “We are active as possible here,” he declared. “59 Marines and 1 corpsman signed our petition for Xmas moratorium and we have more planned for this month.

Legacy

Remembering the antiwar efforts of GIs during the Moratorium days, and the GI movement more broadly, isn’t just an exercise in historical memory. The Vietnam War–era GI movement left an important model of resistance for later generations of antiwar soldiers and veterans, including up to the present.

Some scholars have also argued that the huge extent of soldier protest, defiance, and disobedience played a role in bringing the war to an end. The history of the GI movement also discredits the trope of a civilian antiwar movement that hated and spit upon soldiers.

Finally, remembering the history of GI protest during the US war on Vietnam is politically important, because it pushes back against popular narratives surrounding the war and soldiers that have been used to serve elite, militarist aims.

As I wrote for Monthly Review in 2016, the construction of historical memory is a deeply ideological process through which different political interests contend to shape our “common sense” about the past. Conservative and militarist forces have sought to define cultural icons like “the soldier” in ways that will benefit their own political agendas. This has been particularly trueregarding the memory of the Vietnam War.

However, the history of GI protest during the Vietnam War, the actual widespread examples of soldier resistance that have been largely erased from popular memory, pushes back against efforts to link the memory of US troops from the war with disdain for antiwar politics and support for war and militarism today.

Rather, soldiers themselves — in huge numbers, from the United States to Vietnam, often in solidarity with civilians peace activists — were actively involved in the antiwar movement or strongly supported it. For many, the antiwar movement and antiwar politics didn’t demoralize them; rather, this was their movement and their politics. A half-century since the October Moratorium, which GIs participated in and supported, this is history worth remembering.

*

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.

Derek Seidman is a power researcher and historian who lives in Buffalo, New York. He works as a research analyst for the Public Accountability Initiative and littlesis.org.

Featured image: Vietnam War protestors march at the Pentagon in Washington, DC on October 21, 1967.
Photo credit: Frank Wolfe / LBJ Library / Wikimedia

Peace Restored in Ecuador. But Is Trust Restored?

October 21st, 2019 by Nino Pagliccia

After ten people were reported killed on the streets of Ecuador, together with about 2,000 people injured and a large number imprisoned, an agreement was reached between the Lenin Moreno government and protesters against a controversial Decree 883 that had the footprint of the neoliberal austerity policies of the IMF.

For the time being the “dialogue” that lead to the derogation of the decree has defused the danger of an escalation of the general strike that was looming over the Moreno administration. But for how long?

It was a matter of time before the situation in Ecuador reached the point of political tension experienced in the last few weeks. The people of Ecuador have massively organised protests in rejection of the economic policies taken by the Lenin Moreno government at the beginning of October; protests that have been met by government  imposed military curfew and repression.

The tipping point has been decree 883 that forced a series of measures such as removal of subsidies for gasoline and diesel fuels deregulating their price, which caused a price increase of 20 percent up to more than 100 percent. Other costs were in turn affected together with everything that relies on transportation like food. Additional aspects of the decree included the elimination of import duties and the lay-off of thousands of public employees. This was viewed as part of a set of austerity measures imposed on the country by the IMF, which Ecuadoreans referred to as “paquetazo” (big package). In exchange, the Moreno government was to receive more than $4 billion from the IMF at the same time that it exonerated corporations from paying a similar amount in overdue taxation. 

The reaction has been immediate led by thousands of indigenous people from all provinces of Ecuador represented, among other groups, by the Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador, CONAIE (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador). This is important to emphasise because there has been an obvious attempt to discredit this genuine movement suggesting that Rafael Correa was behind it with the intention of triggering a coup. CONAIE made it a point to distance themselves from Correa.

Support for Moreno came promptly and more directly from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and a group of former Latin American presidents who issued a declaration denouncing “foreign-induced acts of people’s violence” naming  specifically Venezuela’s “dictatorship” and its “ally” the FARC. All in the attempt to politicise a genuine popular reaction and, in so doing, defend the sole culprits, the Lenin Moreno administration plus the IMF.

Lenin Moreno won the presidential elections of 2017 for the centre-left PAIS Alliance Party. He was Correa’s vice president and was considered the natural choice for the continuation of what was mostly a progressive government with a considerable support by Ecuadoreans.

However, after he became president Lenin Moreno soon started showing signs of straying from the previous administration, which was seen by many as a betrayal of everything he was elected for. It is not clear if his was a planned deceit or if there were any contributing circumstances including political pressure. But his quick turn around that initially came as a surprise, showed an aggressive motive with accusations of corruption of former president Rafael Correa.  He appointed several judges in the judiciary that would have ensured a prosecution. Consequently, Correa opted to leave the country becoming an opposition voice against his former vice president. Moreno’s appointments would also guarantee that he could not be prosecuted since after all he was part of the Correa administration for ten years. He soon established close ties with Washington that included purchases of military equipment and granting rights to “U.S. anti-drug overflights to land in the environmentally sensitive Galapagos Islands.”

The deal reached last October 13 between Lenin Moreno’s government and leaders of the indigenous people, represented by CONAIE’s president Jaime Vargas, was mediated by the UN and the Catholic church. Decree 883 was revoked and a commission to include indigenous reps will write a new proposal to replace it. This was quite a change of position from the embattled Moreno of a few days prior who had emphatically announced that he would not withdraw the decree. But the deepest moral divide was noted when Moreno shockingly stated in an interview: “with all respect for human life, but I believe that the dignity of a state is much more than that.” The lack of sensitivity for indigenous people’s dignity was not ignored by the protesters who stated that the lost lives would rest on his conscience.

Street celebrations followed the announcement of the deal that was seen as a major victory not only for indigenous people but also for all Ecuadoreans. It was certainly a victory for peace. But this needs to be a cautious celebration. Has trust been restored? Can Ecuadoreans rely on a government that betrayed them since the elections of 2017? Only time will tell.

*

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.

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

Ceasefire Ends, Talks on Syria Between Erdogan and Putin Begin

October 21st, 2019 by Sarah Abed

Monday marks the thirteenth day since Turkey began its third cross border military operation in Syria ironically named “Operation Peace Spring”. In the past two weeks civilian and militant lives on both sides have been lost, a large exodus has taken place, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a resolution that opposes US troop withdrawal, a five-day ceasefire was brokered between Turkey and the United States, and Kurdish militias have withdrawn from the “safe-zone”.

On Wednesday, there was overwhelming bipartisan approval for a measure that opposes President Trump’s U.S. forces withdrawal from Syria. The resolution was introduced by Reps. Michael McCaul, Republican from Texas and Eliot Engel, Democrat from NY and it calls on the White House to put forth a plan for the “enduring defeat” of Daesh and demand that Turkey cease its military operations in Syria.

The measure which passed 354-60 with four members voting present and all sixty of the nays coming from Republican’s stated,

“An abrupt withdrawal of United States military personnel from certain parts of Northeast Syria is beneficial to adversaries of the United States government, including Syria, Iran and Russia.”

It’s absurd that there’s outrage about ending a war and allowing Syria to handle its own domestic affairs. However, nothing of the sort happened when Nobel Peace Prize winner and former US President Barack Obama was bombing seven countries and creating some of the wars that President Trump has inherited including Syria. Bipartisan support for carrying on with endless wars is mind-boggling.

On Thursday, a ceasefire was brokered between the United States and Turkey. This pause was meant to for the Kurdish militias to dismantle their posts and retreat from the 32km “safe zone” and in response the US would not impose any new sanctions on Turkey. However, there’s a lesser mentioned point that prompted the ceasefire and that’s the entrapment of US/UK Coalition Joint Special Operations Task forces in northern Syria. It was necessary for hostilities to cease long enough for them to withdrawal out of harm’s way.

Washington and Turkey do not want the Kurdish militias to work in conjunction with the Syrian Arab Army, but for different reasons. The US would rather see them stay independent from the SAA and keep them as an ally in case US troops return. Remember northeast Syria is advantageous to the US because they can keep an eye on Iran and protect Israel plus there’s oil. Turkey would like to see the Kurdish militias dissolved along with any separatist Kurdish hopes and dreams of establishing an independent Kurdistan on its border.

Ankara has made it clear that if the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) plans on protecting the YPG/SDF that this will be considered an “act of war”. The Turkish administration is worried that the SAA will enter Manbij, Ayn al-Arab, and Qamishli to protect the Kurdish militias, but that wouldn’t be in the Syrian governments best interest.

There’s been some disagreement among the Kurdish militias as to where they need to be withdrawing from, Turkey is demanding that they entirely vacate the 32km border, and not just some of their posts. If the Kurdish militias entirely withdrawal from Turkey’s “safe zone” by the ceasefire deadline, what excuse will Ankara have to continue their military operation? None.

In the past week or so Syrian troops have made significant progress in regaining territory previously occupied by Kurdish militia’s in northern Syria, and Russia tried to broker negotiations between the Kurdish militias and the Syrian government.

Turkey’s stated goals are to fight the terrorist organizations on their southern border, create a safe-zone, and a “peace corridor” for the resettlement of 1-2 million Syrian refugees. They have stated that they are not looking to land grab or encroach but if we know anything about Turkey’s politics it’s that surprises lie behind every corner, much like the United States.

It’s no coincidence that the 120-hour ceasefire ends on Tuesday, and that’s precisely when President Erdogan will be going to Russia to meet with President Vladimir Putin. President Putin has taken on the role of negotiator and is usually the most level-headed adult in the room when it comes to the Syria conflict and dealing with Turkey, Syria, the Kurdish militias, and yes even the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia along with other players.

I assume the seasoned politician serving his fourth term in office will handle the Sochi meeting on Tuesday with Turkey, in the same polite and diplomatic manner we’ve grown accustomed to.

There were some questions as to whether the ceasefire will continue till then, due to violations on both sides. Turkey defense ministry stated on Sunday that one of their soldiers was killed and that the Kurdish militias violated the ceasefire over 20 times in the past three days. The SDF is stating that 16 of their fighters have been killed. Also, as part of the agreement between the US and Turkey, an 86- vehicle Kurdish convoy left Ras al-Ayn toward the town of Tal Tamr this weekend.

On Sunday, hundreds of trucks carrying almost 500 US personnel were seen withdrawing troops near Al Hasakah to Iraq’s border. It’s also been noted that US troops are destroying their own airfields and equipment before fleeing.

It appears that out of the supposed 1,000 US troops that about 500-700 will be sent to Iraq and about 200-300 will remain in Syria to perform what a senior US official referred to as a “counter Daesh mission”. Back in December President Trump had said he wanted to bring all 2,000 troops back home, and now it doesn’t seem like any of them will be coming back home anytime soon.

*

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

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

Indigenous Rising in Ecuador and International Solidarity

October 21st, 2019 by Kasim Tirmizey

While many Canadians were celebrating Thanksgiving weekend, events in Ecuador generally did not catch media attention. After 11 days of an indigenous-led national general strike and state repression, an agreement was achieved by both parties on the night of October 13th that reversed one aspect of the paquetazo (package) of austerity measures. Those events seem very disconnected with the rhythms of life in Canada, but in many ways there are significant connections. Further, while the general strike has been called off, there is an important need to build or revitalize movements of international solidarity at the contemporary conjuncture.

From October 3rd to 13th tens of thousands of people under the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) organized a national general strike. This action centered on paralyzing the country’s capital, Quito, but protests, blockades, and occupation of public spaces and government buildings occurred across multiple sites in the country. Such an intensive and extensive movement was possible because of the widespread mobilization among the country’s various indigenous nations.

The general strike was called in response to austerity measures taken by the Ecuadorian government as part of conditionalities of signing a $4.2-billion loan with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Government reforms included the removal of subsidies on gasoline prices (Decree 883), that temporary contracts be renewed with a 20% reduction in wages, and public employees be no longer given 30 days of vacation but 15 days. An anti-austerity movement coalesced through the leadership of the CONAIE and brought together student, feminist, environmental justice, and labour movements. In addition, there have been solidarity actions across the world, including La Paz, Buenos Aires, Valencia, Madrid, Barcelona, Bilbao, México, Paris, Montreal and New York. Actions in several places included protests outside of the offices of Ecuadorian embassies and consulates.

Cracking Down on Protesters

The Ecuadorian state, under president Lenin Moreno, responded to these protests by declaring a state of exception, which gave significant liberty to the armed forces to repress protesters and censor media critical of the government. From the 3rd to 13th of October, 1192 protesters were detained, 8 were killed, and 1340 injured.1 It has to be remembered that the state repression was unprecedented when considering the immediate past. The previous national indigenous uprisings of 1990, 1994, 1997, and 2000 did not witness such brute force. In the present struggle, this has included the military and police terrorizing indigenous men, women, and children who received refuge in Quito’s universities by throwing tear gas bombs. The armed forces invaded indigenous communal territories in the middle of the night and rounded up their leadership. In multiple cases protesters were beaten, tortured, and trampled upon.

During the dialogue between the CONAIE and the government, Miriam Cisneros, the presidenta of the Sarayaku community in the Amazon, spoke with strength directly to the President:

Photo of Miriam Cisneros, president of the community of Sarayaku. Translation: “I don’t feel alone because this struggle has been alongside the mestizo, afro, and indigenous communities. We have struggled together. We demand that our sisters detained in the prison be liberated, and that our leaders no longer be persecuted when this is over.” Photo Credit: CONAIE.

“Our brothers and sisters have died. This means that our president [of Ecuador] has sent men with arms to kill when we come as a non-violent movement. We have left our children in the jungle [to come to Quito] without knowing that they are eating well. Instead, we have passed 12 days on the streets, Mr. President. […] Our sisters have suffered by being stepped on and beaten by the police and military. Last night when we were staying at the Casa de la Cultura,2 they were not compassionate with us, Mr. President. Doesn’t it hurt you to know that the military and police comes to confront women and children? This is what I have come to tell you as an Amazonica woman, Mr. President. I hope that these assassinations remain in your conscious.”

The power of the general strike was first felt when the government temporarily shifted the seat of its power from Quito to Guayaquil, an important commercial port city that has in the recent past been dominated by conservative forces. And then on October 13th, the government agreed to meet the demand of the CONAIE to remove Decree 883. While much of the Ecuadorian media has focused on the question of the removal of gasoline subsidies for consumers, the CONAIE has emphasized that this movement goes beyond the question of gasoline prices as such.

The national general strike was provoked by IMF conditionalities and this frames the recent direct actions. The movement is confronting how government reforms will further exasperate unequal social relations into the future. On the seventh day of the national general strike the CONIAE wrote:

“The capitalist class sells our homeland and is pro-imperialist, they want to secure the loans of the International Monetary Fund so that their debts and economic crisis is paid by the working class, the indigenous people, and the popular sectors.

“This fight is not only about the conditions of today, nor is it just about the price of gasoline. Our struggle is to prevent that they mortgage our future, such that our next two and three generations will pay with more hunger and poverty for what we didn’t stop today.”3

Austerity and Dispossession

The neoliberal project represented in the austerity paquetazo is also a colonial project. It is difficult not to think about these actions without remembering that 527 years ago on October 12th was the beginning of colonialism in the Americas.4 Contemporary social stratification is a product of historical processes of organizing society based on racial categories (e.g. white, mestizo, indigenous, black). These processes are still ongoing, but through less explicit mechanisms. During the national general strike, the Ecuadorian government and a section of the white elite and mestizo middle class delegitimized the movement through racist discourse. For example, Jaime Nebot, the mayor of Guayaquil, questioned why indigenous people were invading the cities when their place in society were the highlands (paramo). The general image in Ecuadorian society was that the “indian,” the “savage,” had no place in urban civilized life and their presence was an unnecessary inconvenience.

Jaime Vargas, president of CONAIE. “The country is being governed by the Right and the IMF”. Photo Credit: CONAIE.

But, the issue is more then just words, as this discourse develops consensus around social organization on the basis of racial hierarchies. Indigenous people’s experience of neoliberalization has been the loss of land and environmental damage through further mining and oil exploration in their territories against their consent. The CONAIE has emphasized that at issue is the liberalization of the economy for the benefit of national and transnational capital that includes the ongoing dispossession of indigenous peoples. During the dialogue process with the government, CONIAE president Jaime Vargas emphasized that “the country is being governed by right-wing forces and the IMF.” All efforts are being made by the current government to maintain the rate of profit of the capitalist class by violently reducing the compensation received for the labour of indigenous people, peasants, and workers. Just as neoliberalization is part of a colonial-capitalist project, this indigenous-led movement against the IMF and the Ecuadorian government is anti-colonial and anti-capitalist.

The CONAIE outlined in a recent report how displacement, dispossession, and exploitation are the mechanisms for violently accumulating more by compensating people less:

“The Government has launched permanent public campaigns to position the so-called ‘benefits’ of mining and extractivism among corporate media, such as El Comercio and Televistazo, and with the support of government institutions. This is all the while advancing the dispossession of the territories and suffering among the population. This includes, but is not limited to the following:

  1. The imposition of the oil concession of block 28 in the province of Pastaza.
  2. Conflicts over the start of mining in the subtropical zones of the Cotopaxi and Bolívar provinces, in Intag (on the border between the provinces of Imbabura and Pichincha) and in Río Blanco (Molleturo, Azuay province).
  3. The beginning of the exploitation phase of mining concessions in the Cordillera del Cóndor and Shuar territory.
  4. The abuses by the shrimp companies in the area of the Gulf of Guayaquil and on the Puná Island against their workers and against the adjacent communes that were previously stripped of their territories.
  5. The persecution of labour leaders in the banana sector and the covering up the abuses committed among workers on large landholdings (haciendas).”5

The Moreno government was able to convince international funding institutions to provide Ecuador with a loan by demonstrating that the country was open for mining exploitation by foreign companies. The IMF advised the Ecuadorian government to change their tax regime to favour mining companies.6

Acción Ecológica, an Ecuadorian environmental justice NGO, has argued that:

“The agreement with the IMF implies that the country’s debt will be financed through mining and petroleum exploitation, thus exasperating the extractivist model, aggravated by economic measures that generate greater poverty to the Ecuadorian people and destroying nature.”7

As part of the IMF austerity package, the Ministries of Production and Agriculture announced that import tariffs would be reduced between 50 and 100% for 200 products that include raw materials and capital goods for the agricultural sector. While this appears as providing benefits to small-scale peasants by reducing the cost of agricultural inputs, the reality is that this liberalization only benefits capital-intensive, large-scale, and export-oriented agro-businesses, and transnational agricultural and food corporations. The effect of this measure is that the government is subsidizing capitalist agriculture.8

The Local Struggles and International Solidarity

The indigenous-led anti-austerity movement forced the government to revoke the executive decree removing petroleum subsidies. This is indeed a major victory given that peasants and workers would have otherwise seen an increase in the cost of living. It also reversed a trend that forced working people to pay for the country’s debt and subsidize national and transnational capital. Yet, the other aspects of the austerity paquetazo remain intact. Acción Ecológica has argued that what is behind the austerity measures are the expanding mining, petroleum and agro-business frontiers. They call for struggling against this expansion to get at the root of the austerity project.9

In this sense, the struggle is not over. Indigenous communities in the Amazon continue to resist the expansion of the frontiers of petroleum exploitation. Banana workers continue to fight for better working conditions. The struggle continues since the IMF package enables the continued dispossession and exploitation of working people by national and transnational capital. Given the international connections that are embedded in the IMF package, a corresponding international response of solidarity with the struggles of indigenous people, workers, and peasants is necessary. In the Canadian context, given that the country’s mining companies are significant players in Ecuador and are set to benefit from the IMF package, it is imperative for international solidarity groups in Canada to make these links.

The uncontrolled military force that repressed the national general strike is a signal of the increasing authoritarian character in defense of imperialist interests and capitalist development in the region, from Brazil to Colombia. It should be remembered that the recent authoritarian neoliberal moment builds upon the history of colonialism. That there was little global denunciation of state violence is another reason why movements for international solidarity need to organize.

Acknowledgments: I want to thank Gladys Calvopiña for feedback and comments. The cited texts are my own translations from Spanish. All errors are my own.

*

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.

Kasim Tirmizey is a teacher, writer, and activist. He currently teaches at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. He has lived in Ecuador where he was involved with different social organizations including Acción Ecológica.

Notes

  1. Defensoria del Pueblo Ecuador. “Séptimo Informe Ejecutivo personas detenidas Paro Nacional – Estado de Excepción – Octubre 2019.”
  2. The Casa de la Cultura (House of Culture) is a national cultural center in the heart of Quito. The center gave refuge to the CONAIE and its members during the national general strike.
  3. CONAIE. 2019. “Boletin de 10 de Octubre 2019.”
  4. Yupanqui, Véronica Yuquilema. 2019. “12 de Octubre, Día De La Resistencia,” La Línea de Fuego, October 12, 2019.
  5. CONAIE. 2019. “Jornada Progresiva de Lucha.”
  6. Francescone, Kirsten. 2019. “Canadian Mining Companies Part of the Problem as Repression of Indigenous and Social Movements Escalates in Ecuador,” Mining Watch Canada.
  7. Acción Ecológica. 2019. “Serie Subsidios #6: FMI: Deuda, Extractivismo, y Violencia.”
  8. Acción Ecológica. 2019. “Serie Subsidios #4: La Reducción Arancelaria A Las Importaciones Agrícolas Beneficiará Al Agronegocio.”
  9. Acción Ecológica. 2019. “Ante Las Medidas Tomadas Por El Gobierno De Lenin Moreno.”

Featured image: A scene from the women’s march of October 12th in Quito as part of the national general strike. Photo Credit: Cynthia Domínguez Alcivar.

Trump’s Disgraceful Letter to Erdogan

October 21st, 2019 by Prof. Alon Ben-Meir

There is no wonder that every person and news outlet that saw Trump’s letter to Turkey’s president Erdogan thought it was a joke. When it was confirmed that the letter was indeed authentic, bewilderment and disbelief struck everyone who read it, as no US president has ever written such a disgraceful letter which will be remembered in infamy.

Trump starts the letter by stating,

“Let’s work out a good deal!”

Yes, a good deal, just like another shady real estate transaction based on a wicked quid pro quo. Only a psychopath would forget that he gave Erdogan the green light to invade Syria to kill, destroy, and pillage the same Syrian Kurds who were America’s most trusted allies in the fight against ISIS and suffered more than 10,000 casualties. Throughout the war they remained steadfast as an ally, believing that the US would always watch their back, but they were crushingly disappointed.

“You don’t want to be responsible for slaughtering thousands of people,” Trump goes on to say in his infamous letter.

Since when has Erdogan ever been concerned about slaughtering anyone that stood in his way, especially the Kurds whom he hates with a vengeance and has been planning for more than two years to attack and massacre—men, women, and children.

Then Trump stated that

“I don’t want to be responsible for destroying the Turkish economy – and I will. I’ve already given you a little sample with respect to Pastor Brunson.”

First, Trump tells Erdogan to go ahead and wreak havoc on our allies, but then warns Erdogan that he will destroy the Turkish economy if Erdogan does not heed his demand. Well, if this isn’t the nature of a mentally disturb individual, then I don’t know what is.

Trump then proceeds by saying that

“I have worked hard to solve some of your problems.”

The question is, what has Trump worked so hard on with Erdogan when the two hardly ever see eye-to-eye? There is one exception though. Trump envies the Turkish dictator who has been ruling his country with an iron fist; subjugating, jailing, pillaging, and purging his own people with absolutely no qualms and no misgivings. Yes, Trump would love to rule over the US and terrorize the Democrats to submission just like Erdogan, if he only had his way.

“Don’t let the world down”, Trump continues.

What is that supposed to mean? Erdogan has let down the US, all NATO member states, and every institution Turkey is a member of or has any affiliation with. Erdogan is a criminal and has committed crimes against humanity. But then, what is there to say? Erdogan, after all, is a byproduct of the Ottoman Empire, which committed genocide against the Armenians as well as against the Greeks, but he conveniently denies that, albeit the historic records are irrefutable.

Trump goes on to say that

“General Mazloum is willing to negotiate with you, and he is willing to make concessions that they would never have made in the past.”

What is there to negotiate? Erdogan has been given a free hand all along. He has been killing his own Kurds for decades; he defied Trump previously by buying the Russian S-400 air defense system; he is interfering in the internal affairs of many countries, especially in the Balkans and the Middle East; and he is ignoring his Western allies, showing them his middle finger with a smirk on his face.

Now Trump dispatches his Secretary of State Pompeo and Vice President Pence to cajole Erdogan and beg him to agree to a ceasefire while granting him everything he wished for. With the green light given by Trump, Turkey invaded northeastern Syria with the purpose of establishing a “safe zone” for displaced Syrians, but more importantly to push out the Kurdish fighters who are viewed by Ankara as a security threat. In the main, however, Ankara’s goal is to prevent the establishment of an independent Kurdish state in Syria that could evoke a renewed drive by Turkey’s Kurdish minority to seek independence.

Just think about what actually happened. Here you have the President of the US, no less, pleading for cessation of hostilities instead of demanding, in no uncertain terms, that Erdogan pulls out his forces immediately from Syria or face dire consequences. Erdogan, however, seems to take Trump for granted, feeling assured that the straw man in the White House will not take any punitive action not only because he lacks strategic thinking but because of his cowardice.

Trump stated that Pence and Pompeo scored a victory, when in fact it was Erdogan who emerged victorious. Erdogan succeeded in outmaneuvering Trump at every turn, with the US caving into everything Erdogan wanted. Trump ceded ground in Syria, including US military bases, and also agreed to lift the sanctions. The ceasefire may have stopped the killing of the Kurds, but no ceasefire will erase the US’ betrayal of them. The price that the US will end up paying will be hard to imagine.

Next Trump goes on to say that

“History will look upon you favorably if you get this done the right and humane way. It will look upon you forever as the devil if good things don’t happen.”

Will history ever look at Erdogan favorably? The so-called man whose despicable personality supersedes only his ruthlessness and brutality? Erdogan, who took pleasure in the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds, personifies the devil itself and is simply incapable of doing anything, as Trump puts it, “the right and humane way”.

Finally, Trump preaches to Erdogan, saying

“Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool!”

Well, Trump is simply looking at himself in the mirror. He is the one who tries to play the tough guy, and he is the real fool who occupies the White House.

“I will call you later.”

This is how Trump ends the letter. Call Erdogan for what, just to tell him ‘Don’t worry, I still believe that my decision to pull out our troops from Syria was the right decision. You, Erdogan, just go ahead and do what you need to; just don’t make too much noise and don’t brag about it. Leave the bragging to me.’

*

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. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. [email protected] Web: www.alonben-meir.com.

Featured image is from American Herald Tribune

Ecuadorean General Strike Wins Concession on Fuel Subsidies

October 21st, 2019 by Abayomi Azikiwe

After days of mass demonstrations and work stoppages, the Ecuadorean people have illustrated their revolutionary tradition in the ongoing battle against the imposition of austerity.

Beginning on October 3, people responded angrily over the withdrawal of fuel subsidies which had been in place for four decades.

The government of Lenin Moreno, adhering to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditionality, announced the new economic program which resulted in the sharp rise in the price of diesel by 100% and petroleum by 30%. These price increases happened over night making it impossible for many working people and farmers to pay for their household expenses.

These hyperinflationary trends also resulted in the rise in food prices and the cost of transportation. The Moreno government initially rejected the demands of the unions and mass organizations saying that fuel subsidies had cost the country over $60 Billion.

An additional series of labor and tax measures were specifically designed to make Ecuador eligible for a $4.2 Billion loan from the IMF. As part of the austerity package, a 20% cut in salaries for public sector workers was enacted along with the reduction in vacation time from 30 to 20 days annually.

These huge price increases and reduction in pay proved to be the spark which ignited broad sectors among the working class and peasantry into action. With a minimum wage of only $394 per month, the material impact of the IMF imposed policy would drive many more people into abject poverty.

On the first two days of the austerity program, October 3 and 4, unions representing workers in the taxis, buses and trucking sectors went on strike blocking roads and consequently paralyzing the entire country. After talks with the government, the transport unions called off their strike after October 4.

Nonetheless, hundreds of thousands of others representing the Indigenous people, students, mass organizations and local transportation workers, entered the streets demanding that the IMF imposed measures be revoked. These demonstrators blocked traffic prompting clashes with police resulting in the deaths of eight people, 1,300 injuries and the arrest of over 1,100 others.

The mass resistance continued during the week of October 7 even after Moreno had declared a national security emergency. The administration was forced to move its operations outside the capital of Quito to Guayaquil due to the intensity of the clashes between the workers, farmers and youth against the security forces.

Members of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) led the demonstrations in Quito where they blocked streets along with the entry into key government buildings therefore choking off the ability of the state to conduct its normal business. After intense confrontations with the police, there was extensive property damage and arson.

Moreno was forced to hold direct talks with CONAIE. The alliance of Indigenous nationalities refused to negotiate until the government reinstated the fuel subsidy program.

Indigenous groups have grievances which extend beyond the recent price increases. They are opposed to the extraction of natural resources from their traditional lands which have created tensions with successive governments over the last decade.

Mario Melo, an attorney leading the Human Rights Center at Catholic University in Quito, told the Guardian newspaper that:

“The indigenous movement has been a powerful actor in Ecuador since the 1990s.” Demonstrations and mass unrest led by Indigenous people have been pivotal in the removal of several Ecuadorean presidents, including Abdalá Bucaram in 1997, Jamil Mahuad in 2000 and Lucio Gutiérrez in 2005. (See this)

After the announcement of the reversal of the fuel policy (Decree 883) imposed due to the IMF measures, members of CONAIE and others stayed in the capital to assist with the cleanup of the damage caused during the unrest. Nonetheless, the underlying causes of the austerity program adopted by Moreno will continue until there is a fundamental shift in the overall posture of the current government.

Moreno Betrays the Progressive Shift in Domestic and Foreign Policy

Lenin Moreno served as Vice President under the former President Rafael Correa. The Correa government had embarked upon a left-leaning and non-capitalist path of development which placed emphasis on the needs of the workers and farmers inside the country.

Under the banner of the Proud and Sovereign Fatherland Alliance (PAIS), Correa was able to implement reforms related to the renegotiation of foreign debt to the IMF and the World Bank along with the enhancement of social welfare benefits for the working class and poor people of the country. Correa also brought Indigenous and African populations into the administrative apparatus of the state.

This country of 16 million people relies largely on the production of petroleum and agricultural products. During the PAIS period, Ecuador joined the Alliance of Bolivarian Nations (ALBA) and maintained close ties with Venezuela and Bolivia.

During the Correa administration there was a deliberate shift away from the political, economic and military orbit of United States imperialism. In September 2010, an attempted coup against Correa led by the police failed with the majority of the National Assembly and the military siding with the PAIS government. Although the U.S. claimed it had no involvement in the coup attempt and recognized Correa as the legitimate leader, these developments followed a similar pattern in other regional states such as Honduras (2009) and Paraguay (2012), where right-wing governments were installed while President Barack Obama was in office.

When Moreno ran for office to succeed Correa he had pledged to continue the same policy trajectory. However, within a matter of days it became obvious that Moreno would not be true to his campaign promises.

Not only was the policies of the Correa government repudiated, the former president has been accused of kidnapping an opposition politician. He is currently living in Belgium and has expressed an interest in reentering Ecuadorean politics.

Correa pronounced his support for the demonstrations demanding that the Moreno administration resign. Moreno has accused Correa of being behind the unrest along with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Regional Implications of the Ecuadorean Crisis

Of course Washington and Wall Street have been at war with the revolutionary tide of change throughout Latin America. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela now under the presidency of Nicolas Maduro has been a target of successive U.S. administrations where several coup attempts have been carried out dating back to the tenure of President Hugo Chavez in 2002 and extending to the most recent efforts aimed at regime-change on April 30, 2019.

Venezuela has been subjected to draconian sanctions emanating from the White House and the Congress. Diplomats assigned to the U.S. by Caracas have been withdrawn due to the machinations of the administration of President Donald Trump.

However, Venezuela has maintained its unity and sovereignty amid these attacks. Support for the United Socialist Party (PSUV) continues among the key elements of Venezuelan society.

In addition to Venezuela, sanctions and destabilization plans are continuing against the Republic of Cuba. Havana has withstood nearly six decades of a blockade by the U.S.

The struggle in Ecuador is a manifestation of the class and national struggles of the people who want genuine independence and sustainable development. The move away from socialist-orientation to a conservative neo-liberal approach will only further inflame the broad discontent among the masses in Ecuador.

In relationship to its foreign policy reversals, Ecuador under Moreno withdrew from ALBA and is consciously moving to build relations with the Trump administration. The U.S. has provided intelligence and military support to the Moreno regime.

Moreover, Moreno has recognized Juan Guaido, the Washington-backed opposition figure in Venezuela, whom the Trump administration unsuccessfully attempted to install as president in a failed coup attempt in April. With the inability of the opposition in Venezuela to gain any stature internationally among progressive governments within South America, the U.S. has escalated its sanctions policy against Caracas.

Another major element of the foreign policy of Moreno is the withdrawal of diplomatic immunity for Australian journalist Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, who was protected in the Ecuadorean embassy in London for several years. When Moreno took office he allowed the British police to enter the embassy and arrest Assange who could be extradited to the U.S. to possibly face a long prison term or the death penalty for espionage.

These developments in Ecuador are a reflection of the continuing role of the U.S. and other imperialist states in the internal affairs of Latin American nations. Although the imperialists have nothing to offer to the people of the region other than austerity, exploitation and instability, the ruling class in the U.S. will inevitably continue its centuries-old policy of seeking hegemony throughout the entire western hemisphere.

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author

Securing US Interests Through US Military Build-up in Saudi Arabia

October 21st, 2019 by Askiah Adam

That national interests determine foreign relations is the received norm and has been operating, especially under Western hegemony, forever. Hence, the inability of Western foreign relations experts to perceive of a win-win configuration of the Chinese kind in Africa and Asia. And, nothing has changed. American imperialism today, is no less about its own interests. This premise denies the possibility that the recent US withdrawal from Northeast Syria is anything but self-interest. That reports suggesting American troops are still in the oil rich areas east of the Euphrates signals this unequivocally. Ultimately, this could be the spanner in the works for the so-called win-win-win-win arrangement in Syria. The US withdrawal has four beneficiaries, Syria obviously, Russia now the undisputed power in the region, Turkey to vanquish the Kurds with little resistance and the US itself, falsely claiming it has eliminated ISIS and so is victorious, a claim undisputed by the resistance powers if it serves to get rid of the US. 

But America is more than just its oil interests. Is it mere coincidence that Trump is bringing home the troops to Saudi Arabia, so to speak? Whether as a mercenary army or otherwise the implications of American military build-up in Saudi Arabia coming so soon after the damage to the Saudi oil installations reducing the country’s production by half, and the capture of Saudi military brigades within her borders by the Houthis, is nothing short of alarming vis-a-vis Saudi security. At the end of the Second World War Roosevelt and the Saudi King, Al—Saud came to an agreement that the US would protect the Saudi monarchy in return for cheap oil and the perpetuation of the oil trade in US dollars. 

What if the Kingdom is defeated? At the end of the Second World War Roosevelt and the Saudi King, Al—Saud came to an agreement that the US would protect the Saudi monarchy in return for cheap oil and the perpetuation of the oil trade in US dollars. 

Firstly, therefore, given the longstanding security arrangements between the kingdom and Washington, the vulnerability of Saudi Arabia equates in most minds with the failure of the United States military defensive hardware, to protect. THAAD or no THAAD the missiles got through with astounding accuracy. On the surface Washington refuses to believe that it was the Houthis of Yemen despite claims by them. The fact remains more needs to be done for Saudi security irrespective of whether it was Iran or the Houthis who mounted the attack. 

Saudi security is actually everybody’s concern. It is no exaggeration to assume that the destruction of Saudi oil production capacity can affect the world economy. Crippling Saudi oil facilities means the world’s biggest supplier is off the market. Oil prices would go through the roof. Indeed the world economy is very dependent on oil but at what price per barrel? When barrels of oil are priced too high, it makes production uneconomic. When global oil-based production — these are more than many — cannot accommodate the impossibly high price of oil in their cost of production, economies around the world are affected resulting in economic slowdowns if not recessions. 

There is also the recent disclosure of how the US and Saudi Arabia are joined at the hip, more or less. According to a Bloomberg report by Andrea Wong, in 1974 the US Treasury Secretary, William Simon was tasked by President Richard Nixon to “neutralize (sic) crude oil as an economic weapon and find a way to persuade a hostile kingdom to finance America’s widening deficit with its new-found petrodollar wealth”. There was no room for failure because it “would jeopardise America’s financial health.” Simon sold “the idea that America was the safest place to park their petrodollars” in US government debt. 

“The basic framework was strikingly simple. The US would buy oil from Saudi Arabia and provide the kingdom military aid and equipment. In return, the Saudis would plow (sic) billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America’s spending.” 

But the arrangement was kept a secret at the request of the then Saudi monarch and until the recent disclosures, it has stayed a secret for four decades. The total US debt owned by the Saudi government represents 20 per cent of the kingdom’s $587 billion worth of foreign reserves. Keeping the Saudi kingdom afloat then is of immense importance under the current circumstance where Riyadh is running a deficit and may be forced to liquidate its assets. In fact, the article goes on to say that the US debt held by Saudi Arabia could be larger if they are holding it through offshore financial centres, “which show up in the data of other countries.” Bloomberg speculates that the worry is that the kingdom may even use its “outsize position in the world’s most important debt market” as a weapon. Because Saudi Arabia led the oil embargo which sent the American economy into a tailspin in 1974 which, in turn, sent Simon to the kingdom. 

Fulfilling its position as guarantor of Saudi’s security then becomes an imperative of paramount importance when the Saudi war with Yemen is at its most threatening to Riyadh. There is much talk that the kingdom is doomed. Defeating the Houthis then is very much a US interest. American boots are stomping the sands of Saudi Arabia. The acquiescence of the Pentagon to Trump’s troop withdrawal from Syria and increasing the number of US troops in Saudi Arabia by 1,800 and military hardware bespeaks an underlying urgency that is creating a consensus in the Trump Administration. The last time Trump announced a withdrawal in Syria his Defence Secretary resigned. That consensus is to defeat the Houthis. An escalation of the war on Yemen then is very likely. 

The main purpose of the escalation would be to safeguard the Saudi position and consequently secure US interests in the most important oil-exporting region of the world. 

*

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

Askiah Adam is executive director of the International Movement for a JUST World (JUST).

Bolivia at the Crossroads: Choosing Between Continued Success or Handover to US Hegemony

October 21st, 2019 by Peter Koenig

“I don’t want to be the best President in the history of Bolivia, I want to be the President of the best Bolivia in history.”

So proclaimed Evo Morales in a pre-election rally a few days before general elections, today, 20 October 2019. At the same time, Evo declared that ever since the Tribunal Constitucional Plurinacional (TCP – Plurinational Constitutional Tribunal) in November 2017 rejected an appeal by the opposition that he could run for a fourth term for President, and approved his candidacy for 20 October elections, US interference on a daily basis was rampant. 

The United States has not stopped trying to change public opinion with false propaganda and making incredibly ludicrous promises to the population. For example, US Embassy people – maybe Fifth Columnists on US payroll, promised the population of the poor Yungas region of Bolivia, new and asphalted roads, if they didn’t support Evo Morales in the upcoming elections. There are also flagrant lies circulating, that Evo and his families had stolen hundreds of millions of dollars and deposited them in a secret account in the Bank of the Vatican.  Similar lies as are being spread about Nicolas Maduro, the Castro family, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, the leaders of Iran and Syria and many more, who oppose the dictate of Washington.

The Bolivian Minister of the Presidency, Juan Ramón Quintara, referring to the US attempts to sabotage the elections, mentioned a few days ago on a Bolivian public TV channel,

“There is not one day the US is not interfering in Bolivian political internal affairs.” He added, warning his compatriots, “In the last 50 years the United States has put its dirty hand in the Bolivian electoral process. Today the interference is worse than ever. For this reason, brothers Bolivianos, be aware and don’t allow your vote being highjacked by foreign meddling.”

This is in total disrespect of international law, of international diplomacy and ethics. But what to expect from the only rogue state on our “Mother Earth”? Not to mention the flagrant, aberrant and hardly hidden corruption going on in the current and previous US governments for the last at least 100 years, and the Pentagon’s and White House’s constant interference in elections around the world. It is amazing that anybody would still go for these lies – spread by an emperor who is wheezing on his last breath.

Evo Morales is running for the fourth time with his Vice-President, Álvaro Marcelo García Linera, on the MAS Party (MAS – Movimiento al Socialismo), the Movement for Socialism, for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency of Bolivia. The MAS was created in 1998 by Evo Morales. According to the latest polls, Evo has just under 40% of people’s support, against about 22% of Carlos Mesa, the strongest opponent, who is running second, from the right-wing Civic Community party.

According to Bolivian’s Constitution, with 40% of the votes, the candidate wins in the first round. Evo could indeed, win the election in the first round. However, if he gets less than 40%, they are headed for a second-round run-off election. That’s usually where the dangers lay – that’s where US interference is the most ferocious, in elections worldwide, where they want the winning candidate defeated. Washington spends untold millions in smearing the winning candidate and promoting “their” candidate. And often they are successful.  Examples abound. One of the most flagrant one is the 2016 Presidential election in Peru, when in the first round the second candidate from the Socialist Party, the most likely overall winner, was pushed back by election fraud to third place, and the right-wing US-supported candidate was made second – and “won” in the run-off. Today he is under house-arrest, awaiting trial for corruption, linked to illegal business arrangements with the US.

If Evo Morales does not receive the 40% necessary to win the first round, compliments of US interference, it would be the first time in his four runs for President that he would be forced into a second round. He won both the 2009 and 2014 elections with a landslide first round, 61% and 64% respectively.

AlJazeera reports from La Paz, today, in the early morning hours of Election Day, that millions of Bolivians are expected to “cast their ballots amid a climate of uncertainty as President Evo Morales seeks a controversial fourth term.”

Why controversial? – Because the 2009 Constitution allows a President to serve only two terms. But Evo argued that his first term didn’t count because it took place before the new Constitution entered into effect. So, why a fourth term? – Evo realizes that his opposition, especially under his chief contender, Carlos Mesa, would reverse the socioeconomic achievements (see below) of the last 13 years.

Mesa would return the country to the IMF austerity dictate of which Bolivia has been free for 13 years – a main reason for Evo having been able to carry out social reforms, not only benefitting all of Bolivia’s “plurinational” indigenous people, but also to advance Bolivia in macro-economic terms, i.e. renegotiating and partially nationalizing Bolivia’s gas contracts, reducing foreign debt and amassing huge foreign exchange reserves.

Evo is observing closely what is happening in neighboring Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru and Ecuador. It is clear, leaving the elections free without his candidacy, Washington’s dirty hands would manipulate the elections – as they have “successfully” done in the countries mentioned before – to bring in a US favorable candidate, i.e. Carlos Mesa – and the country would be cooked. It is not difficult to foresee such a disaster, just watch what is happening in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and Peru, where poverty and unemployment, and related crime, is rampant.

For a bit of history – Carlos Mena was Vice-President under President Sánchez de Lozada, called “Goni” (August 2002 to October 2003), a businessman, educated by the neoliberal School of Economics of the University of Chicago. Sánchez de Lozada was a built-in representative of Washington, who spoke Spanish with a strong English accent, representing blatantly US over Bolivian interests. He was forced out of office in 2003 by people’s protests over the so-called ‘Bolivian Gas Conflict’ (“Goni” was practically giving away Bolivia’s huge natural gas reserves to foreign petrol corporations, mostly US, for a pittance).

The bloody confrontations forcing Goni to flee the country to the US, claimed the lives of 59 protesters, soldiers and policemen. Goni was succeeded by his Vice-President, Carlos Mesa, who followed in Goni’s footsteps, continuing Goni’s policies on Bolivia’s natural gas. Carlos Mesa, after less than 2 years in office, was also forced to resign in 2005, under incessant people’s demonstrations and protests.

New elections at the end of 2005 brought in Evo Morales, who was presiding over the country from the beginning of 2006 to this day. – Watch also the documentary, “Our Brand is Crisis”, depicting how Sanchez de Lozada was made to win the 2002 elections over Evo Morales, by a special US propaganda team – see this.

A look at Bolivia’s socioeconomic achievements should further convince anybody who thinks for the people, that Evo did very well, insisting on his candidacy for the 2019 elections. The Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, finds that Bolivia’s remarkable gains have been largely the result of wise policy choices, rather than just a “commodities boom”.

Bolivia was the fastest growing economy in Latin America over the past five years, about 5.2% on average (double the Latin-American average) and was able, under Evo Morales, to reduce poverty by 42% and extreme poverty by 60% since 2006, when Evo took office. The country also ended 20 years of IMF “rule”, by Evo’s eviction of the infamous Bretton Woods institution.

Other remarkable achievements include:

  • A 50% increase in real terms of per capita GDP in 2018, over 2005;
  • From 2006 – 2011 the government revenues from hydrocarbon increased seven-fold to US$ 4.95 billion, mostly from nationalization and associated policy changes. This was the driving force for the Government’s reaching macroeconomic stability and achieving its socioeconomic targets;
  • Unemployment has dropped from 7.7% to 4.4.% in 2008 – and has remained stable through 2018;
  • Public investments have increased along with Bolivia’s economic growth; Bolivia has the highest public investment as a percentage of GDP of the region;
  • Overall investments have reached almost 22% of GDP on average per year over the past 5 years;
  • In 2010 Bolivia has started applying a policy of “quantitative easing” to purchase state-owned financial instruments, i.e. bonds and similar debt certificates. At the end of 2018, the Central Bank’s balance sheet showed 44% were invested in public assets, a 12% increase since 2010.

Lots of challenges remain, as Bolivia still figures as the poorest country in South America, followed by Guyana, Paraguay, Ecuador and Peru. Evo knows that his job is far from finished – and American forced “regime change” is certainly not in order.
Viva Bolivia! Viva Evo!

*

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

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

Trump Hands Oil & Gas to Syria & Russia As He Claims “We’ve Taken Control of the Oil in the Middle East”

October 21st, 2019 by Prof. Juan Cole

Trump claimed that “we’ve taken control of the oil in the Middle East” as a result of his greenlight to Turkey to invade Syria.

As usual, no one could understand what he was talking about. Syria and Turkey are not oil states, though Syria was doing 400,000 barrels a day before the 2011 revolution. The world produces about 100 million barrels a day and big producers like Saudi Arabia, Russia and the US itself put out between 9 and 12 million barrels a day. Syria’s prewar production is more than matched by the fracked Bakken fields in North Dakota, which produce over a million barrels a day.[1]

So Trump has not actually taken control of any oil at all by letting Turkey into northeast Syria.

But there is a sense in which he has done the opposite. Likely one of the many goals of the US presence in northeast Syria was to prevent the Syrian regime from recovering the oil and gas fields there (and most such Syrian fields are in the northeast). The ISIL “caliphate” had taken many of these facilities in 2014 and used to sell crude to the Syrian regime and smuggle it to Turkey, as a source of income.

And then the US bombed many of the oil and gas facilities as the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) took them back away from ISIL. Most of them were probably too damaged to provide much income to the Kurds subsequently, but perhaps some of them did.

Although 400k barrels a day is a drop in the bucket in world oil market terms, given that the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad is an economic basket case, getting back those oil and gas fields would be, over time, a godsend. Or in this case Trumpsend.

The Kurds have thrown in the towel and invited Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian Arab Army and its Russian ally back into the northeast, which has 90% of Syria’s oil and 45% of its natural gas.

The Russian channel Sputnik reports in Arabic that a Syrian government spokesman has announced that all the oil and gas fields of Homs, Hama and Raqqa are now in the hands of the Syrian government again and that investments are being made to bring them back online. It will take a lot of work to do so, given extensive war damage.

The Syrian Arab Army and Russian troops entered Raqqa, the former ISIL capital, just a few days ago, after the Kurdish YPG withdrew to concentrate on defending its northern lines against Turkey. Despite the resurgence of some slight ISIL terrorism activity in eastern Syria, the Damascus regime seems eager to reassert itself there, especially given the likelihood of recovering oil and gas fields.

The Russian press is speculating that Russian companies will be the ones to develop and benefit from these recovered fields.

A Russian government spokesperson said Friday that Moscow is completely confused by US aims in Syria. I guess so. They can’t figure out why Trump gave them and Assad this gift of recovered oil fields, which could eventually strengthen the Damascus regime.

*

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.

Note

[1] The first draft of this post misstated the situation at Bakken, saying “well” instead of “field.”

“Yamazaki, Shoot Emperor Hirohito!” Okuzaki Kenzo’s Legal Action to Abolish Chapter One (The Emperor) of Japan’s Constitution

October 21st, 2019 by Yuki Tanaka

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Yamazaki, Shoot Emperor Hirohito!” Okuzaki Kenzo’s Legal Action to Abolish Chapter One (The Emperor) of Japan’s Constitution

Peter Handke Nobel Prize Uproar Overlooks Evidence of Flawed Srebrenica Conclusions

October 20th, 2019 by Stephen Karganovic

Ed Vulliamy (The Guardian, Opinion, 12 October 2019) was quick to join the chorus of attacks on Peter Handke, this year’s winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, as “an apologist for genocide within living memory at the heart of Europe”.

But, in the years since Mr Vulliamy and others entrenched a view of the 1990s Balkan conflicts that survives to this day, a canon of evidence has emerged to support a different interpretation.

We (the Balkan Conflicts Research Team) are an informal collective of more than 30 researchers, authors, journalists, academics, lawyers, NGO officials and others.   Over the last 20 years and more, we have exchanged, discussed and analysed all the information we can lay a hand on.

We began by accepting much of the official narrative.  Gradually we realised we should not have done so because we could find  little or no hard evidence to support it.

Two years ago we began to take a very hard look at the Hague war crimes Tribunal for Yugoslavia.  By the time it closed in December 2017, it had become the bulwark supporting the official narrative of the Balkan wars. The long sentences handed down to  those charged with war crimes (virtually all of them Serbs) were seen as the final proof.

Surely this UN-created international criminal court could only have reached such verdicts on the basis of compelling, hard evidence which had been properly tested in exacting proceedings?  That was not the case. We found that the crucial evidence to support the ICTY’s convictions was virtually untested: raw forensic and DNA evidence was merely reported to the court, not made available for independent expert analysis;   intercepts of Bosnian Serb radio communications were provided in almost all cases as transcripts because the original recordings had been ‘destroyed’; and crucial witness testimony was  overwhelmingly from “protected” witnesses who gave evidence anonymously and by remote link so they could not be seen in the court.  On top of this, academic estimates have concluded that the vast majority of all evidence heard in ICTY trials was hearsay.

To make matters worse, we found conclusive evidence that deliberate steps were taken to ensure that the International Commission for Missing Persons, a body set up by President Bill Clinton in 1996 to gather factual evidence for the ICTY, would never have to make available the raw evidence it had gathered for peer review by anyone.  Laws passed in Bosnia in 1998 and Croatia 2002 gave the ICMP, an organisation with a staff more than 90% made up of Bosnian Muslims, absolute immunity from any attempt to subpoena its its raw data.

Even the ‘breakthrough’ methodology the ICMP claimed to have developed to identify nearly 7,000 bodies recovered after the fall of Srebrenica could not be prised out of them.  This was by far the quickest and most complete DNA identification process ever carried out – and this despite the recovered bodies decaying in the earth for at least 5 years before exhumation.  Yet defendants were denied their absolute right to have access to all this material    and test it comprehensively.

Mr Vulliamy has always denigrated the views of those who, unlike him, had not seen events from the front line.  The Balkan conflicts proved to be dangerous for journalists: those who worked there certainly showed courage. Being there, however, was not necessarily a way to  understand what was happening. Few western journalists spoke Serbo-Croat. The majority of their information came from official spokesmen and stringers.

When the UN finally reported on the Bosnian camps, the story they told was far removed from furore that followed the reports made by Mr Vulliamy and the ITN team in 1992.  The UN concluded that all sides had run camps, mainly as reception centres for people who had no access to food in their area. These camps were rough and ready and it was likely that, again on all sides, there had been abuses.  But this was not remarkable in a conflict; if anything the UN concluded it was at a level slightly below the average. Just before his death, Bosnian Muslim President Alija Izetbegovic surprised Bernard Kouchner and Paddy Ashdown by telling them there had been no death camps in Bosnia.

To call anyone who challenges the official version of the conflicts a “genocide apologist” is a stock response for those unprepared to discuss the facts – a brick wall intended to make it impossible to bring truth to the surface.  We believe that Peter Handke’s expressed views on this sad chapter of Balkan history are sincere and well founded – and much closer to the mark than those of his critics.

*

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 Srebrenica Project.

Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995.

Vote on Johnson’s No-Brexit/Brexit Deal Delayed

October 20th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

A rare Saturday session was held to resolve Brexit up or down. 

Not so fast. Forty months after Brits narrowly voted to leave the EU on June 23, 2016, the issue remains unresolved. More on Saturday’s below.

***

Johnson struck a no-deal/Brexit deal with Brussels Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn called worst than Theresa May’s betrayal of the public trust, rejected by MPs three times.

Johnson and EU leaders pretended to resolve the Irish backstop Brexit sticking point by unacceptably redefining it.

Britain, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland want an open Irish border, without customs checks or other impediments for commerce and people to move freely throughout the island territory — what the April 1998 Good Friday Agreement set in place, a hard border eliminated.

Johnson and Brussels squared the circle by fudging a backstop, Northern Ireland to follow EU rules, especially on goods, its rules applying for commerce between all Irish territory and remainder of Britain.

Johnson’s scheme is a reworking of Theresa May’s unacceptable deal, making it worse, elements of what was agreed unclear by not resolving them.

The deal pretends to free Britain, including Northern Ireland, from the customs union, leaving it free to negotiate trade deals with other countries like the US.

Johnson claims he got Brexit despite what he and the EU agreed on wasn’t what Brits voted for — a clean break with no wrinkles complicating things and creating unacceptable uncertainties about how post-Brexit will play out for ordinary Brits.

The deal also lets Northern Ireland opt out after four years, another complication. The flawed deal is opposed by Labor, Lib Dems, the Brexit party, Scottish National party, Northern Ireland DUP MPs, and perhaps some Tories.

It’s all about selling out ordinary Brits for privileged interests, including by permitting intensified neoliberal harshness.

According to Republic of Ireland national broadcaster RTE television, a leaked copy of Johnson’s deal with Brussels includes customs clearance sites from five to 10 miles on either side of Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border.

It also includes tracking devices on trucks to monitor traffic digitally on both sides of the Irish border in real time. It lets Northern Ireland adhere to EU agriculture regulations.

On Saturday, MPs passed an amendment Johnson opposed. It delays Brexit for a later date — until legislation is passed on its fine print and how it’s to be implemented.

Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act of 2019, the so-called (Hilary) Benn Act (September 2019), Johnson is mandated to seek a new withdrawal date of January 31, 2020 no later than Saturday — kicking the can down the road again with uncertainty about what awaits next year.

He remains defiant, saying “I will not negotiate a delay with the EU, and neither does the law compel me to do so,” adding:

“I will tell our friends and colleagues in the EU exactly what I have told everyone else in the last 88 days that I have served as prime minister — that further delay would be bad for this country, bad for the European Union, and bad for (Britain’s) democracy” for its privileged few alone at the expense of the vast majority of its people.

Saturday’s up or down vote on Johnson’s deal was rescheduled for Tuesday. He said he’ll introduce new legislation, a further complication.

Corbyn said “(h)e can no longer use the threat of a no-deal crash out to blackmail members to support his sell-out deal.”

As of Saturday, things remain uncertain, the next Brexit chapter to unfold when parliament votes on Tuesday as things now stand.

If the above sounds complicated, it surely is because the devil is in details yet to be worked out and explained.

Note: On Saturday, tens of thousands marched in London for a second Brexit referendum.

Given 40 months and counting without resolution of the first one, it’s unclear what a rerun would accomplish.

*

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 TruePublica

Stop Press: The Queen’s Screech: Britain, Spain and Other Illnesses

October 20th, 2019 by Dr. T. P. Wilkinson

There are some people — whereby I do not know how many — who recall the key elements of British colonial rule. I was fortunate enough not to live under it. My grandfather had no great admiration for the country where he was born, despite the almost rabid Anglophilia to be found in the most surprising places.

I still find it bizarre that in a country whose monarchy was ended in 1918, many people still say “the Queen” as if they were still subjects of Hanover under Britain’s George III. That at least was the last point at which some of my compatriots could legitimately claim that the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is their Queen.

Perhaps as an hypothetical exercise or a thought game, it would be amusing to imagine that Elizabeth II by the grace of God, Queen (by virtue of an ancient papal dispensation) Defender of the Faith, of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and her Commonwealth Realms, were also “our Queen”. That would leave the question why “our queen” is not Margarethe of Denmark or was not the Queen of the Netherlands?  Strangely enough my compatriots do not call the occupant of the slave-built mansion at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC, USA “our president” — although that person has more direct control over our country than Her Britannic Majesty.

If we assume that the Federal Republic of Germany is nothing of the sort but a covert member of the Commonwealth, a secret vassal of the House of Battenberg (aka Windsor), then perhaps we should ask what the statements delivered to the Lords and members of the House of Commons in London actually mean for those passionate, deluded, or perhaps just mistaken subjects of British imperial rule?

Let us imagine something else, just for fun. Some Catalonians have just been sentenced to gaol for six or more years on account of their actions in support of independence of Catalonia from Spain. Never mind the problems that such an independence would present (EU membership, financial obligations, currency and other aspects of national rule), the verdicts and sentences have provoked considerable discontent in Barcelona, the virtual nation’s capital. One official has pointed out that this is a political problem and judges are appointed to resolve issues in the criminal code not political questions. This implies that the only recourse to those condemned for their political actions is to appeal beyond the scope of Spanish criminal law. But to whom? The Spanish monarchy was ended in 1931 with the establishment of the Second Spanish Republic. That republic was overthrown by the fascist Francisco Franco with the active assistance of Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy as well as the passive and partially active support of His Britannic Majesty, the Roman Catholic Church, the clerico-fascist president of the Irish Free State, the president of the Portuguese Council of Ministers, and internationally active corporate interests.

The dictator (El Caudillo, also by the grace of God if the coins minted during his rule are to be believed) Francisco Franco declared the defunct Spanish monarchy restored and imposed it upon Spain and its non-Castillian provinces. Regardless of the objective merits — seen in practical international power context — of Catalonian independence, it was certainly no less credible than the various “independence” movements supported by NATO to destroy Yugoslavia. So to whom should Catalonians submit for justice in their struggle — executive clemency from the pretenders who occupy a defunct throne “Franco gratia”?

Returning for a moment to the Battenbergs and the New Yorker Etonian who serves as their First Lord of the Treasury. The Queen’s Speech — the formal proclamation of HM Government at the State Opening of Parliament — focuses on two elements, for obvious reasons. The first is the effort by a segment of the British imperial elite to remove itself from the perceived strictures of the European Commission — the so-called “Brexit”. The second is the extension of British police powers under the pretext that the great prudish kingdom is threatened by foreign (non-white) criminal invaders and sexual offenders (are people like the deceased Jeffrey Epstein and his meanwhile invisible partner, the daughter of Robert Maxwell, suicide and notorious defrauder of a major British media group, also included?)

In the briefing document, issued by No. 10 as commentary to the Queen’s Speech, the First Lord of HM Treasury, stresses the end of “free movement” and a return to the Stormont regime in Belfast.

This interesting choice of words betrays the real attitude of the Churchill fanatic from New York. Those who recall Stormont could be forgiven for thinking more of Bloody Sunday than Good Friday.

With Mr Johnson’s adoration of one of Britain’s most repugnant 20th century imperialists, it requires little imagination to ask if Mr Johnson does not dream of Ireland as it was under his idol — of Para- occupied Catholic neighbourhoods, of Orangeman death squads and maybe even the Black and Tans.

Whether in Madrid or London (don’t look too close at Brussels or The Hague) monarchy holds its ugly, condescending head with a paper-thin democratic mask made by its corporate marketing legions. The contempt in which true democrats and socialists are held by these imperialists has never been very well concealed. It has taken the willing and constant servility of those who adopt foreign dynasties and stuff themselves on pomp and pageantry to maintain the illusions that nonetheless break in the slightest breeze of spontaneous self-respect.

*

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 Dissident Voice.

Dr T.P. Wilkinson writes, teaches History and English, directs theatre and coaches cricket between the cradles of Heine and Saramago. He is also the author of Church Clothes, Land, Mission and the End of Apartheid in South Africa. 

Featured image is from Dissident Voice

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Stop Press: The Queen’s Screech: Britain, Spain and Other Illnesses

Greater Middle East Project of Chaos: The Management of Savagery

October 20th, 2019 by Roger D. Harris

Destination Afghanistan was known as the big easy back in the halcyon days of the late 1960s. Hippies from throughout the affluent West hitchhiked to the capital, Kabul, where crash pads and hashish were cheap, and the locals were tolerant. Life appeared to be mellow in the scenic shadow of the Hindu Kush Himalayans. That was then.

Now Afghanistan is engulfed in year 18 of the forever US war with no end in sight. The war has gotten so old – the longest in US history – that the Pentagon PR flacks changed the code name from Operation Enduring Freedom to Operation Freedom’s Sentinel to spruce up its image.

Half of Kabul is now in rubble. Music, education for girls, and cultivation of opium poppies are prohibited in areas controlled by the former US-allied Taliban. US-backed warlords in the rest of this devastated land supply the majority of the world’s illicit heroin, visiting a plague of drug addiction on nearby Iran, China, and Russia – official US enemies – and on the ghettoes, rural wastelands, and hipster dens of the West. US attempts at “reconstruction” of Afghanistan have cost $117 billion, eclipsing the price tag of the entire Marshall Plan for Europe.

So why is the US still in Afghanistan? The official explanation has something vaguely to do with the arch villain Osama bin Laden from Saudi Arabia who was last holed up in Pakistan before reportedly being assassinated by US special forces and unceremoniously dumped into the sea eight years ago.

Max Blumenthal’s The Management of Savagery provides a far more cogent explanation for the US wars in Afghanistan along with Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, and Syria with Iran on the to-do list (and may be on the war list by the time this article gets posted). Savagery reads like a real-life whodunit tracing the shadowy back channels of the CIA, FBI, DIA, and NSA piping jihadists around the greater Middle East to create chaos only to find their assets turning against them. Besides being well written, the analysis of the maturation of the neoliberal imperial project by the world’s sole remaining superpower illuminates the current bi-partisan consensus for militarism.

The politics of chaos 

The collapse of the Soviet Union left a geopolitical power vacuum and an opportunity for the US to more aggressively exert its imperial will. The ensuing politics of chaos produced some strange bedfellows: “human rights” thinktanks with Gulf monarchies, anti-Semites with Zionists, the US security state with jihadists, and neoconservatives with establishment liberals.

Bin Laden, according to Savagery, had a master plan to create “full chaos” in the greater Middle East, which he believed would precipitate the collapse of local regimes so that the culture of jihad could supersede them. Dovetailing this scenario was the neocon plan for regime change in regional states not subservient to US dictates and Israeli expansion. “In the global war bin Laden envisioned,” Blumenthal reports, “these [US] foreign policy fanatics would make the perfect partners.” Leading the charge were neocon Republicans like John Bolton and Elliot Abrams with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), later to be joined by liberal Clinton Democrats.

Both foreign jihadists and domestic militarists needed a precipitating incident, what the PNAC envisioned as a “catastrophic and catalyzing event.” That came with 9/11. Blumenthal finds credence that the US government likely had some foreknowledge of the attacks, but accuses some Truthers of inadvertently running interference “for the imperialist power they claimed to disdain” by “omitting any historical discussion of the American government’s relationship with the forces directly implicated in the attacks.”

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force was passed just five days after 9/11 as a joint resolution of Congress with only one dissenting vote. “Congress thus voluntarily abdicated its constitution authority and,” according to Blumenthal, “gave its blessing to America’s forever war.” The Patriot Act followed a month later, “granting the executive branch unprecedented wartime powers to investigate and prosecute Americans.”

The neocons and the alt-right have been able to mainstream anti-Muslim politics in the US. Meanwhile the liberal “responsibility to protect” (R2P) doctrine has created popular support for forever war “by weaponizing the discourse of human rights to justify the use of force against governments that resisted the Washington consensus.” The R2P liberals achieved what the right could not.

“In the era of Russiagate, when so many liberals cling to institutions like the FBI and NATO as guardians of their survival,” Blumenthal explains, “the dastardly record of America’s national security mandarins has been wiped clean.” The forever warsare “marketed to the Western public as clinical exercises in freedom-spreading” with a “dual layer patina of patriotic hoopla [for the right] and humanitarian goodwill [for the liberals].”

The refugee crises coming out of the Middle East, generated by the forever wars and accompanying economic sanctions (more accurately, illegal unilateral coercive measures), have consequently fueled xenophobia both in the US and abroad. This, in turn, has fostered an ascendant wave of rightists. “Trump’s election,” Blumenthal contends, “would not have been possible without 9/11 and the subsequent military interventionism conceived by the national security state.”  The national security state did not arise with Trump, but “has maintained a steady continuity between successive administrations.”

Unwanted refugees are not the only inconvenient byproduct of the forever wars in the greater Middle East. The US security state’s alliance with jihadists to overthrow the Soviet-friendly government in Afghanistan – a pattern which is has been repeated in each subsequent Middle Eastern misadventure – has created a “disposal problem” of what to do with these US-armed combatants.

For Americans, the tragedy of 9/11 was just the most dramatic example of the “disposal problem.” “The plague of international jihadism that the United States helped to unleash through its covert interventionism in Cold War-era Afghanistan,” Blumenthal warns, “was to expand and metastasize…”

The neoliberal imperial project, a symbiotic association of liberal “military humanism” and rightwing straight-up militarism, is now showing signs of undoing according to Blumenthal:

“Through covert operations and overt invasions, America’s national security state had destabilized entire regions, from the Levant to North Africa, unleashed a migration crisis of unprecedented proportions onto Europe and spurred an inevitable right-wing backlash that was unraveling the neoliberal consensus they sought to protect.”

Critical reviews

In a critical review of Savagery, Louis Proyect finds himself “in agreement” on Afghanistan and Libya but not on Syria. Proyect rejects the analysis that the purpose of the US is or ever was regime change of the Assad government in Syria: “with the regime still intact, it might be obvious that this was never the goal.”  Proyect dismisses what otherwise the purpose of the US war effort might be with a “let’s leave that aside.” In contrast, regime change is the central thesis of Blumenthal’s book.

Proyect accuses Blumenthal of being “one of Assad’s biggest supporters on the left,” though a reading of Savagery would suggest Blumenthal is not an apologist for the governments targeted by the US for regime change. In an interview after his recent visit to Syria, Blumenthal commented: “Whether or not Syria is a dictatorship or a police state; I would not dispute that at all.” Rather, the focus of Savageryis on the policies and actions of the US and its allies, the deleterious effects it has had on the people of the region, and the blowback it has had at home.

A critique in the Times Literary Supplement, from a liberal “humanitarian imperialism” point of view, kvetches:

“It is easy to blame the United States for many of the world’s ills: easy because of the availability of evidence. It is also easy to overstate your case, with misleading or one-sided examples – the trap that Max Blumenthal falls into in The Management of Savagery.”

Which raises the question of why, given “the availability of evidence,” the TLS and its co-conspirators in the corporate media unerringly fall into the opposite trap of being sycophants of the Empire? Why have they failed to connect the dots, as Blumenthal has, and shown “how America’s national security state fueled the rise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Donald Trump”?

*

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.

Roger D. Harris is a human rights activist who recently visited Syria for an international conference on the impacts of economic sanctions by the US and its allies on over 30 countries in the world.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Greater Middle East Project of Chaos: The Management of Savagery

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines Tested on 4-6 Year-olds

October 20th, 2019 by helenlobato.com

I have often feared that in the end babies and young children would be given the dangerous and increasingly unpopular HPV vaccines.

I suspect that time is fast approaching.

GlaxoSmithLine (GSK) the manufacturer of Cervarix has recently conducted a trial of its two valent HPV vaccine on healthy 4-6 year old female children in Latin America.

The study involving girls from Colombia, Panama and Mexico was published in the current edition of the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 

Here is the stated rationale for injecting such young children with HPV vaccines:

The burden of human papillomavirus (HPV) diseases is high in Latin America. HPV vaccines licensed from 2006 onwards offer protection against most HPV-related cancers, especially when introduced into national immunization programs.

Barriers to optimal vaccine uptake are, however, lowering the impact of adolescent HPV vaccination programs. Immunization of children might overcome these barriers and be a strategy of choice for some countries.

Where have I heard this rationale before?  The same excuse was used for the introduction of the hepatitis B vaccine for babies and young children.

According to the National Vaccine Information Center

The primary reason that the CDC recommended hepatitis B vaccination for all newborns in the United States in 1991 is because public health officials and doctors could not persuade adults in high risk groups (primarily IV drug users and persons with multiple sexual partners) to get the vaccine.

Rates of HPV vaccination

Similarly the rates of the uptake of HPV vaccines are not as good as the manufacturers of Cervarix and Gardasil would want with the US experiencing low rates as reported by ScienceDaily

Only about 16 percent of U.S. adolescents have been fully vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV) by the time they turn 13, despite national recommendations that call for vaccination at 11 to 12 years of age.

And in Japan coverage rates for the HPV vaccine have plummeted from 70 percent in 2013 to less than 1 percent today. They are also lower than desired in Ireland where health authorities have expressed alarm at the falling rates of vaccination estimated as a 50% uptake for the first dose in 2016–17.

Expansion of the customer base

On October 5 2018 the FDA approved Gardasil 9 for use in women and men aged 27 through 45 years. The fact is there is a declining US market for Gardasil. Increasingly people are learning about the real adverse effects and long term injury resulting from this vaccine program. According to Vaers, the Vaccine adverse event recording system there have been 510 reported deaths following HPV vaccines and over 62,000 reported adverse events. But expansion of the HPV vaccination program seems on the cards again as witnessed by the recent study done on very young girls.

There were 148 girls in the study. 74 received  2 doses of Cervarix vaccine at Day 0 and Month 6. The control group were given 1 dose of Priorix vaccine at Day 0 and 1 dose of Infanrix vaccine at Month 6.

There was no inert placebo. The control group were given Priorix (MMR) and Infanrix (DTPa).  It is common for vaccine manufacturers not to use saline placebos in their safety and efficacy studies. By comparing one vaccine to another vaccine and in this case with Infanrix which contains 500 mcgs of aluminium, chances are the vaccine being trialed does not look as bad as it really is. On the other hand if a normal saline placebo was used then we would really see a much higher rate of adverse events in the vaccine than in the control group. But then this is the way the manufacturers have set it up. It is corrupt.

There are no laws governing the contents of placebos.

The World Health Organization states that using a vaccine (rather than an inert substance) as a placebo creates a “methodological disadvantage” and also notes that it may be “difficult or impossible” to assess vaccine safety properly without a true placebo.

And yet this is how they conduct vaccine trials. They do not use true placebos and in the original Gardasil trials the participants in the control arm were given the aluminium adjuvent (amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate) that is used in the vaccine.

As it turned out more than half of the very young girls in the Cervarix group got a medically significant condition not related to common ailments. That is 38 out of 74 girls.
MSCs include AEs prompting emergency room or physician visits that are not related to common diseases or routine visits for physical examination or vaccination, or serious adverse events (SAEs) that are not related to common diseases.

See: ClinicalTrial

Study conclusion:

Vaccination of girls 4–6 years of age with 2 doses of AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine induced high immune response that translated to antibody plateau sustained for 30 months after the second dose. The vaccine showed an acceptable safety profile in this young population. These results suggest that pediatric HPV vaccination might be a valuable strategy to overcome limitations of some adolescent immunization programs.

This is a very flawed vaccine. There is no proof that HPV causes cervical cancer or any of the other HPV cancers. These are little children and even if there was a valid reason to give this vaccine, the effect of the vaccine would have worn off well before they were sexually active. Gardasil was fast-tracked through the FDA, a process usually reserved for life threatening diseases to fill an unmet and urgent medical need. Improved living conditions had already reduced the incidence of cervical cancer significantly in Western countries.

To think they could give it to small children and even babies is abhorrent.

*

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 Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines Tested on 4-6 Year-olds
  • Tags: ,

Donbass and Crimea: Ukrainian President Zelensky Juggles an Impossible Situation

October 20th, 2019 by Padraig McGrath

Analyzing a sequence of public statements by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky regarding Crimea and Donbass made over any length of time, it immediately becomes clear that he is attempting to master the political art of sending mixed signals. He has very little choice but to do so, considering that he must simultaneously attempt to balance the (conflicting) foreign policy agendas of the United States, Germany and France respectively with the potentially explosive tendencies of Ukrainian nationalists.

We might recall that Zelensky’s predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, found himself hamstrung quite early on in his tenure, unable to consolidate power to an extent that might enable him to wrest control of the Donbass policy from the political extremists on the Verkhovna Rada’s parliamentary committee on law-enforcement. Being genuinely fearful of the nationalists (fearful concerning his own personal safety), Poroshenko ended up capitulating shamelessly to the nationalist agenda, finally attempting to portray himself as the nationalist-militarist candidate in his disastrous bid for re-election.

In attempting to make predictions about Zelensky’s trajectory, we need to bear this point in mind – Poroshenko’s turn to the nationalist political constituency was by default. The main reason for it was his inability to consolidate power. In 2014, he had been the centrist candidate. Time will tell whether or not Zelensky proves to have more resolve or courage.

For the moment, Zelensky finds himself being forced to repeat the same mantras regarding “Russian aggression,” and “recovering all occupied Ukrainian territories,” for example in his speech to the United Nations General assembly on September 25th. Speaking in Kiev the previous day, Zelensky discussed the possibility of the continuation of dialogue through the Normandy Four format, involving the governments of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine. He told reporters

“We want to leave this meeting with certain results on a specific timeframe for the war to be over and our territories to be returned.”

On October 2nd, Zelensky proposed drafting a concept of transitional justice for Crimea and Donbass, which he said should deal with “legal aspects of re-integration of temporarily occupied territories.”

Utterly unrealistic, and he knows it, but what else do you expect him to say? What else can he say?

We might ask if this denial of practical realities is best explained by a nuanced negotiating-strategy, or if Zelensky simply finds himself caught in an impossible domestic political and geo-political catch 22 wherein he can’t think of anything else to say. Both explanations are probably part of the mix.

Zelensky’s reference to “re-integration” would inevitably draw chuckles from many people in my own country of origin, the Republic of Ireland. Prior to a 1999 referendum which enabled its amendment, Article 3 of the 1937 Irish constitution began with the deliberately provocative phrase “Pending the re-integration of the national territory,” which alluded to the territorial status of Northern Ireland.

Of course, it was wishful thinking, but it served a practical purpose, insofar as it eventually became a bargaining-chip which could be traded to hammer out the Good Friday Agreement.

So is Zelensky’s reiteration of the official Ukrainian position regarding the territorial status of Donbass and Crimea part of a long-term, attemptedly hard-nosed negotiating-strategy, or is it best explained by the possibility that Ukrainian nationalists give him no room for tactical manoeuvre whatsoever? Zelensky’s announcement on October 1st that he had signed the Steinmeier Formula, a roadmap to ending the conflict in Donbass, prompted immediate protests in Kiev, with nationalists shouting “No to capitulation!”

Further complicating Zelensky’s difficulties is the point that there is currently a divergence between US policy and the positions of France and Germany on issues such as conditions for Ukraine’s recognition of the legitimacy of elections in Donbass, the timing of Ukraine’s resumption of control of the Russia-Ukraine border as per the Minsk II accord, etc.

If anything, this need for Zelensky to simultaneously juggle the conflicting concerns of so many great powers simply confirms the fact which is at the root of the Ukrainian crisis which began to gestate with the “orange revolution” in 2004/2005, and continues to the present day.

The fundamental root of the crisis, as yet again demonstrated by Zelensky’s current diplomatic catch 22, is simply that Ukraine’s history and geography make it impossible for Ukraine to be a genuinely independent country.

At least, in this regard, the Normandy Four discussions are a pragmatic approach, creating a format through which the major European powers can collectively consult concerning the future of Ukraine. This is tacit recognition of the practicalities of Ukraine’s status as a “limitrophe” territory.

During his October 10th marathon press-conference, Zelensky at times admitted the weakness of his position. At one point, he stated “If there are some negotiations between the U.S. and Russia about Ukraine without Ukraine’s participation, this is a bad signal.” Regarding accusations that his attempts to conduct meaningful negotiations concerning Donbass through the Normandy Four format and the Steinmeier formula constituted “treason,” he answered “When some people call this treason, I think treason is to prevent me from executing my presidential duties and promises to stop the war, to limit the number of those killed to zero.”

It would be overly simplistic to see Zelensky as merely a passive figure, helplessly pushed around by historical forces. He has been dealt an exceedingly bad hand, the same hand which any Ukrainian president would find themselves holding, but he’s playing it as well as he possibly can. One level on which he’s attempting to optimize the strategic value of the cards at his disposal is through his skilled use of legalistic language. His references to “re-integration” are certainly a “fictio juris,” but not only – in using this legalistic language, Zelensky is attempting to diffuse the nationalist threat while at the same time changing the tone (and therefore, gradually, also the content) of Ukraine nationalist discourse.

*

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

Padraig McGrath is a political analyst.

US/Turkey Deal on Syria, Like Carving Up Cuba Scene from the Godfather Trilogy

October 20th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

One of the trilogy’s most memorable scenes was in pre-liberated Cuba where mafia dons are seen carving up a cake representing the country.

The Hyman Roth character explains that “all of you will share” in plundering the island state in collaboration with its ruling authorities, adding:

“These are wonderful things that we’ve achieved in Havana, and there’s no limit to where we can go from here.”

“This kind of government knows how to help business to encourage it…(W)e have now what we have always needed —real partnership with the government.”

Cuba’s strongman despot Fulgencio Batista was like Nicaragua’s Anastasio Somoza, a figure Franklin Roosevelt called “a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.”

The characterization applied to Batista, today to all despots serving US interests and their own at the expense of peace, equity and justice.

Since early 2011, Obama’s war on Syria, now Trump’s, using ISIS and likeminded jihadists as proxy Pentagon/CIA foot soldiers continues.

It’s gone on endlessly because bipartisan US hardliners reject restoration of peace and stability to the country and others the US attacked aggressively.

They want all nations not controlled by the US transformed into vassal states, Assad and other independent leaders replaced by pro-Western puppet rule.

War in Syria is also about isolating Iran regionally, ahead of a similar scheme against its ruling authorities.

What’s going on in the Middle East post-9/11 is part of a US-led NATO/Israeli plot to redraw the Middle East map, carving up nations for easier control, looting their resources and exploiting their people.

Tactics include endless wars and chaos in one country after another, serving US imperial interests. Peace and stability defeat its aims.

Russia’s intervention in Syria four years ago changed the dynamic on the ground, most of the country liberated from the scourge of US-supported ISIS and other terrorists, Idlib province the key remaining battleground.

Infested with thousands of heavily armed US-supported al-Nusra jihadists, they’re holding around three million civilians hostage as human shields, defeating them requiring protracted struggle that’s winnable.

The greater issue is occupation of northern Syria by US and Turkish forces, its south bordering Iraq and Jordan by Pentagon troops.

As long as Syria is occupied by foreign forces, liberation remains unattainable.

The illegitimate October 17 US/Turkish deal leaves troops from both countries occupying and controlling Syrian territory — a flagrant international law breach, a scheme Damascus rejects.

It includes redeploying US forces in northern areas largely or entirely cross-border to Iraq and perhaps Jordan, unknown numbers remaining in Syria — thousands more sent to Saudi Arabia, increasing the Pentagon’s regional military footprint.

As portrayed in the Godfather trilogy, the US and Turkey agreed to carve up Syria’s north, ruling authorities of both countries wanting control over its oil-producing areas.

Damascus has no intention of relinquishing any of its territory to foreign occupiers, war likely to continue until all parts of Syria are liberated.

On Friday, Bashar al-Assad met with Kremlin special representative for Syria Alexander Lavrentiev and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin.

Discussing the latest developments on the ground, notably Turkish aggression and Erdogan’s deal with the Trump regime, Assad stressed that Syria’s liberation depends on halting Ankara’s offensive and freeing the country from foreign occupiers.

Russian officials affirmed support for Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity, what the Kremlin backed throughout the war, along with restoration of peace and stability to the country.

On Saturday, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported that Turkish terror-bombing and cross-border shelling continue for the second day following Thursday’s deal in Ankara, saying:

“(R)esidential neighborhoods in Ras al-Ayn and targeted places of worship from mosques, churches and monasteries, which caused the people fleeing the targeted areas” were struck, adding:

A “SANA reporter said that eight civilians were martyred and about 25 others were injured in the ongoing Turkish aggression on Syrian territory in and around Ras al-Ayn city despite the announcement of the Turkish regime reaching an agreement with Washington…”

“(G)roups of the Turkish occupation forces and their mercenaries infiltrated into Ras al-Ayn city and the surrounding villages and attacked with medium and light weapons the people in the villages of Lazka, Abah, Mraikiz, Bab al-Khair and Sheikh Hussein Tomb in Ras al-Ayn countryside.”

“The Turkish regime is launching offensive on a number of villages and towns in the countryside of Hasaka and Raqqa, which resulted in the martyrdom and injury of hundreds of civilians, including children, women and workers in the service sectors, and considerable material damage to service facilities, vital infrastructure such as dams, power and water plants.”

On Saturday, Southfront said the “northeastern Syria ceasefire is collapsing.” Turkish forces continue to attack sites, at least 28 civilians killed or injured.

AMN News said “Turkish forces (are) advanc(ing) (on a) key border city despite (Thursday’s) ceasefire” agreement, attacking Kurdish YPG fighters.

Hardline US and Turkish regimes can never be trusted, time and again agreeing to one thing, then going another way.

Is this what’s now playing out in Syria? What follows Thursday’s deal remains very much uncertain.

If past is prologue, there’s little reason for optimism.

*

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 Road to Damascus: How the Syria War Was Won

October 20th, 2019 by Pepe Escobar

What is happening in Syria, following yet another Russia-brokered deal, is a massive geopolitical game-changer. I’ve tried to summarize it in a single paragraph this way: 

“It’s a quadruple win. The U.S. performs a face saving withdrawal, which Trump can sell as avoiding a conflict with NATO ally Turkey. Turkey has the guarantee – by the Russians – that the Syrian Army will be in control of the Turkish-Syrian border. Russia prevents a war escalation and keeps the Russia-Iran-Turkey peace process alive.  And Syria will eventually regain control of the entire northeast.”

Syria may be the biggest defeat for the CIA since Vietnam.

Yet that hardly begins to tell the whole story.

Allow me to briefly sketch in broad historical strokes how we got here.

It began with an intuition I felt last month at the tri-border point of Lebanon, Syria and Occupied Palestine; followed by a subsequent series of conversations in Beirut with first-class Lebanese, Syrian, Iranian, Russian, French and Italian analysts; all resting on my travels in Syria since the 1990s; with a mix of selected bibliography in French available at Antoine’s in Beirut thrown in.

The Vilayets

Let’s start in the 19th century when Syria consisted of six vilayets — Ottoman provinces — without counting Mount Lebanon, which had a special status since 1861 to the benefit of Maronite Christians and Jerusalem, which was a sanjak (administrative division) of Istanbul.

The vilayets did not define the extremely complex Syrian identity: for instance, Armenians were the majority in the vilayet of Maras, Kurds in Diyarbakir – both now part of Turkey in southern Anatolia – and the vilayets of Aleppo and Damascus were both Sunni Arab.

Nineteenth century Ottoman Syria was the epitome of cosmopolitanism. There were no interior borders or walls. Everything was inter-dependent.

Ethnic groups in the Balkans and Asia Minor, early 20th Century, Historical Atlas, 1911.

Then the Europeans, profiting from World War I, intervened. France got the Syrian-Lebanese littoral, and later the vilayets of Maras and Mosul (today in Iraq). Palestine was separated from Cham (the “Levant”), to be internationalized. The vilayet of Damascus was cut in half: France got the north, the Brits got the south. Separation between Syria and the mostly Christian Lebanese lands came later.

There was always the complex question of the Syria-Iraq border. Since antiquity, the Euphrates acted as a barrier, for instance between the Cham of the Umayyads and their fierce competitors on the other side of the river, the Mesopotamian Abbasids.

James Barr, in his splendid “A Line in the Sand,” notes, correctly, that the Sykes-Picot agreement imposed on the Middle East the European conception of territory: their “line in the sand” codified a delimited separation between nation-states. The problem is, there were no nation-states in region in the early 20th century.

The birth of Syria as we know it was a work in progress, involving the Europeans, the Hashemite dynasty, nationalist Syrians invested in building a Greater Syria including Lebanon, and the Maronites of Mount Lebanon. An important factor is that few in the region lamented losing dependence on Hashemite Medina, and except the Turks, the loss of the vilayet of Mosul in what became Iraq after World War I.

In 1925, Sunnis became the de facto prominent power in Syria, as the French unified Aleppo and Damascus. During the 1920s France also established the borders of eastern Syria. And the Treaty of Lausanne, in 1923, forced the Turks to give up all Ottoman holdings but didn’t keep them out of the game.

Turkish borders according to the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923.

The Turks soon started to encroach on the French mandate, and began blocking the dream of Kurdish autonomy. France in the end gave in: the Turkish-Syrian border would parallel the route of the fabled Bagdadbahn — the Berlin-Baghdad railway.

In the 1930s France gave in even more: the sanjak of Alexandretta (today’s Iskenderun, in Hatay province, Turkey), was finally annexed by Turkey in 1939 when only 40 percent of the population was Turkish.

The annexation led to the exile of tens of thousands of Armenians. It was a tremendous blow for Syrian nationalists. And it was a disaster for Aleppo, which lost its corridor to the Eastern Mediterranean.

Turkish forces under entered Alexandretta on July 5, 1938.

To the eastern steppes, Syria was all about Bedouin tribes. To the north, it was all about the Turkish-Kurdish clash. And to the south, the border was a mirage in the desert, only drawn with the advent of Transjordan. Only the western front, with Lebanon, was established, and consolidated after WWII.

This emergent Syria — out of conflicting Turkish, French, British and myriad local interests —obviously could not, and did not, please any community. Still, the heart of the nation configured what was described as “useful Syria.” No less than 60 percent of the nation was — and remains — practically void. Yet, geopolitically, that translates into “strategic depth” — the heart of the matter in the current war.

From Hafez to Bashar

Starting in 1963, the Baath party, secular and nationalist, took over Syria, finally consolidating its power in 1970 with Hafez al-Assad, who instead of just relying on his Alawite minority, built a humongous, hyper-centralized state machinery mixed with a police state. The key actors who refused to play the game were the Muslim Brotherhood, all the way to being massacred during the hardcore 1982 Hama repression.

Secularism and a police state: that’s how the fragile Syrian mosaic was preserved. But already in the 1970s major fractures were emerging: between major cities and a very poor periphery; between the “useful” west and the Bedouin east; between Arabs and Kurds. But the urban elites never repudiated the iron will of Damascus: cronyism, after all, was quite profitable.

Damascus interfered heavily with the Lebanese civil war since 1976 at the invitation of the Arab League as a “peacekeeping force.” In Hafez al-Assad’s logic, stressing the Arab identity of Lebanon was essential to recover Greater Syria. But Syrian control over Lebanon started to unravel in 2005, after the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, very close to Saudi Arabia, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) eventually left.

Bashar al-Assad had taken power in 2000. Unlike his father, he bet on the Alawites to run the state machinery, preventing the possibility of a coup but completely alienating himself from the poor, Syrian on the street.

What the West defined as the Arab Spring, began in Syria in March 2011; it was a revolt against the Alawites as much  as a revolt against Damascus. Totally instrumentalized by the foreign interests, the revolt sprang up in extremely poor, dejected Sunni peripheries: Deraa in the south, the deserted east, and the suburbs of Damascus and Aleppo.

Protest in Damascus, April 24, 2011. (syriana2011/Flickr)

What was not understood in the West is that this “beggars banquet” was not against the Syrian nation, but against a “regime.” Jabhat al-Nusra, in a P.R. exercise, even broke its official link with al-Qaeda and changed its denomination to Fatah al-Cham and then Hayat Tahrir al-Cham (“Organization for the Liberation of the Levant”). Only ISIS/Daesh said they were fighting for the end of Sykes-Picot.

By 2014, the perpetually moving battlefield was more or less established: Damascus against both Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS/Daesh, with a wobbly role for the Kurds in the northeast, obsessed in preserving the cantons of Afrin, Kobane and Qamichli.

But the key point is that each katiba (“combat group”), each neighborhood, each village, and in fact each combatant was in-and-out of allegiances non-stop. That yielded a dizzying nebulae of jihadis, criminals, mercenaries, some linked to al-Qaeda, some to Daesh, some trained by the Americans, some just making a quick buck.

For instance Salafis — lavishly financed by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait — especially Jaish al-Islam, even struck alliances with the PYD Kurds in Syria and the jihadis of Hayat Tahrir al-Cham (the remixed, 30,000-strong  al-Qaeda in Syria). Meanwhile, the PYD Kurds (an emanation of the Turkish Kurds’ PKK, which Ankara consider “terrorists”) profited from this unholy mess — plus a deliberate ambiguity by Damascus – to try to create their autonomous Rojava.

A demonstration in the city of Afrin in support of the YPG against the Turkish invasion of Afrin, Jan. 19, 2018. (Voice of America Kurdish, Wikimedia Commons)

That Turkish Strategic Depth

Turkey was all in. Turbo-charged by the neo-Ottoman politics of former Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, the logic was to reconquer parts of the Ottoman empire, and get rid of Assad because he had helped PKK Kurdish rebels in Turkey.

Davutoglu’s Strategik Derinlik (“Strategic Depth’), published in 2001, had been a smash hit in Turkey, reclaiming the glory of eight centuries of an sprawling empire, compared to puny 911 kilometers of borders fixed by the French and the Kemalists. Bilad al Cham, the Ottoman province congregating Lebanon, historical Palestine, Jordan and Syria, remained a powerful magnet in both the Syrian and Turkish unconscious.

No wonder Turkey’s Recep Erdogan was fired up: in 2012 he even boasted he was getting ready to pray in the Umayyad mosque in Damascus, post-regime change, of course. He has been gunning for a safe zone inside the Syrian border — actually a Turkish enclave — since 2014. To get it, he has used a whole bag of nasty players — from militias close to the Muslim Brotherhood to hardcore Turkmen gangs.

With the establishment of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), for the first time Turkey allowed foreign weaponized groups to operate on its own territory. A training camp was set up in 2011 in the sanjakof Alexandretta. The Syrian National Council was also created in Istanbul – a bunch of non-entities from the diaspora who had not been in Syria for decades.

Ankara enabled a de facto Jihad Highway — with people from Central Asia, Caucasus, Maghreb, Pakistan, Xinjiang, all points north in Europe being smuggled back and forth at will. In 2015, Ankara, Riyadh and Doha set up the dreaded Jaish al-Fath (“Army of Conquest”), which included Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda).

At the same time, Ankara maintained an extremely ambiguous relationship with ISIS/Daesh, buying its smuggled oil, treating jihadis in Turkish hospitals, and paying zero attention to jihad intel collected and developed on Turkish territory. For at least five years, the MIT — Turkish intelligence – provided political and logistic background to the Syrian opposition while weaponizing a galaxy of Salafis. After all, Ankara believed that ISIS/Daesh only existed because of the “evil” deployed by the Assad regime.

The Russian Factor

Russian President Vladiimir Putin meeting with President of Turkey Recep Erdogan; Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov standing in background, Ankara, Dec. 1, 2014 Ankara. (Kremlin)

The first major game-changer was the spectacular Russian entrance in the summer of 2015. Vladimir Putin had asked the U.S. to join in the fight against the Islamic State as the Soviet Union allied against Hitler, negating the American idea that this was Russia’s bid to restore its imperial glory. But the American plan instead, under Barack Obama, was single-minded: betting on a rag-tag Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a mix of Kurds and Sunni Arabs, supported by air power and U.S. Special Forces, north of the Euphrates, to smash ISIS/Daesh all the way to Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor.

Raqqa, bombed to rubble by the Pentagon, may have been taken by the SDF, but Deir ez-Zor was taken by Damascus’s Syrian Arab Army. The ultimate American aim was to consistently keep the north of the Euphrates under U.S. power, via their proxies, the SDF and the Kurdish PYD/YPG. That American dream is now over, lamented by imperial Democrats and Republicans alike.

The CIA will be after Trump’s scalp till Kingdom Come.

Kurdish Dream Over

Talk about a cultural misunderstanding. As much as the Syrian Kurds believed U.S. protection amounted to an endorsement of their independence dreams, Americans never seemed to understand that throughout the “Greater Middle East” you cannot buy a tribe. At best, you can rent them. And they use you according to their interests. I’ve seen it from Afghanistan to Iraq’s Anbar province.

The Kurdish dream of a contiguous, autonomous territory from Qamichli to Manbij is over. Sunni Arabs living in this perimeter will resist any Kurdish attempt at dominance.

The Syrian PYD was founded in 2005 by PKK militants. In 2011, Syrians from the PKK came from Qandil – the PKK base in northern Iraq – to build the YPG militia for the PYD. In predominantly Arab zones, Syrian Kurds are in charge of governing because for them Arabs are seen as a bunch of barbarians, incapable of building their “democratic, socialist, ecological and multi-communitarian” society.

Kurdish PKK guerillas In Kirkuk, Iraq. (Kurdishstruggle via Flickr)

One can imagine how conservative Sunni Arab tribal leaders hate their guts. There’s no way these tribal leaders will ever support the Kurds against the SAA or the Turkish army; after all these Arab tribal leaders spent a lot of time in Damascus seeking support from Bashar al-Assad.  And now the Kurds themselves have accepted that support in the face of the Trukish incursion, greenlighted by Trump.

East of Deir ez-Zor, the PYD/YPG already had to say goodbye to the region that is responsible for 50 percent of Syria’s oil production. Damascus and the SAA now have the upper hand. What’s left for the PYD/YPG is to resign themselves to Damascus’s and Russian protection against Turkey, and the chance of exercising sovereignty in exclusively Kurdish territories.

Ignorance of the West

The West, with typical Orientalist haughtiness, never understood that Alawites, Christians, Ismailis and Druze in Syria would always privilege Damascus for protection compared to an “opposition” monopolized by hardcore Islamists, if not jihadis.  The West also did not understand that the government in Damascus, for survival, could always count on formidable Baath party networks plus the dreaded mukhabarat — the intel services.

Rebuilding Syria

The reconstruction of Syria may cost as much as $200 billion. Damascus has already made it very clear that the U.S. and the EU are not welcome. China will be in the forefront, along with Russia and Iran; this will be a project strictly following the Eurasia integration playbook — with the Chinese aiming to revive Syria’s strategic positioning in the Ancient Silk Road.

As for Erdogan, distrusted by virtually everyone, and a tad less neo-Ottoman than in the recent past, he now seems to have finally understood that Bashar al-Assad “won’t go,” and he must live with it. Ankara is bound to remain imvolved with Tehran and Moscow, in finding a comprehensive, constitutional solution for the Syrian tragedy through the former “Astana process”, later developed in Ankara.

The war may not have been totally won, of course. But against all odds, it’s clear a unified, sovereign Syrian nation is bound to prevail over every perverted strand of geopolitical molotov cocktails concocted in sinister NATO/GCC labs. History will eventually tell us that, as an example to the whole Global South, this will remain the ultimate game-changer.

*

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, a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong Kong-based Asia Times. His latest book is “2030.” Follow him on Facebook.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Road to Damascus: How the Syria War Was Won
  • Tags: ,

Video: Turkish-funded Syrian National Army and Myth of United Syrian Opposition

October 20th, 2019 by South Front

Turkey’s Operation Peace Spring once again drew wide attention not only to the so-called Kurdish question, but also to attempts by Ankara to create a unified Syrian opposition as an alternative to the Assad government. According to official Turkish statements, the goal of the operation is to secure the southern Turkish border defeating “the terrorism” and allow up to 2 million of refugees to return to their homes. Nonetheless, there are no doubts that the operation, like previous military actions in the provinces of Aleppo, Lattakia and Idlib, will be used by Turkey to expand its own influence.

The Turkish-based Syrian Interim Government headquartered and Turkish-affiliated militant groups would be used as a tool of projecting Turkish military and political influence in the area. The Syrian National Army (SNA) are a brand of militant groups participating in the northeastern Syria offensive. Turkey’s Operations Olive Branch and Euphrates Shield demonstrated that the main goal of such groups is to serve as cannon folder on first line of the battle, while aircraft, battle tanks, artillery and special forces units of the Turkish Armed Forces do the main work. This allows Ankara to pretend that its actions in Syria are not military occupation, but a move needed to return the territory to the moderate Syrian opposition that opposes the ‘illegitimate regime’ of President Bashar al-Assad.

In the area of Greater Idlib, Turkish-backed factions formed the National Front for Liberation in May 2018, which was promoted as a moderate opposition coalition that would limit the influence of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other al-Qaeda-linked groups. Despite claiming to have 70,000 fighters (sic), the coalition immediately lost a struggle for power to its al-Qaeda counterparts and became a subordinate to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. In 2018 and 2019, groups from the National Front for Liberation repeatedly participated in al-Qaeda operations against the Syrian Army.

Watch the video here.

In northern Aleppo, Ankara was more successful because the SNA formed in December 2017 operates only in the Turkish Army area of operations and much more depends on the logistical and supply infrastructure created by Turkish special services. Since its creation, the SNA has included 30 groups with lofty names like the Army of Elite or the First Brigade Command and a very few trained personnel. Despite this, the formation, according to different estimates, includes from 15,000 to 25,000 fighters. Its members participated in Operation Olive Branch and successfully continued receiving salaries ($300-400 per month) after it. Now, they are involved in the operation in northeastern Syria.

Just a few days ahead of the start of Operation Peace Spring, Turkey attempted to unite the National Front for Liberation and the Syrian National Army. On October 4, the groups even released a statement claiming that they had merged. A few hours after the release, fierce clashes between the groups erupted over properties seized in the Afrin area. This put an end to the unification efforts at least for now.

Another problem is that the Turkish-based Syrian Interim Government and especially its Defense Ministry have no real influence on SNA detachments because it had no levers of influence over funds, weapons, ammunition or even orders that they receive. The full control over these sides of the SNA life allows Ankara to successfully manipulate them, when these groups are needed to some military action. At the same time, this approach undermines attempts to create a unified command to manage these groups because commanders of these groups are constantly engaged in an internal struggle for control over weapons and money flow from their Turkish backers.

This explains why immediately after the end of the active phase of Operations Euphrates Shield and Olive Branch, the SNA dispersed into competing armed groups mostly concerned by looting properties in the seized areas and protecting racketeering of local business and markets. Therefore, the Turkey-controlled part of northern Syria was turned into a safe haven for drugs and weapons trafficking, and organized crime. Turkey’s iron hand once again turned competing gangs into a united force under the SNA brand for Operation Peace Spring. However, as soon as, the active phase of operation ends, the Turkish-controlled part of northeastern Syria will experience consequences similar to those faced by territories captured by Turkish-led forces in 2016-2018.

*

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

Iran Is Almost Encircled by at Least 45 American Military Bases. Who is Really Threatening Whom

October 20th, 2019 by Shane Quinn

A month ago president Donald Trump spoke of his desire to “avoid” war with Iran, as anxieties simmer between the United States and this large, diverse Middle East country. It is likely that the Trump administration is sincere in its hope to steer clear of a full-scale military conflict against Iran, as bitter memories of the debacle in Iraq remain prominent in Washington.

Yet there may also be other factors lurking in the background for the present denigration of Iran, that go almost unmentioned. Trump himself is quite likely exploiting the tensions with Tehran for political purposes, in a bid to boost his chances for re-election in November 2020.

Concocting images of fierce enemies abroad is an old ploy utilised by politicians in order to improve one’s popularity, or to win over fearful, uncertain voters with an election on the horizon. Similar stratagems were used by past US presidents, from Ronald Reagan and his supposed concerns over the Nicaraguan Sandinistas that were “just two days’ drive from Harlingen, Texas”; to George W. Bush and how “the murderous tyrant” Saddam Hussein “must not be permitted to threaten America and the world”. Trump’s tactics would seem to be working. Despite the enormous liberal media campaign against him, his approval ratings are slightly higher at this stage by comparison to predecessor Barack Obama during his first term in office.

In the meantime, unlike Iraq or Nicaragua, Iran represents a far greater obstacle to the United States. Trump’s cabinet, like those before it, is surely aware of the challenge that Iran poses to Washington. Geographically for example, Iran is among the most mountainous of all the nations on earth and its highest peak, Mount Damavand, stands at over 5,500 metres tall. Mount Damavand, a potentially active volcano which erupted most recently seven thousand years ago, is located just over 40 miles from Tehran. Iran’s capital is home to more than eight million people, and is a city which itself stands at mountain altitude above sea level.

As with China, Iran comprises one of the world’s oldest human civilisations, dating thousands of years into history. Nor is Iran easily intimidated by Washington, and has consistently pursued policies independent of America during the past 40 years. This has been a continued source of concern in the White House. Iran is a country of especially high importance, due in part to its location at the centre of the world’s greatest energy producing areas. Iran in addition contains the second biggest known gas reserves on earth, and the fourth largest quantities of oil.

When the Iranians look around beyond their boundaries, they are ringed by US forces. There are at least 45 American military bases almost surrounding Iran, positioned around the Persian Gulf and further east. These US bases are situated in Persian Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait, in which there are tens of thousands of American soldiers permanently stationed. There are further American bases erected in Afghanistan, a country bordering Iran to the east, along with almost 15,000 US troops.

Despite the fact that Iran has developed ties with Iraq, the United States also retains military installations on Iraqi soil, through which there around 5,500 American soldiers present.

It has been claimed by Western politicians, like US vice president Mike Pence, that Iran is a major threat to “peace and security”. Yet who is really threatening whom here? Iran’s arms expenditure is much smaller by comparison to Western allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel, not to mention a tiny fraction that of Washington’s. These realities are often overlooked, however – but US intelligence has reported to Congress, in the US capital, that the Iranian arms outlay is continually low by Middle East standards.

US aspirations regarding Iran are to continue in applying heavy pressure against the clerical leadership of Tehran, and especially the Iranian people, in the hope of bringing about critical destabilisation. This is the principal reason underlining the continued US sanctions implemented on Iran. These economic measures are designed to weaken the foundations of Iranian society, stoke dissatisfaction and unrest among Iran’s populace, finally resulting in regime change. Much of the same thinking has been behind Washington’s 60 year embargo of Cuba.

Due to years of the above policies, the Iranian people have become increasingly embittered against America. According to a December 2018 study conducted by IranPoll, more than 80% of Iranians have an “unfavourable view” of the United States.

Iran is not a particularly poor or underdeveloped country. The Human Development Index (HDI) places Iran in 60th position among the countries of the world – which puts Iran just outside the “very high human development” bracket. According to the Human Development Index, the overall living standards in Iran are higher than in major states like Turkey (64th), Brazil (79th), China (86th) and India (130th).

Were the United States to regain control of Iran, it would be a massive boost to American power in the Middle East, and thereby reverse some of their decline elapsing since 1949 with “the loss of China”. President Trump has been increasing America’s military presence in the Persian Gulf, by dispatching greater numbers of US soldiers to the territory. The continued ramping up of tensions could result in some unforeseen incident that may spark a confrontation which would spread. The repercussions of an all-out conflict between America and Iran could literally destroy the Middle East.

Amid all of the Western commentary expounded on Iran over the years, there is an element of truth to the claims that Iran is something of a threat – not to world peace of course. Iranian ambitions are clearly a threat to American hegemony in the Middle East. Tehran has provided assistance to Bashar al-Assad in Syria, a figure that the United States desired to have ousted, and whom Washington views as a long-time ally of both Russia and Iran.

US hopes in Syria have since been dashed with Assad having practically won the war, mainly because of Russian and to a lesser extent Iranian support. Russia and Iran are now the dominant players dictating policy in Syria, with Turkey moving into northern Syria to destroy the Kurdish factions there. Though not as vital a country as Iran, Syria is still a strategically important state that shares frontiers with Israel, Iraq and Turkey, among others.

Iran has furthermore been supporting the Houthi Islamic movement in Yemen, who are in opposition to the US-backed Saudi autocracy, in what has been a brutal civil war directed by Riyadh and made possible with Western arms and funding. Saudi Arabia has been an American ally for many decades, and was described by the US State Department in 1945 as “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history”. Saudi Arabia is a huge oil nation, and today is the largest producer of this lucrative substance on the planet.

Iran is also mistrusted by Washington due to its backing of Hezbollah, the Islamist militant group based in nearby Lebanon to the west. Hezbollah is a long-time opponent of Israel, another key US ally, and is an organisation that was established as a result of the destructive 1982 Israeli invasion of neighbouring Lebanon. Hezbollah eventually drove the Israelis from Lebanon, and the group is by now an integral part of Lebanese society. Hezbollah has been acting as a deterrent to another Israeli attack on Lebanon.

Tehran has likewise been providing financial support for Hamas, the Palestinian association regarded as “a terrorist group” by the US, Israel and the EU. Akin to Hezbollah, Hamas was founded (in 1987) as a response to Israel’s expansionist foreign policy acts, in this case the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Worryingly from the US and Saudi viewpoints, Iran retains relations with mineral-rich Qatar across the Persian Gulf, in the form of commercial and cultural ties, while the two countries share access to natural gas fields. Qatar holds a southern border with the Saudis, who frown very strongly indeed at their relationship with Iran. One of the main factors behind the recent diplomatic crisis between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, was Riyadh’s dismay at its neighbour’s enduring links to Iran.

The United States strongly maintains its desire to hold sway over the Middle East, an ambition which again dates to the Second World War. Dwight D. Eisenhower, America’s famous general and future president from 1953, described the Middle East as “the strategically most important part of the world”; in other words, a region that America must dominate if she is to preserve her position as the planet’s undisputed top power.

Another of Washington’s core concerns regarding Iran, a Shi’ite-majority country, is the spread of its influence to neighbouring states also rich in resources. Since the Iraq invasion 16 years ago, Tehran has capitalised on the growing strength of the Shi’ite presence in Baghdad by developing closer ties with Iraq – which was a serious defeat for US policy in the Middle East. There are also fears in Washington regarding the possibility that Tehran could increase relations with the Shi’ite minority in eastern Saudi Arabia, where most of the Saudi oil reserves are located.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iran Is Almost Encircled by at Least 45 American Military Bases. Who is Really Threatening Whom
  • Tags: ,

Video: Assad Troops Deploy on Border Amid 120-hour Ceasefire

October 20th, 2019 by South Front

On October 16 and 17, the Russian Aerospace Forces were conducting airstrikes on positions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in northern Lattakia and southern Idlib. According to local sources, the most intense strikes took place near Tahtaya, Kafar Sijnah and Rakaya Sijneh.

After Turkey’s Operation Peace Spring started in northeastern Syria on October 9, Idlib militant groups carried out several attacks on positions of the Syrian Army in the southern part of the de-escalation zone. Most likely, militants believed that the Turkish incursion into Syria would draw attention of the Syrian Army and allow Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to capture at least several villages in southern Idlib.

The Syrian Air Force and the Russian Aerospace Forces responded to these attempts with precise strikes on positions of radicals.

ISIS is another group that decided to take some advantage of the Turkish actions. On October 17, the terrorist group announced that its units had freed a an unspecified number of women affiliated with the group from a HQ of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the village of Mahmudli in western Raqqa.

Watch the video here.

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, about 14,650 ISIS members remain in 7 detention camps in the area controlled by the SDF. Additionally, there are 8 camps for displaced persons, including relatives of ISIS terrorists. The number of people kept in these camps may reach 120,000.

Turkey’s Defense Minister Hulusi Akar warned that “terrorist groups” (i.e. Kurdish militias) are planning to stage a chemical weapons provocation to accuse the Turkish Army of using chemical weapons in northeastern Syria. In previous years, Ankara repeatedly accused the Damascus government of conducting chemical attacks. In those cases, Turkey was not very interested in talking about some terrorists’ involvement or ‘preplanned staged attacks’.

Turkish-led forces continue their advance along about 120km long chunk of the border. Especially intense fighting is ongoing in the town of Ras al-Ayn, a part of which still remains contested.

The deployment of the Syrian Army around these area is aimed at preventing a further advance by Turkish-led forces. Just recently, the SDF handed over the Kobani border crossing to government troops. Therefore, if the SDF-Damascus deal is implemented, the Turkish presence will be limited to the border area from Tell Abyad to Ras al-Ayn.

On October 17, the US and Turkey agreed on a temporary ceasefire in northeastern Syria. According to the agreement, Kurdish forces have to withdraw from the 32km-deep area within 120 hours. If this is done, the Turkish military operation will not be resumed.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Assad Troops Deploy on Border Amid 120-hour Ceasefire
  • Tags:

Celebrity Protesters and Extinction Rebellion

October 20th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Benedict Cumberbatch. Olivia Colman. Fine actors. They believe in Extinction Rebellion, or perhaps, rebelling against the prospect of extinction. The environment thing, humanity as a damnably scandalous, ecologically damaging species. But they also believe in taking sponsorship from the very same entities who are doing their best (or worst) to engage in matters of existential oblivion. So the circle of contradiction, even hypocrisy, is complete.

The matter has come to the fore over overt expressions of support for XR’s two-week effort of disruption in London by the entertainment set. Severable notable sites have received the attention of the climate change protest group. The Treasury building has been sprayed with fake blood. The London Underground train system has been disrupted. Protestors have glued themselves to trains, to floors and even mounted trains. Roads to Westminster were blocked, sit-ins staged at City Airport. Over a 1,700 arrests have been made.

Phil Kingston was one such figure, not exactly a rabble rouser or hardened rioter. The 83-year-old glued his hand to the side of a carriage at Shadwell and was concerned for his grandchildren. “I’m also very concerned about what’s happening in the poorer parts of the world who are being hit hardest by climate breakdown.” Being Christian, he expressed concern about “God’s creation being wrecked across the world.” Kingston was also jointed by a rather eclectic sampling: a vicar, an ex-Buddhist instructor, and a former GP.

The incident, which involved aggressive scuffling between commuters and the protesters, was acknowledged in a statement from the movement as something divisive. “In light of today’s events, Extinction Rebellion will be looking at ways to bring people together rather than create an unnecessary division.” Others were keen to pick holes in the rationale of the protest: Why, for instance, get at an electric train? Within XR, things are far from uniform.

Such protestors were a rather humble lot, but it did not take long for the bigger fish to join the shoal. Cumberbatch added his voice of support, his grin flashing as it was snapped by cameras in front of the Extinction Rebellion hearse blocking traffic to Trafalgar Square. Behind him were the conspicuous words hovering with spectral, foreboding promise: “Our future.”

The criticism of this was not far behind. Cumberbatch is the very conspicuous “brand ambassador” for MG in India. (Previously, Jaguar counted him among their celebrity proponents.) The MG GS sports a particularly thirsty engine, and the actor is featured in an advertisement doing rounds in one on, of all places, Trafalgar Square. MG India’s Hector SUV has also boasted Cumberbatch’s smooth persona.

Academy award winner Colman has also found herself at odd between protest and brand. Having openly expressed her support for the movement, questions were asked by some of the more barbed wings of the British press whether there might be a clash between being on a British Airways inflight video, and disrupting flights.

Over the summer, Oscar winning actress Dame Emma Thompson was also ribbed for flying from Los Angeles to London to participate in an Extinction Rebellion protest. Her explanation to BBC Radio 4 was that the objects of her job, and being a protester, might not always converge. “It’s very difficult to do my job without occasionally flying, although I do fly a lot less than I did.”

Those bastions of supposed establishment wisdom, such as The Spectator, were chortling and derisive. Toby Young was keen to highlight how purchasing vegan baguettes at Pret a Manger was inconsistent with anti-capitalist protest.  He also expressed, at least initially, concern at how law enforcement authorities had, generally speaking, been models of restraint before XR enthusiasts. Had there been “a group of Catholic nuns protesting about changes to the Gender Recognition Act, the riot squad would have been straight with the tear gas.” For Young, it was good to laugh at these modern millenarians infused with the spirit of apocalyptic terror.

The issue of celebrity encrustation, however, was bound to come by and find voice. And the engine room of entertainment turns the moral message, however hypocritical, into entertainment. Bite the hand that feeds you and call it a show. Having anticipated the rage, the celebrity big wigs have turned vice into a virtue. An open letter with a hundred names or so, from Sir Bob Geldof to Sienna Miller, took to the barricades and distribution channels with an open letter of affected contrition. “Dear journalists who have called us hypocrites. You’re right. We live high carbon lives and the industries that we are part of have huge carbon footprints.”

What matters is the broad church of hypocrisy. “Like you – and everyone else – we are stuck in this fossil-fuel economy and without systemic change, our lifestyles will keep on causing climate and ecological harm.”

Those behind the letter stressed the speed of change as their concern. “Climate change is happening faster and more furiously than was predicted. Millions of people are suffering, leaving their homes and arriving on our border as refugees.” Children, through the voice of Greta Thunberg, had also called upon “the people with power and influence, to stand up and fight for their already devasted future.” (Rather cocksure are these celebrities, they, who wield such, as yet unmeasured influence.)

Unlike those critical journalists, the signatories cannot help but be just a touch smug. There was “a more urgent story that our profiles and platforms can draw attention to. Life on earth is dying. We are living in the midst of the 6th mass extinction.”

Much, and in some cases too much, can be made about the celebrity activist who undercuts the argument. “None of us,” explained Sarah Lunnon of Extinction Rebellion, “is perfect.” The argument is still worth making, and publicity still worth having. Unfortunately for the likes of Cumberbatch, the gravity of such messages can be obscured by the person as label. In revolution, becoming a label is not only counterproductive but deadly.  Protestors like Kingston can just hold their head that much higher.

*

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 Julia Hawkins/Flickr

Drugged! … By Big Pharma? Prescription Drugs and the Opioid Crisis

October 20th, 2019 by Philip A Farruggio

First published September 20, 2018

You don’t have to be a genius sometimes to just ‘connect the dots’. Since 2012 Big Pharma ads for prescription drugs, especially on the boob tube, has risen by 62%. You cannot channel surf without seeing a myriad of ads pushing almost every drug out there, for almost every condition (Thank God for the law making these Big Pharma predators notify the suckers of the side effects).

Meanwhile, let’s just mention one statistic from just on state, Arizona, where 949 people died from opioids in one year, 2017. Here’s the interesting kicker: This was a 109 % increase since 2012.

Duh, am I just paranoid or is there something going on here? Let’s see, the legal drug pushers bombard us all with ‘ Drugs help you ‘ ads day and night on all our channels. While this is going on, more and more Americans are swallowing opioids , most of the time by prescription. Of course, once they are hooked on these minor league narcotics, they resort to getting them black market if the availability is threatened by legal means.  We all know that one of the largest industries in states like mine, Florida, is these ‘ Pain clinic mills ‘ where corrupt MDs sell their souls for the easy money. Opioid addicts drive from surrounding states, resembling the depression era Dust Bowl refugees heading for greener pastures.

In essence, what those bombarding Big Pharma ads have done is legitimatized drug use for what ails us. Yes, there are some life saving drugs needed for some extreme conditions, but they are in the minority. Big Pharma runs the show, as they did a few years ago when they pushed the shit out of those opioid painkillers. Our ‘bought and paid for’ Two Party/One Party politicians did nothing at the time to curb this horror. Now they all, including this Johnny come lately president, jump on the bandwagon. Meanwhile, few out there can see the connection I just made between oversaturation of drug ads on television and opioid addiction.

The endless propaganda of ‘ Drugs are good’ makes it easier for troubled Americans, many in actual physical or emotional pain, to go for the opioid. Imagine if we had real affordable and comprehensive health care. Maybe many in physical and of course emotional pain could get the therapy needed to help alleviate things.

While on the subject of drugs, especially legal ones, let’s not forget the best one of them all, THE ELECTION DRUG. During the turbulent 60s, millions of Americans took to the streets of their towns and cities and peacefully protested our involvement in Vietnam ( I won’t call it a ‘War’, except it being a civil war between the Vietnamese people).

This in fact got the politicians’ attention. The threat of being voted out of office or not getting in office made many of them follow the temperature of the masses.

Sadly, when the Bush/Cheney gang prepared for their illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq, there was ( Yes ) a myriad of protests worldwide on one February day… and that was really it.

Even after the invasion and occupation of Iraq, we who stood on that street corner each and every Tuesday afternoon were lucky, in our town of 55k, to attract 20 folks each week. Why? Well, the Two Party/ One Party syndicate kept hammering home the point that change comes via the ballot box. ” Just wait and vote” we were all told. Sadly, the only media driven choices were from that same syndicate, and both sides kept voting to increase the spending on phony wars and occupations. Mr. ‘Hope and Change’ himself presided over the biggest military spending of all time!

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn, NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his work posted on sites like Global Research, Greanville Post, Off Guardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected].

Video: Terrorists’ Air Force: Improvised Attack Drones in Syria and Iraq

October 20th, 2019 by South Front

Over the past years, the usage of improvised armed unmanned aerial vehicles by various armed groups and paramilitary formations has become an inherent part of conflicts in the Middle East.

First reports about the usage of such unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in Syria and Iraq started appearing in the second half of 2016. During the battle for Iraq’s Mosul (October 16, 2016 – July 20, 2017), ISIS was using UAVs and groups of UAVs for disturbing fire along the frontline and attacks on pro-government formations behind the frontline on a regular basis.

Initially, militants employed slightly upgraded commercial drones, like the DJI Phantom, that could  be bought via the Internet. These drones cost 500-1,000 USD, have a range of up to 1km and can carry and drop small strike elements like grenades, or IEDs. At the same time, ISIS started developing their own improvised armed UAVs in specially established workshops. However, the terrorist group’s self-proclaimed Caliphate collapsed earlier than it was able to launch a serial production of these weapons. In the end of 2017, the center of UAV production and employment moved to Syria. This time the main party responsible for improvised attack UAV production and employment appeared to be al-Qaeda-linked groups in Greater Idlib. They mostly employ these UAVs in attempts to cause damage to Russian and Syria military infrastructure located behind the frontline. Russia’s Hmeimim Airbase in the province of Lattakia became the main target of these efforts.

Watch the video here.

On September 27, 2019 the Russian Defense Ministry reported that for the past two years, air defense and electronic warfare systems deployed at Hmeimim Airbase have shot down or disabled 118 unmanned aerial vehicles. 58 of these UAVs have been neutralized since the beginning of the year 2019.

A majority of UAVs have been launched from the southern part of the Idlib de-escalation zone, in particular the towns of al-Lataminah and Khan Sheikhun where workshops for assembling UAVs and UAV launch sites were found. After the liberation of these towns by the Syrian Army in August, the intensity of UAV attacks on the Russian airbase decreased, but has not fully ceased. Furthermore, militant groups continue to modernize their UAVs and UAV employment approaches.

The most recent UAV attacks on Hmeimim Airbase took place on August 11 and September 3. The August attack involved six UAVs: five attack UAVs and a control UAV. The attack UAVs carried striking elements with explosives, while the control UAV was used to direct them toward targets. An armed UAV can carry up to 10 striking elements fastened to its wings.

The September attack involved two UAVs that approached the air base from different directions. One came from the direction of the Mediterranean Sea. According to a Russian military spokesperson, Major-General Igor Konashenkov, the UAV was apparently “launched from a vessel.”

Moscow says that militants are actively modernizing their UAVs. The main priority of these modernization efforts are navigation and control systems. UAV striking elements’ release systems have also been modernized. The technical characteristics of UAVs and employed schemes of their construction demonstrate that militants have begun their serial production.

The Russian side noted that an employment of such equipment requires serious technical training of operators. Major-General Konashenkov said that Russia is concerned that some third party is supplying militants with military technologies related to the UAV production.

UAVs employed by Idlib militants in 2019 are quite different from commercial quadcopters with attached projectiles popular in the previous phases of the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. They are used in swarm formations, when a control UAV is used to direct UAVs equipped with striking elements, and approach targets via complex trajectories maneuvering by means of height and azimuth. Some UAVs are equipped with air pressure measurement units. This indicates that UAVs are capable of transferring and receiving data about their height and coordinates.

The newest UAVs are equipped with two fuel tanks and have the range of 250km and the service ceiling of 4.5km. The previous variant of UAVs had a single fuel tank and the range of 120km. Besides that, militants employ electric-powered UAVs with the range of 50km. UAVs are made of plastics and wood allowing them to have a smaller radar cross-section, thus increasing their chances to avoid detection by air defense systems.

Since the start of the Russian military operation in Syria in 2015, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other militant groups have been seeing Russian personnel, equipment and aircraft deployed in the war-torn country as high-priority targets. Militants have repeatedly attacked Hmeimim Airbase with rockets and UAVs. Most of them have been successfully repelled by air defense systems deployed there.

The most successful, and therefore widely known attack on Hmeimim, took place on December 31, 2017. According to an initial version of the event appeared on January 3, 2018 in Russian media, a combined mortar and UAV attack destroyed four Su-24 attack aircraft, two Su-35S multi-role fighters and an An-72 transport aircraft and may have killed or injured 9 servicemen. On January 4, 2018, the Russian Defense Ministry commented on the incident denouncing reports about any equipment damage, but confirming a mortar attack and the death of two personnel. According to the Defense Ministry, “a mobile militant subversive group” was behind the attack. Nonetheless, photo evidence appeared online indicates that at least one aircraft, the Su-24 attack aircraft with the tail number ‘29’, was damaged. No aircraft were destroyed. The incident likely took place because of negligence on the part of some units of Syrian and Russian security forces assigned to secure the perimeter of the base. Just a few days later, air defenses deployed at Hmeimim Airbase and the Tartus naval facility repelled a large-scale UAV attack intercepting 13 armed UAVs.

In response to a constant threat of UAV and rocket attacks, the Russian military boosted active and passive protection measures needed to protect its air group. The perimeter security was strengthened and permanent aircraft hangars were constructed. The air defense regiment was reinforced.

In the coming years, the layered air defense consisting of long-range and short-range complexes and electronic warfare systems had demonstrated their effectiveness. The core of the air defense is the S-400 long-range air defense system, the TorM2 anti-aircraft missile system and the Pantsir-S1 short-to-medium range surface-to-air missile/gun system. The Russian military says that the established air defense allows it to strike all types of aerial targets at a range of up to 250 km.

The Pantsir-S1 appeared to be extremely capable of striking small-size UAVs and fast-speed shells of factory-produced and improvised multiple launch rocket systems employed by militants. An additional protection against UAV attacks is provided by EW systems like the Krasukha.

The Syrian conflict demonstrated that even limited military UAV technologies in the hands of illegal armed groups pose a serious threat that cannot be addressed without the employment of complex active and passive security measures.

The further proliferation of these technologies became almost inevitable after some ‘third party’ had supplied Idlib militant groups with them. Chances that such UAVs could be used against civilian targets somewhere around the world have been growing.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Terrorists’ Air Force: Improvised Attack Drones in Syria and Iraq
  • Tags: , , ,

Water Is Life – They Are Stealing Our Livelihood and We Aren’t Even Noticing

October 20th, 2019 by Peter Koenig

This article was first published on World Water Day, 22 March 2018.

Author’s Update, March 24, 2019: Today is World Water Day 2019 – and the situation has become much worse.

Today, Jair Bolsonaro, is Brazil’s President, pushed in by Washington, a fascist with no respect for human life, as long as it is not his own, or that of his cronies, and even less respect for the environment, the beautiful planet earth which gives us all life. 

Under his leadership, not only water is being privatized, but all of Amazonia is up for grabs -that’s what Bolsonaro says and wants to make sure the corporate thieves understand. Rain forest can indiscriminately logged and destroyed, water can be captured and privatized, by major water giants to the detriment of people -and ultimately of peoples’ lives.

So, what Nestlé and Coca Cola have been “negotiating” behind closed doors a year ago at the ‘fake’ Water Conference in Brasilia, was just the beginning – the sell-out of the Guarani Aquifer, the world’s largest, underground freshwater storage. It is said to hold enough water to supply every human being over the next 200 years with 100 liters of water per person – including projected population growth.

Once the giant water corporations – those that privatize even city water in poor countries, Veolia, Suez (French), ITT Corporation (US), United Utilities (UK) – and more – get a hold of these underground water reservoirs, in the case of the Guarani, more than 70% underlays Brazil -the world water supply is doomed.

Stay alert and stop this theft of impunity of a public good, our most precious element for survival – WATER.

***

Today, 22 March 2018, marks World Water Day. It is also the week, when the 8th World Water Forum (WWF-8) convenes, 18 to 23 March 2018, in Brasilia. It is no coincidence, for sure, that Brazil was chosen for this noble WWF – about the water equivalent to the political and corporate elites, represented at the WEF – World Economic Forum, in Davos. The two are intimately related, and interlinked, as we will see.

The WWF is organized by the World Water Council, just another layer to confuse who is who in the circus of water elitists attempting to control a vital source of life – freshwater. The WWF prides itself with an honorable mission statement:

“To promote awareness, build political commitment and trigger action on critical water issues at all levels, to facilitate the efficient conservation, protection, development, planning, management and use of water in all its dimensions on an environmentally sustainable basis for the benefit of all life”.

There you have it. Nestlé, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, Dow Chemicals and other transnationals with strong water interests, Veolia, Suez (French), Thames (UK), Bechtel (US), Petrobras and a myriad of others, join together with the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), different UN bodies, and many multi- and bilateral donors, so-called development institutions – as well as dozens more ultra-liberal organizations, NGOs and corporations, pretending to work for the good of humanity; for the good of hundreds of millions of people who persistently are deprived of affordable potable water by an onslaught of water privatization (Organizers and supporters of the WWF).

Another layer of this prominent international water forum is the World Bank-created Water Resources Group (WRG). Its chief purpose is to pursue the Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG-6), “Clean Water and Sanitation”. The WRG’s leadership is composed of an interwoven group of individuals and institutions, such as the head of  the WEF, leadership of Nestlé, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, Dow Chemicals, the UN (UNDP) … and the Global Water Partnership (GWP), yet another layer within the maze of the global water mafia, created by the usual ‘suspects’, World Bank, UN (UNDP), and a number of  multi- and bilateral development agencies, whose priority focus is on water, i.e. the Swiss, the Swedes, the Dutch…

And not to forget – also present at the WWF is the International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre (IGRAC), part of UNESCO, based at the IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, whose mission is sharing information on worldwide groundwater resources, in view of protecting them, and focusing mainly on transboundary aquifer assessment and groundwater monitoring.

By and large, the WWF is the sum of this tremendous non-transparent, complex colossus of institutions and technocrats that is gradually taking over control of the global freshwater resources. This is happening under our eyes and under a seemingly anodyne promotion logo – PPP = Public Private Partnership which means in reality, the Public puts at disposal of the Private sector its publicly funded and publicly-owned infrastructure and water resources, to be exploited for profit at the detriment of the very public, who paid for the infrastructure and whose life depends on this vital resource, water.

Privatization of freshwater resources is a crime, but it’s the name of the game. Just look who is prominently represented in the World Bank-created Water Resources Group – it’s IFC, the International Finance Corporation, the private sector development branch of the World Bank Group.

The result of these multiple and often repetitive meetings and gathering is largely zero – safe for a litany of recommendations and resolutions whose implementation hardly ever see the light of the day. Imagine the tremendous annual cost of running this multi-agency sham; mostly business class travel, food and lodging (five-star accommodations), of the high-level technocrats crisscrossing the globe from one conference to another! – Millions and millions of dollars per year. How many people could be served with drinking water and safe sanitation for this amount of money?

The WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) estimates (July 2017) that “some 3 in 10 people worldwide, or 2.1 billion, lack access to safe, readily available water at home, and 6 in 10, or 4.5 billion, lack safely managed sanitation.” – This, out of a world population of about 7.4 billion.

The Guarani Aquifer (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Maude Barlow, chairperson of the Council of Canadians and of World Water Watch, and author of “Blue Gold” (2002), “Blue Covenant” (2007), and of “Blue Future: Protecting Water for People and the Planet Forever” (2013), refers in the latter to the WEF 2010 which under the aegis of the WRG was launching a platform of public-private partnership, to help engage mainly developing country governments in ‘reforming’ the water sector, i.e. putting it into the hands of private water corporations. Many of these countries have no choice, if they want to continue receiving “development” funds from the World Bank and Co. Barlow is also the founder of the Blue Planet Project, seeking to protect vital water resources, like the Guarani Aquifer for future generations.

Flashback to the World Economic Forum in Davos (January 2018). Brazilian President Temer attended this year’s WEF. Temer, a corrupt criminal, should be in prison rather than running a most wonderful country, Brazil, into the ground. Literally. His only purpose to be in Davos was to tell this elite forum about his intention to sell out and privatize his country, foremost water resources.

How did such a dishonest person become president of Brazil? – Washington, who else, put him there. Against all odds. The dark Zion-handlers representing the US financial sector removed an honest Dilma Rousseff and replaced her with Michel Temer, at that time an indicted crook. The indictment was lifted as he was supposed to be made President. It is still beyond me how this could happen, as Dilma had the entire military on her side and could have called a state of emergency to halt the parliamentary ‘regime change’ charade, instigated by the US. She didn’t. Somebody must have threatened her.

By now we know how Washington manipulates elections and other political processes around the world – by the shady methods of Cambridge Analytica (CA), a ‘marketing’ consultancy that steals personal data from internet, foremost from facebook, to target specific segments of a population with specific messages to influence their opinion. By their own account, CA methods have been applied in over 200 cases around the globe within the last 3 to 4 years, to influence elections and other political processes, including in Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Colombia, the UK (Brexit), Germany, France and many more. This is true meddling in other countries’ sovereign affairs, by the one and only rogue state of this globe, the United States of America. And they are talking about Russian meddling in the 2016 US Presidential Elections!

Stealing by stealth is one of the neoliberal crimes we haven’t quite understood yet, let alone mastered. Hindsight is always 20/20. This article hopes to contribute to foresight.

*

Brazil, with about 8,200 km3 annually renewable freshwater, ranks number one with about one eighth (1/8) of the world’s total renewable freshwater resources which are estimated at 45,000 km3. The Amazon Basin holds about 73% of all of Brazil’s freshwater. Renewable freshwater is the composite of annually sustainable surface and groundwater recharge combined (recharge by precipitation and inflow from outside). The second most water-abundant country is Russia with 4,500 km3 / year, followed by Canada, Indonesia, China, Colombia, US, Peru, India – all with renewable water resources of between 2,000 and 3,000 km3 / year.

Amazon River Basin (the southern Guianas, not marked on this map, are part of the basin) (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

By Continent, the Americas have the largest share of the world’s total freshwater resources with 45 percent, followed by Asia with 28 percent, Europe with 15.5 percent and Africa with 9 percent. This scenario immediately points to Africa’s vulnerability. Africa is clearly the most vulnerable Continent from a water resources – survival – point of view. Africa is also home to about 60% of the world’s remaining and known available natural resources; resources the west covets and goes to war for.

Is it, therefore, a coincidence that the 8th WWF is held in Brazil? – I don’t think so. Especially not with Temer going to Davos, where the cream of the crop of the world’s corporate, finance and institutional elite meets, to offer Brazil’s water resources for privatization.

*

We are talking about privatizing the largest single underground renewable freshwater reservoir in the Americas, arguably in the world, the Guarani Aquifer which underlays 1.2 million square kilometers – km2 (about the size of Texas and California combined), of which 71% is under Brazil, 19% under Argentina, 6% under Paraguay, and 4% under Uruguay.

The Guaraní aquifer was discovered in the 1990s. It is named after the indigenous people who have inhabited the area for centuries. The Guarani holds an estimated 46,000 km3 of freshwater (not to confound with the annual renewable freshwater, of which Brazil has about 8,300 km3 – see above). The current Guarani’s extraction rate is a little over 1 km3 per year, while the potential recharge rate is between 45 km3 and 55 km3/year, meaning that there is so far no risk of over-abstraction. This could however, change quickly.It is said that the Guaraní could supply the world population for the next 200 years with 100 liters per capita per day.

About 30 million people inhabit the Guarani region. In the Brazilian section of the Guaraní, some 500 to 600 cities are currently supplied with Guaraní water – how many of these municipal supplies are already privatized?

In late February 2018, Blue Planet founder, Maude Barlow, tweeted,

“Terrifying! Coke and Nestle want to buy up the Guarani Aquifer! Must be stopped!!!”.

As Mint Press reports

“A concerted push is underway in South America that could see one of the world’s largest reserves of fresh water soon fall into the hands of transnational corporations such as Coca-Cola and Nestlé. According to reports, talks to privatize the Guarani Aquifer – a vast subterranean water reserve lying beneath Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay – have already reached an advanced stage. The deal would grant a consortium of U.S. and Europe-based conglomerates exclusive rights to the aquifer that would last over 100 years.”

Under such concession arrangements, quantities to be abstracted are usually unlimited, which would leave the entire aquifer in the hands of those private corporations which are part and parcel of the Temer negotiated deal.

The article adds,

“In Brazil, intense lobbying has been underway since at least 2016 to tap into the aquifer. These efforts fell under the spotlight late last month [in January 2018] at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where private talks were reported between Brazil’s President Michel Temer and a range of top executives with interests in the aquifer, including Nestle CEO Paul Bulcke, Anheuser-Busch InBev CEO Carlos Brito, Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey, and Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris.”

The article further mentions,

“As leading Brazilian water-rights activist Franklin Frederick noted in Brasil de Fato, these companies belong to the 2030 Water Resources Group (2030WRG), a transnational consortium that includes AB Inbev, Coca-Cola, Dow, Nestle and PepsiCo. 2030WRG bills itself as ‘a unique public-private-civil society collaboration’ and hides its intention to privatize developing nations’ water supplies by claiming to ‘facilitate open, trust-based dialogue processes to drive action on water resources reform in water-stressed countries in developing economies’ and ‘close the gap between water demand and supply by the year 2030’.”

Already in September 2016, Reuter reported that Brazil – Temer – “launched a multibillion-dollar plan to auction off oil, power rights and infrastructure concessions.” And the Correio do Brasil retorted that this “privatizing wrath” could extend to the Guarani Aquifer. A senior official at the National Water Agency (ANA) has revealed that the Guarani aquifer will appear on the list of public goods to be privatized.

Barlow, in a Conference in Florianapolis, Brazil, already in November 2011, said, the biggest concern for humanity is the potential for the Guarani to become controlled by private interests. She added, corporations have already preferential access to these waters.

“You are sitting atop a vast reserve of water in a very thirsty world, a reserve that is not only vital to the health and future of this region but to all of humanity. It is a treasure that must be protected by governments on behalf of the people and the ecosystems of the region.”

Recent studies point to an even larger underground water reservoir system, the “underground ocean” of Amazonia. It is projected to hold 160 trillion m3 (160,000 km3) of freshwater, underlaying mainly Brazil, but also Venezuela, Peru, Colombia and Ecuador. Studies are still ongoing and it might be too soon to draw definite conclusions. However, these gigantic water reserves under Latin America plus the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS) which is the world’s largest known fossil aquifer of an estimated 150,000 km3 of non-renewable groundwater, must be protected for humanity.

The NSAS is located under the Eastern end of the Sahara Desert. It stretches over 2 million km2 and spans four countries in North and Central Africa, Libya, Sudan, Chad and Egypt.

Back to the WWF in Brasilia, where the “water mafia” is convening as this article goes to print, and while in São Lourenço, Minas Gerais, 600 “Women Without Land” occupy Nestlé’s Brazil headquarters, since 6 AM Tuesday morning, 20 March. Nestlé, the Swiss food and water giant, declared water number one in its field of business expansion. Nestlé controls already more than 10% of the world market of bottled water. The “Women without Land” denounce Temer’s policy of handing out their precious water resources to international corporations. Aware of the ongoing WFF, they warn of further concession contracts being negotiated on the sidelines of this forum.

One of the leaders said,

“Imagine you are obliged to buy your water in bottles to quench your thirst. This is what they want these transnational corporations, officially debating improved water management in Brasilia, when in reality they are negotiating concessions of our water at fire-sales prices.”

We, the People, the 99% of this globe, have the moral obligation to stand up against this globalized, neofascist clandestine onslaught to privatize and steal our vital water resources – humanity’s survival. Water is Life. If we don’t have the foresight to stand up now, to stop this criminal privatization of OUR, humanity’s water resources – humankind may be doomed.

*

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

Privatization of Water as an Owned Commodity Rather Than a Universal Human Right

October 20th, 2019 by Joachim Hagopian

First published in April 2014

There is no greater natural resource on this earth than water. As the sustenance of all life, water keeps every living and breathing organism, every plant, every animal and every human being on this planet alive. In the same way that without air to breathe, without water we humans cannot sustain life for more than a few days.

Due to global warming, widespread drought and increasingly polluted water systems, the projected availability of clean freshwater in years to come to meet the rising demands of a growing global population is among the most daunting human challenges of this century. By 2015 a 17% increase in global water demand is projected just for increasing agriculturally produced food. By the same year 2025, the growing global population will increase water consumption needs by a whopping 40%. While oil played the keenly critical role during the twentieth century, water is being deemed the most valued precious natural resource of the twenty-first century.

As such, several years ago the United Nations declared access to clean drinking water a universal human right. Conversely, willfully denying it is considered a serious human rights violation that denies life itself. And any calculated decision denying people their universal right to life is nothing short of a murderous, shameful crime against humanity.

Despite the human air pollution that has long been dirtying our lungs, while also causing global warming, climate change and increasing catastrophic natural disasters, not to mention the growing global health hazard for us humans, the very thought of making clean air a precious commodity that can opportunistically be packaged and sold by the same corporations that have been ruining our air, that very notion would instantly be criticized, scorned and ridiculed.

Yet that is exactly what has been happening for the last thirty years now all over this planet with the earth’s preciously dwindling freshwater drinking supply. The World Bank has been financing global privatization of the earth’s water supply making clean water that is so necessary for survival an unaffordable private commodity for the poorest people on earth to even access. They are literally dying of thirst and disease because of greedy psychopathic corporate profiteers once again placing theft and greed over human welfare and life itself.

But then that is the globalist agenda – thinning the human herd down from near seven billion currently to as low as just half a billion. That means 13 out of 14 of us alive today according to their diabolical oligarch plan simply must die within the next few years. And what better way to rapidly kill off the human population than taking full ownership and control over the earth’s limited diminishing water supply.

More people on this planet are dying presently from waterborne disease from dirty water than are dying from all wars and violence worldwide combined. Every hour 240 babies die from unsafe water. 1.5 million children under five years of age die every year from cholera and typhoid fever due to unsanitary water conditions. These incredibly sad, alarming facts illustrate just how significant and critical a clean freshwater supply is to staying alive on this planet. Taking control over the earth’s clean water supply is achieved by turning water into a privately owned commodity that only the largest corporations and banks control. Simply making water unaffordable and thereby inaccessible to the poorest people on the planet is one extremely effective, albeit most sinister way to reduce the so called overpopulation problem.

Three primary ways that the human population decreases significantly every year is death caused by starvation and malnutrition (including lack of drinkable water) at between seven to eight millionpeople, diseases that kill between two to three million (with mounting threats of infectious diseases becoming pandemics) and upwards of near a half million dying each year from war.

Behind closed doors oligarchic globalists periodically meet and discuss what is best for humanity and the planet according to them and their megalomaniacal self-interests. For many years now this all important topic of water privatization and control as a convenient and most effective means of addressing the overpopulation problem has been regularly tabled for discussion… along with related topics like geo-engineering, GMO’s, vaccines, overuse of antibiotics, planned wars over oil and water, devising global policies designed to increase political destabilization, poverty and undermine economies, nuclear radiation and a host of other means for culling the human population.

Time Magazine reported how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been financing research at the University of North Carolina among 78 others to develop ultrasound infertility contraception techniques to sterilize male sperm. At a 2010 TED conference Bill Gates spoke openly of depopulating the total of 6.8 billion people living on earth by up to “10 to 15%” using both of his heavily funded vaccine and contraception programs that will render much of the global population infertile. Meanwhile, billionaire Ted Turner went even further, offering his public opinion to decrease the world population by 70% down to “two billion.” It too is on tape.

Calls to begin sterilizing the human population began surfacing back in the mid-1970’s with Henry Kissinger as former Secretary of State and high ranking Bilderberg member in his declassified National Security Council document (1974) entitled “The Implications of World-wide PopulationGrowth on the Security and External Interests of the United States.” This document emphasized highest priority given to implementing birth control programs targeting thirteen Third World nations mostly in South America. Extraordinary resources were allocated through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) pushing the carrot stick of additional financial aid to countries willing to enact sterilization and depopulation programs.

More overt evidence of the callous contempt that globalist oligarchs have toward us 99%-ers is captured in a statement written by Prince Phillip, Queen Elizabeth II’s husband in the forward of his book, “I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus” to reduce the human population. It seems readily discernable that an explicit globalist agenda for a New World Order openly propagated with repeated references by President Goerge Bush senior includes depopulation through various means, water control through privatization just one of many in the power elite’s arsenal.

Humans have been dying from lack of clean water for a long time now and will only continue dying at an even greater frequency if the plan to privatize water continues to unfold unchecked and without opposition. Fortunately forces have been mobilizing to combat water privatization. Just last week on the heels of the World Bank annual convening in Washington DC for several days ofconferencing, an international coalition of anti-privatization water rights groups from India and America sent a formal message calling on the World Bank to end its destructive practice of privatizing water around the world under the guise of developmental progress. The Bank’s DC meetings had been touting lies and disinformation in an attempt to paint a glowing report showcasing the so called efficacy and successes that turning water rights over to the private sector have accomplished in recent years. The World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) as the planet’s largest funding source for water privatization provides loans and financing to Third World nations for private water management companies to take charge of municipal, regional and national water rights.

The director of a global advocacy group called Corporate Accountability International, Shayda Naficy, pointed out that 75% of expenses for running a water utility company should go to infrastructure. In nation after nation private companies have placed the priority of making a profit over the need to invest in necessary infrastructure to connect and adequately service water customers. In efforts to maximize cost efficiency as well as profits, water prices invariably go up and fast become out of reach for poorest customers. Cutting off the water supply to thousands of low income families unable to pay for their rising costs has become the all too frequent inevitable result. The World Bank’s 34 percent failure rate for all private water and sewerage contracts between 2000 and 2010 far surpasses its single digit failure rates in the telecommunications, energy and transportation industries.

Critics maintain that the public sector is far more accountable to its public constituents than private sector businesses that only answer to its board of directors to show sufficient profits. Corruption becomes commonplace. Additionally, a conflict of interest exists when the IFC acts as both a money lender and consultant to foreign municipalities in assigning no bid contracts to favored private water utility companies.

To best illustrate typical scenarios where water privatization is either not working or already proved a failure deserve close examination. The good news is that in recent years people in various parts of the world have been mobilizing successful efforts and campaigns to stop water privatization in their own backyards. Presently in a number of regions in India, citizens are banding together to confront and fight the myriad of problems with water privatization in their country.

Recently in Nagpur, central India’s largest city where the country’s first municipal partnership with a private utility company is being played out, major tensions have erupted. Three years ago the city signed a 25-year contract with Veolia Water to supply the city of 2.7 million residents with 24 hour-7-days a week water service. Instead unforeseen delays driving up prices manyfold along with unfair water distribution and frequent service breakdowns have led to widespread angry protests in the streets and charges of corruption. City officials point to a series of serious contract violations. Again cutting corners by refusing to invest in the needed infrastructure appears to be the primary cause for this failed project. The Corporate Accountability International’s 2012 report called “Shutting the Spigot on Private Water: The Case for the World Bank to Divest” cites a number of similar cases where privatization has proven ineffective.

Bold and empowered citizens in Bolivia in the year 2000 made headlines around the globe when they were victorious in kicking out privatized water there in the form of the Bechtel, the fifth largest private corporation on the planet. Impassioned protestors in Bolivia’s third-largest city managed to oppose Bechtel’s increasing prices and demanded that the company abandon its hold on their city’s municipal water supply, eventually driving the powerful scandalous giant out of the country. Though big business efforts to buy and control water rights in many Latin American nations have each had their turn in nations like Equator and Brazil, only Chile water services are privatized. Ultimately local residents virtually everywhere privatization has attempted to take hold has been met with such strong resistance from consumers who realize their private utility company has failed miserably in delivering quality service at affordable prices.

The story is always the same. That is why advocacy groups like Corporate Accountability International is proactively working toward educating governments and citizens worldwide to ensure water remains under the public domain. The exhaustive and expensive legal process of ending long term contracts and successfully removing privatized foreign corporations once established in a city, state or country is formidable. It is obviously in the best interests of people around the world to ensure privatization of their water supply never gets a local foothold in the first place.

Nestlé corporation’s marketing campaign targeted wealthy Pakistanis in Lahore, and its brand of bottled water ‘Pure Life’ became a status symbol for the rich. To bottle its product, Nestlé busily dried up local underground springs that subsequently caused the village poor unable to buy the bottled water stolen from their springs to end up consuming contaminated water. Nestlé went on to extracting water from two deep wells in Bhati Dilwan village, forcing them to turn to bottled water. A similar story emerged from Nigeria where a single bottled water exceeds the average daily income of a Nigerian citizen. Nestlé is notorious for draining local water supplies used to bottle its water brands, then charge unaffordable prices to the local population whose clean water supply was stolen from them.

Corporate Watch released a report exposing some of the unethical and illegal practices that Nestlé has long been committing around the globe, completely disregarding public health concerns while destroying natural environments to ensure huge annual profits of $35 billion just from water bottle sales alone. In Brazil’s Serra da Mantiqueira region where the groundwater is rich in mineral content containing medicinal properties, over-pumping has depleted its valuable water resources and caused permanent damage to the natural environment. and long-term damage.

Nestlé has also allegedly been involved in human trafficking of child slave labor. A BBC investigative report claimed that “hundreds of thousands of children in Mali, Burkina Faso and Togo were being purchased from their destitute parents and shipped to the Ivory Coast to be sold as slaves to cocoa farms.” Yet Nestlé likely bought the cocoa from the Ivory Coast and Ghana knowing it was produced using child slaves.

Finally, Nestlé owns or leases fifty spring sites throughout America. Nestlé controls a third of the domestic market for bottled water in the US. The company is notorious for unlawful extraction of spring water while engaging in price-gouging and reeking havoc in numerous communities. An example of the trouble Nestlé typically causes is Colorado where 80% of the citizens of Aurora were opposed to Nestlé’s presence, fully aware of the company’s terrible reputation for damaging communities and natural environments. Yet the city council voted in favor 7 to 4 to let the devastation begin and over the next decade Nestlé extracted 650 million gallons of precious Arkansas River valley water that went into its Arrowhead Springs brand of bottled water. For years the embattled townspeople of Aurora fought to rid the company predator from destroying their precious aquifers. Additionally, the plastic non-biodegradable bottles are major pollutants that stay toxically intact for a full millennium.

The cumulative grave effects of privatizing water as a global commodity are appalling. The underprivileged residents of Jakarta, Manila and Nairobi pay 5 to 10 times more for water than those living in high-income areas of those same cities. People living in the Third World slums even pay more for water than upscale New Yorkers and Londoners. This kind of unfairness and inequity is obscene. Women in places in Africa where privatized water is beyond their limit walk miles to obtain dirty water from rivers and then too often die along with their children from contamination and disease. Asian farmers are losing their livelihoods if they are unable to receive state funded irrigation. The human suffering caused globally by wealthy private corporations from North America and Europe exploiting people from Third World nations for pure profit is nothing less than pure psychopathic evil.

Taking on global privatization of water for the well being and greater good of the people is but an example of the monumental work that needs to be done. Only if informed, caring and committed human beings collectively come together worldwide to take a global stand against this gravest of life and death issues facing humanity can this oligarch agenda be stopped dead in its tracks. As global human rights activists it is up to us to end the global corporate malevolence and malfeasance from further damaging and afflicting our planet like never before. With the recent formal finding that Americans no longer live in a democracy but an oligarchy, as if we did not already painfully know, it becomes even more “formally” imperative now that we as ordinary citizens of the world take the vested interest in preserving life on our only planet before it becomes too late. It is high time we take back our planet once and for all from the oligarchic corporatocracy bent on insidiously making our earthly home increasingly uninhabitable for all life forms.

Mass extinction of plant and animal species that have thrived on this planet for millions of years is silently, invisibly taking place every single day right before our eyes. At ever-perilous stake now is our own human species as well as all living species inhabiting this earth, suffering at the hands of national governments that have corruptly co-opted with the banking cabal-owned transnational corporations and for too many decades been systematically destroying the richly diverse natural ecosystems of all earthly life forms on an unprecedented scale.

Since governmental co-opting with global fortune 500 corporations has been polluting and poisoning the earth’s skies, its waters, food sources and seeds for so long, global theft and destruction has us humans and all life forms teetering now on the brink of complete self-annihilation and extinction, human-induced for the first time on a massive never before seen scale. It is time to hold the oligarchy in the form of corporations responsible for all the damage they have reeked on this earth. No more grotesque “Abama-nations” of bank and Wall Street bailouts at taxpayer expense. Since the 99% in debt to the hilt have been squeezed dry, while the 1% have made this planet nearly unlivable as the only ones filthily richly profiting from their plundering this earth, the transnationals are the sole entities with the financial capital and means to clean up the very mess they created. It is only fair then that after an entire century of mucking the planet up at our expense, that they now need to finally be held accountable for repairing the destruction they directly caused and obscenely profited from.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former Army officer. His written manuscript based on his military experience examines leadership and national security issues and can be consulted at http://www.redredsea.net/westpointhagopian/. After the military, Joachim earned a masters degree in psychology and became a licensed therapist working in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now focuses on writing.　

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Privatization of Water as an Owned Commodity Rather Than a Universal Human Right